By Dr. Jana Puglierin
This spring, I had the opportunity for the first time not only to attend the Munich Security Conference, but also to take part in the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi. Both conferences reflect the prevailing mood in foreign and security policy – in Europe as much as in India. And rarely have these perspectives been as divergent as they were this year.
Munich: The West Grapples with Itself
The Munich Security Conference in mid-February was dominated by the Greenland crisis. Donald Trump’s imperial claim to the autonomous territory belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark has shaken transatlantic relations so profoundly that the aftershocks were felt throughout the entire conference. I have attended the MSC regularly since 2020, and never before have I had the impression that the West was so absorbed in its own affairs. The central question was what remains of the West after the first year of Trump’s second presidency – and on what foundations and values it actually rests. For perspectives and issues from other regions of the world, there was little room at the Bayerischer Hof – even as the organisers, as in previous years, made efforts to ensure greater diversity.
What Does “the West” Stand for Today?
This became particularly apparent with the much-anticipated address by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. When he invoked the renewal of a “Western civilisation” – founded on “centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, and ancestry” – it quickly became clear what understanding of the “West” the Trump administration embodies: not an open political concept of order, but a culturally and ethnically defined space encompassing primarily white societies in Europe and North America – and explicitly not those who define themselves through a belief in democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and the dignity of the individual, regardless of origin, skin colour, faith, gender, sexual orientation, or political conviction. Even as Chancellor Friedrich Merz stressed in his address that America’s culture war is not ours, many Europeans at the Bayerischer Hof found themselves wondering what remains of the transatlantic relationship that once defined their identity, and what values Europe and the United States actually share.
New Delhi: A Different View of the Global Order
The debate in New Delhi presented itself in an entirely different light. Here, the focus was less on self-reassurance than on the pragmatic question of how states can secure room for manoeuvre in a fragmented world without becoming caught between the fronts of the great powers. The Raisina Dialogue sees itself as a forum that makes precisely these differing perspectives visible – and with them, the shifts in the global balance of power.
Managing Differences in Practice
How naturally India navigates geopolitical tensions was illustrated by one moment in the conference programme: during the evening “Night Owl” session, Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar joined via video link. He outlined Israel’s security situation and defended the military strikes against Iran. The following morning, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh took the same stage and sharply condemned the attacks. Few details illustrate so vividly how New Delhi seeks to maintain competing relationships simultaneously in an increasingly polarised world.
This calculation also shapes India’s dealings with Washington: many Indians who had invested in close ties during Trump’s first term are watching his second year with growing disillusionment. Time and again, I was told that India is doing everything it can to avoid being caught in a pincer between the United States and China.
Why Many States Are Pursuing New Paths
India is not alone in this. Numerous emerging and middle powers are securing room for manoeuvre and building influence without committing themselves permanently to any of the major blocs. From this emerge new forms of cooperation – spanning infrastructure, trade, technology, and development finance. Some initiatives complement Western structures, others are deliberately built outside them. Step by step, a more transactional reality is taking shape: states choose their partners according to the issue at hand, shift coalitions, and keep their options open.
What Does This Mean for Europe?
Europeans, as both central defenders and beneficiaries of the rules-based order, continue to uphold liberal principles as the foundation for prosperity and sustainable peace – even as that order increasingly erodes. Yet these principles are by no means a distinctly European invention. They reflect universal values enshrined in the UN Charter and widely regarded as a shared basis for a peaceful world order.
European cooperation tends to be process-oriented, rules-based, and institutionally anchored. In contrast, the networks and initiatives in which emerging and middle powers are investing are more flexible, more dynamic, and driven more by pragmatic interests than the multilateral structures Europe has long favoured.
An Opportunity for Europe
It is precisely for this reason that Europe must engage more actively where the energy, economic, and security dynamics are actually unfolding – in the new, often more informal formats and partnerships. As a middle power with a long tradition of civilian conflict prevention and peacebuilding, Europe could play a distinctive role as a bridge-builder, combining its institutional strengths with greater flexibility in order to shape this changing world.
