Munich Conference Reveals EUROPE in Decline

 Truth is King … in response to Vitana’s Gullible Reading of the World Order

Once a focal point for pan-European security, the Munich Security Conference has devolved
into a self-flagellating critique, struggling to diagnose its decline, while clinging to a narrative
of its own relevance. It is contradictory and inward-looking—a mix of group therapy and a
struggle session where elites obsess over their waning influence while simultaneously trying
to reassure themselves of their relevance.

This year’s MSC Munich Security Conference was one of the worst. In 2007, when Putin was invited to give his landmark speech, the Munich Security Conference had a purpose. Today it is
just an ideological propaganda machine performing to an echo chamber of clapping seals.
Dr. Witana’s summary of Rubio is a complete failure of critical analysis. It is a pure, uncritical
rubber-stamping of Rubio’s talking points, lacking any distance or intellectual rigor. Instead of
analysing the rhetoric, the summary merely echoes it, making the analysis entirely worthless.
The EU is not a democracy. NATO is not a democratic institution. The US is not a free
county. Trump is on record saying ‘America first’. He doesn’t care about the rest of the world.
It is all about America.

Rubio’s speech was just a performance for a compliant, self-selected audience of elites—a,
crowd that mirrors his own worldview, not the diverse opinions of the European public. His
Cold War rhetoric is increasingly irrelevant in a rapidly changing world. The U.S. no longer
dictates terms, as the global order has transitioned to a multipolar system where Russia,
China, and India are key players, and the EU, contrary to claims made by Kallas, is not a
superpower. Furthermore, Rubio’s claim that the world is in a post “End of History” struggle
highlights that his brand of Western liberalism is faltering, not dominant.

According to Rubio, the West fell into a “delusion”; of historical inevitability after 1989, naively expecting global liberal convergence. He posits that this, the so-called “End of History,” has
proven false, leaving modern liberalism in a state of terminal decline. That is a good
development we should all embrace.
Rubio’s pivot feels like a belated confession. For years, many of us have pointed out that the “rules-based order” was just a rebranding of U.S. hegemony—a system designed to serve Western interests while bypassing the actual constraints of international law. To hear him now call it a “dangerous delusion” and “obsolete” is less a discovery and more a long-overdue acknowledgment of its fundamental lack of legitimacy. Now that the Rules Based Order no longer serves American dominance, he’s ready to call it “obsolete”—a realization most of us had twenty years ago.

The narrative that the global order is breaking down is a smokescreen for the US and its
Western allies breaking the rules they themselves created. By rebranding Western hegemony as another “rules-based order,”; using a different label, they are attempting to
manage their own decline. Rubio’s “civilizational” argument is outdated, masking a demand for subservience, not partnership—treating Europe as a subordinate while blaming the UN
for failures caused by American vetoes.The advocate for a renewed Western dominance is fighting a rearguard action against the
inevitable “Asian Century”; While Rubio casts China as a threat, Beijing views the Western
alliance as a source of global instability. His vision for Western reindustrialisation is a
fantasy; the West lacks the industrial density and supply-chain ecosystems to challenge
China’s established manufacturing supremacy. While Western forums like Davos produce
high-minded rhetoric about “Building Back Better” they have yielded little in nearly a decade.

In contrast,the BRI and BRIC  are delivering tangible infrastructure and expanding their global footprint to record levels. It is “Bye-bye, American Pie” as Don McLean once sang all those years ago.

Rubio’s speech was dull. It was just rhetoric spoken passionately, but it doesn’t matter how
much passion you put into the words—it is still the same tired old drivel. We cannot read the
audience's response as significant; they are all ideologues with the same mentality, so of
course they applaud, but it has no meaning. This speech will soon be forgotten and will have
zero impact. Rubio is unlikely to ever be US President because he is such a lightweight.
I find it interesting that Rubio would refer to the rules-based order as an overused term. This
validates those of us who have exposed this vile, repugnant system as a US-led order,
rather than one rooted in the UN Charter or international law. For decades, the US and its
allies proudly reaffirmed this framework because it served their interests. The only reason
the “rules-based order”; is now being dismissed as “overused”; is that it has been
exposed as an illegal, US-centric construct—one that has nothing to do with genuine
international law or the UN Charter.
Most countries reject the US critique of global institutions as failures. They haven’t failed,
and if they have, it is usually because of the United States—particularly when global
institutions advocate for good policies with which the US disagrees. In these cases, the US
turns on the global institutions and sets out to cause them to fail.
Rubio’s speech is about re-securing neoliberalism, giving it a second life so more damage can be inflicted on the earth. The US rejects global institutions and international law,
including the UN, the UN Charter, and the WHO.
The United States has opposed or abstained from UN General Assembly (UNGA)
resolutions related to Israel; it opposes resolutions on the death penalty moratorium,
Palestinian rights, and certain climate or development goals. The U.S. has voted against
resolutions calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty. The U.S. has rejected the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, citing disagreement with specific goals.
The US is now using food as a weapon to starve the entire population of Cuba. US leaders
also admitted they attempted to crash the Iranian economy, which led to legitimate protests.
These protests turned into extreme violence because Mossad agents infiltrated the
movements to trigger widespread violence in an attempt to bring down the government.
These evil policies, just a few of many, are violations of international law and the UN Charter.
That is why Rubio wants to reform global organisations; because under international law, the
US is acting like a rogue state, committing atrocious crimes all over the world. That is what
Rubio represents.
The US and EU have enabled the atrocities in Gaza to the point of complicity, effectively
making them joint perpetrators of genocide. This shift in Western civilization is dangerous,
necessitating a collective rejection by the international community. Rubio is delusional when
he talks about reforming international law. This new brand of Western civilisation is the new
evil which all countries must reject.
By providing the weapons and diplomatic cover for Gaza’s destruction, Western powers
have evolved from bystanders into active accomplices in a “collective, livestreamed
genocide”. This shift marks a dark collapse of Western moral authority, demanding an urgent,
collective rejection by the international community

Forget Rubio’s speech; it is pointless. The most interesting address at this year’s Munich
Security Conference did not come from Rubio, but from the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. He declared that Germany intends to build the largest conventional army in Europe, effectively remilitarising on an industrial scale. The last time this occurred in Germany was by the Nazis in the 1930s. Merz stated: “We will do more for securing the high north. Thefirst German Eurofighters have been earmarked, and more are to follow.”

This is a strange statement. For one thing, Germany is not located in the far north, raising
questions about its intentions. What exactly is meant by German Eurofighters? This is the
first time the phrase “German Eurofighters” has been used. Prefixing ‘Eurofighters’ with
German is deeply revealing. These are not just Eurofighters, but “German Eurofighters”.
Germany already has German Eurofighters stationed in Lithuania, and evidently, based on
Mertz’s statement, Germany plans to expand its military force into the Baltic states, Poland,
Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine, just as Nazi Germany did in WWII. Propaganda weasel
words like ‘democracy and freedom’ are used to justify Germany’s military expansionism.
Merz addressed Germany’s history in his speech, stating that “hegemonial fantasies are not
an option”; and that “never again will we Germans go it alone”; He emphasized that German
security policy is now anchored in a European perspective and acts only with neighbours
and allies. Germany won’t make the same mistake by going alone, but by going together
with the EU.
While these words sound reassuring, it is worth remembering that Hitler once reassured
Europe he wanted peace; however, as we all know, he wanted war all along. Talk is cheap.
Clearly, building the largest army in Europe is not just for show. Germany has a plan to use
its Eurofighters. Global intelligence services must actively decipher exactly what the
Germans are really up to and not trust Merz’s statement on face value

Mertz’s speech should be analysed, not Rubio’s.

A history lesson is needed here. Following Nazi Germany’s unconditional surrender in 1945,
Germany was placed under a strict regime of total demilitarization by the Allied powers.
Germany didn’t just promise not to rearm; they were forced to dismantle their entire military
capacity.

 The Immediate Post-War Promises (1945–1950s)

 Potsdam Agreement (1945): The “Big Three” agreed on the “5 Ds”—one of which was Demilitarization. The goal was to completely eliminate Germany’s ability to wage war.
 Total Disarmament: The German Army (Wehrmacht), Navy, and Air Force were
completely disbanded.
 No Arms Production: Germany was prohibited from producing weapons, ammunition,
or any war-related machinery.
 Demolition of Infrastructure: Military academies, bases, and arms factories were
destroyed or dismantled.
 Nazi Organizations: All paramilitary groups (SS, SA, Gestapo) were abolished and
declared criminal organizations.

The “no army”; promise didn’t last forever because the geopolitical situation changed quickly.
By the early 1950s, the Cold War had begun, and the Allies were more concerned about a
potential invasion from the Soviet Union than a revival of German aggression.
 1955 Rearmament: Both East and West Germany rearmed, but they did so under
tight control within their respective blocs.
 West Germany (Bundeswehr): Joined NATO in 1955. West German Chancellor
Konrad Adenauer insisted on rearmament as a way to regain sovereignty and
contribute to Western defense. The new army was intentionally structured to be
defensive and integrated into NATO command, not a "massive" independent
offensive force.
When Germany was reunited in 1990, the Two Plus Four Treaty officially ended the
remaining Allied rights in Germany. In this treaty, the now-united Germany reaffirmed its
commitment to peace and placed a cap on the size of its armed forces (370,000 personnel),
promising never to use its weapons except in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
Germany was made to be a pacifist state after 1945, but the Cold War forced a rearmament
that was legally restricted to defensive, allied-controlled roles.

By providing the weapons and diplomatic cover for Gaza’s destruction, Western powers
have evolved from bystanders into active accomplices in a “collective, livestreamed
genocide”. This shift marks a dark collapse of Western moral authority, demanding an urgent,
collective rejection by the international community

Forget Rubio’s speech; it is pointless. The most interesting address at this year’s Munich
Security Conference did not come from Rubio, but from the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. He declared that Germany intends to build the largest conventional army in Europe, effectively remilitarising on an industrial scale. The last time this occurred in Germany was
by the Nazis in the 1930s. Merz stated: “We will do more for securing the high north. The
first German Eurofighters have been earmarked, and more are to follow..

This is a strange statement. For one thing, Germany is not located in the far north, raising
questions about its intentions. What exactly is meant by German Eurofighters? This is the
first time the phrase “German Eurofighters” has been used. Prefixing ‘Eurofighters’ with
German is deeply revealing. These are not just Eurofighters, but “German Eurofighters”.
Germany already has German Eurofighters stationed in Lithuania, and evidently, based on
Mertz’s statement, Germany plans to expand its military force into the Baltic states, Poland,
Hungary, Slovakia, and Ukraine, just as Nazi Germany did in WWII. Propaganda weasel
words like ‘democracy and freedom’ are used to justify Germany’s military expansionism.
Merz addressed Germany’s history in his speech, stating that “hegemonial fantasies are not
an option”  and that “never again will we Germans go it alone.” He emphasized that German
security policy is now anchored in a European perspective and acts only with neighbours
and allies. Germany won’t make the same mistake by going alone, but by going together
with the EU.

While these words sound reassuring, it is worth remembering that Hitler once reassured Europe he wanted peace; however, as we all know, he wanted war all along. Talk is cheap. Clearly, building the largest army in Europe is not just for show. Germany has a plan to use its Eurofighters. Global intelligence services must actively decipher exactly what the Germans are really up to and not trust Merz’s statement on face value.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&