Finally got to read Rubio’s speech in Munich: it is one of the most revisionist and imperialist speeches I’ve ever seen a senior American official make, and that’s saying something.

The man literally laments the outcome of WW2 because it marked the end of the era during which “the West had been expanding”, a “path” he “hopes [the US and Europe] walk together again.”

And just to ensure you’re clear about what he means: he wants to restore the building of “vast empires extending across the globe” and blames “anti-colonial uprisings” for what they did to “the great Western empires.”

He also says that “we cannot continue” to allow “abstractions of international law” get in the way of US interests.

Basically the man is openly saying that  the whole post-colonial order was a mistake and he’s calling on Europe to share the spoils of building a new one.

Which is quite a pitch for an American to make given that their own country itself was born from revolt against European colonialism, but I guess expecting the Trump administration to understand their own history is too tall an order…

The most troubling part was the reaction of the audience: “half the hall in Munich gave US Secretary of State Marco Rubio a standing ovation” (https://chathamhouse.org/2026/02/west-vs-west-munich-security-conference) and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the Global South half…

It just goes to show the complete absence of reflection in Europe. Rubio undoubtedly tried to appeal to some sort of latent nostalgia for Western imperial dominance among European elites. And it obviously worked (which is scary in and of itself).

But it also shows that Europeans remain naive to the extreme if they believe Rubio’s pitch that he wants Europe to be strong in order to share the spoils of a new age of Western imperialism.

What’s the thinking here? That Trump’s America – “America first” – would suddenly become magnanimous and share with Europe just out of sentiment? That’s not how imperialism works: the whole premise of it is that the strong dominate the weak.

When an imperial power is speaking to you of sentiments, of how much they like you and how they want to partner with you – the much weaker party – that’s cause for worry, not applause…

.

 

US Strategy demands Subordination

The binary choice between European “Integration” (standing on its own feet) or “Disintegration” (chaos) misreads the strategic landscape. It assumes the United States is leaving.

According to this year’s MSC, the “American pacifier” is simply transferring the costs for its warfare strategy to European taxpayers.

We must look past the narrative of abandonment and listen to the explicit demands of the Trump administration. At the MSC 2026 Kick-off, Matthew Whitaker, US Ambassador to NATO, clarified that Washington’s goal is a functional reorganization of vassalage.

He explicitly rejected the idea that European rearmament should lead to political independence:

“The autonomy—we’re not asking for European autonomy. We’re asking for European strength… We expect you to do more and to not be independent. I think that’s the problem is: just because you’re strong doesn’t mean you’re independent. In fact, the interconnectedness is more important.”

This statement destroys the “Integration vs. Disintegration” framework. The US is actively engineering a third scenario: Subordinate Integration. In this model, Europe builds a massive military machine to serve US global strategy, but remains legally and technically wired to Washington’s command.

Elbridge Colby provided the strategic rationale for this arrangement. Europe is, hence, being repurposed as a shield to allow US freedom of movement in the Pacific:

“It is not one theater… We’re planning; we’re saying, ‘Let’s all be in a place where we’ve got a good buffer of assurance.’ And of course the Americans are going to be everywhere, but we’re going to be doing it in a way that’s linked to practical military planning.”

Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham stripped away any remaining diplomatic veneer regarding the economic reality of this “buffer”:

“We are going to sell [weapons to Ukraine]. You are going to buy. Make them the deadliest force in Europe, forever.”

The danger is that Europe will construct a fortress paid for by its own austerity measures, yet controlled by American software and strategic imperatives. We are witnessing the hardening of a tributary system. Europe provides the funding and the frontage; the US retains the command codes and the profits.