World’s Rules-Based Order ‘No Longer Exists,’ Germany’s Merz Warns: A Deep Dive

In a stark and historic address at the 2025 Munich Security Conference (MSC), Friedrich Merz, the designated Chancellor of Germany, delivered a seismic assessment of the global landscape. Declaring that the post-Cold War rules-based international order “no longer exists in that form,” Merz signaled a profound shift in European strategic thinking. His speech, opening the world’s premier security forum, laid bare a “deep divide” between Europe and the United States and urged Europeans to prepare for an era of heightened power politics and potential sacrifice. This event, set against the backdrop of U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed threats to Greenland’s sovereignty and a broader transatlantic tensions, marks a potential inflection point for global stability, NATO cohesion, and the future of Western alliance.

This comprehensive analysis unpacks Merz’s warnings, contextualizes them within the Munich Security Conference’s history, examines the underlying geopolitical fractures, and explores the practical pathways forward for a Europe confronting a world where established norms are eroding. We will address the core questions: What does the collapse of the rules-based order mean? How deep is the transatlantic rift? And what strategic options remain for European nations?

Key Points: The Core of Merz’s Munich Address

Friedrich Merz’s speech was not a mere diplomatic formality but a clarion call for European strategic awakening. The following points distill the critical takeaways from his address and the surrounding conference dynamics:

• Declarative Collapse: Merz stated unequivocally that the rules-based international order, however imperfect, “no longer exists in that form,” moving beyond previous warnings of strain to a declaration of functional collapse.
• Transatlantic Schism: He openly acknowledged a “deep divide” and “rift” between Europe and the United States, directly referencing Vice President JD Vance’s 2024 MSC speech that criticized European policies on free speech and migration as a starting point for this divergence.
• Call for European Sacrifice & Sovereignty: Merz warned that “our freedom isn’t assured” in an age of “huge power politics,” implying Europe must be willing to make significant sacrifices and develop its own capacities for defense and deterrence.
• Nuclear Deterrence Talks: He revealed “confidential talks” with French President Emmanuel Macron on establishing a joint European nuclear deterrent, a monumental shift from decades of reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella within NATO.
• Context of U.S. Actions: The speech occurred amid President Trump’s repeated assertions of U.S. interest in annexing Greenland, a Danish/NATO territory, and his imposition of tariffs on European goods, actions seen in Europe as direct assaults on sovereignty and multilateralism.
• Ukraine as Existential: Echoing French President Macron, Merz framed the Russia-Ukraine war as Europe’s “existential challenge,” urging steadfast support for Kyiv and increased pressure on Moscow for a “just peace,” not a capitulation.
• A New Geopolitical Era: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s concurrent framing of a “new era in geopolitics” underscored the bilateral re-evaluation of roles and alliances that Merz’s speech formally acknowledged from the European side.

Background: The Munich Security Conference & The Eroding Order

The Munich Security Conference: A Forum in Flux

Founded in 1963, the Munich Security Conference has long served as the “Davos of security policy,” a neutral venue where transatlantic and global leaders engage in off-the-record dialogue. Its core premise has been the maintenance of the rules-based international order—a system built after World War II on institutions like the UN, NATO, the WTO, and principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and collective defense. For decades, the MSC was a symbol of Western unity. However, the 2025 conference unfolded under an unprecedented shadow of public discord, with the central theme morphing from “reviving multilateralism” to “managing the fragmentation of the West.”

The Evolution of the Rules-Based International Order

The rules-based international order refers to a framework of agreed-upon norms, laws, and institutions that govern relations between states. Key pillars include:

• The UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.
• NATO’s principle of collective defense (Article 5).
• International trade rules under the WTO.
• Human rights conventions and the Geneva Conventions.

This order was never universally applied or perfectly adhered to, but it provided a predictable, if sometimes contested, structure for diplomacy. Its erosion has been gradual, accelerated by Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, China’s assertive territorial claims, and now, critically, the unilateralist turn in U.S. foreign policy under a second Trump administration. The concept of sovereignty, once a bedrock principle, is now being challenged by great power assertions and transactional alliances.

Prelude to 2025: The Transatlantic Strain

The rift Merz described did not appear overnight. Key preceding events include:

• 2024 MSC: Vice President JD Vance’s speech lambasting European “retreat” on free speech and immigration, framing a “culture war” between the U.S. and Europe.
• U.S. Tariffs: The Trump administration’s imposition of broad tariffs on EU goods, citing national security, directly contradicted WTO principles and European economic policy.
• Greenland Threats: President Trump’s repeated, non-negotiable claims to Greenland, a sovereign territory of Denmark (a NATO founder), were perceived in Europe as a colonial-era throwback and a direct threat to the territorial integrity of an ally.
• NATO Commitments: Persistent questions from the Trump administration about the U.S. commitment to NATO’s collective defense clause (Article 5), suggesting support would be conditional on allies’ defense spending.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Collapse and the Rift

The Semantic Shift: From “Crisis” to “Non-Existence”

Diplomatic language is often calibrated. Previous leaders have warned of a “crisis” or “challenges” to the rules-based order. Merz’s choice of “no longer exists” is a radical departure. It suggests the foundational agreements and mutual understandings that restrained power politics for 75 years have been so systematically violated—by Russia in Ukraine, by China in the South China Sea, and now by the United States itself in its transactional approach to alliances and sovereignty—that the framework is functionally defunct. This is not merely an observation; it is a foundational premise for a new European strategy, one that must operate in a Hobbesian world where might makes right.

The Transatlantic Rift: Ideological and Strategic

Merz correctly identifies the rift as “deep” and cultural. It manifests in several dimensions:

• Values vs. Transactionalism: The traditional transatlantic bond was rooted in shared liberal democratic values. The current U.S. administration prioritizes narrow, transactional national interests (e.g., “America First,” territorial acquisition) over shared values or alliance solidarity. Merz’s contrast—Europe’s belief in “free agency” over “tariffs and protectionism”—highlights this ideological chasm.
• Security Guarantees: The U.S. nuclear umbrella and NATO command structure have been the cornerstones of European security. Trump’s ambiguity on Article 5 and his focus on burden-sharing as a financial transaction, rather than a mutual pledge, has shattered the certainty of U.S. extended deterrence.
• Sovereignty Norms: The U.S. threat to Danish sovereignty over Greenland violates a norm that even Cold War rivals largely respected. For Europeans, this sets a terrifying precedent: if the U.S. can threaten a fellow NATO ally, no nation’s sovereignty is secure from great power predation.

The Nuclear Question: Europe’s Ultimate Sovereignty

The revelation of confidential Franco-German talks on a joint European nuclear deterrent is perhaps the most significant long-term implication. France and the UK possess independent nuclear arsenals. Germany, historically opposed to nuclear weapons on its soil and reliant entirely on the U.S. umbrella, now faces a stark choice: accept strategic vulnerability or participate in a new, complex, and politically fraught European nuclear framework. This is not a near-term solution but a signal of profound strategic desperation. It raises immediate questions: Would such a deterrent be credible? How would it be commanded? What would be the reaction of non-nuclear European states, Russia, and the U.S.? This move underscores the perceived existential need for Europe to provide its own ultimate security guarantee.

Macron’s Parallel Call: “Learn to Become a Geopolitical Power”

French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech reinforced Merz’s message from a different angle. His call for Europe to “learn to become a geopolitical power” is a direct response to the transatlantic void. He cited Europe’s re-arming after 2022 but stressed the need to “accelerate” and work “jointly across the continent.” Macron’s long-standing advocacy for “European sovereignty” in defense, technology, and critical infrastructure now finds a more urgent and receptive audience in Berlin. The challenge is translating this rhetoric into concrete, funded, and interoperable European defense capabilities—a process historically hampered by divergent national interests and capabilities.

The U.S. Perspective: “A New Era in Geopolitics”

Secretary of State Rubio’s framing of a “new era” is telling. It suggests the U.S. views the old order as a relic and is consciously reshaping its foreign policy around great power competition, primarily with China, and a transactional approach to all relationships. From this perspective, Europe’s security concerns are secondary to containing Beijing, and Europe must pay its “fair share.” This view fundamentally conflicts with Europe’s own existential threat perception, which is currently dominated by Russia and the instability on its eastern flank. The U.S. sees a multipolar world; Europe feels it is being abandoned in a bipolar struggle it did not choose.

Practical Advice: Navigating the New Reality

For European policymakers, business leaders, and citizens, Merz’s diagnosis necessitates a strategic pivot. Here is a framework for actionable steps:

For European Governments & the EU:

• Accelerate Defense Integration: Move beyond symbolic PESCO projects to genuine joint procurement, R&D, and potentially a unified European defense fund. Streamline bureaucratic hurdles to allow the EU to act as a single security actor.
• Define a Coherent Russia Strategy: Unify behind a long-term strategy for Ukraine that ties military support to clear, achievable political goals aimed at a durable, just peace, not a frozen conflict or Russian victory.
• Bolster Eastern Flank Defenses: Permanently reinforce NATO’s eastern frontiers (Poland, Baltics) with robust, multinational battlegroups and pre-positioned equipment, signaling that European security is a European responsibility.
• Initiate “Confidence-Building” with the U.S. Congress: While the executive branch is unpredictable, the U.S. Congress remains a bastion of transatlantic support. European leaders must engage deeply with congressional leaders across the aisle to safeguard NATO and key security relationships through legislation.
• Develop a “Sovereignty” Doctrine: Formally articulate and legally enshrine principles protecting European territorial integrity (e.g., in response to Greenland), critical infrastructure (undersea cables, energy), and democratic processes from foreign interference.

For Businesses & Civil Society:

• Diversify Supply Chains: Reduce dependency on any single great power for critical goods, minerals, and technology. Support EU initiatives like the Critical Raw Materials Act.
• Strengthen Cyber & Information Resilience: Invest in protecting democratic institutions, media, and electoral systems from hybrid warfare and disinformation campaigns emanating from adversaries and, potentially, destabilizing external actors.
• Advocate for Strategic Autonomy: Civil society and think tanks must build public understanding of the need for European strategic autonomy, framing it not as anti-American but as a necessary insurance policy for democratic values.

For the General Public:

• Understand the Stakes: Recognize that the erosion of the rules-based order means a world where power, not law, dictates outcomes. This impacts job security (via economic instability), personal safety (via conflict spillover), and democratic rights.
• Support Informed Political Discourse: Demand