Donald Trump has declared a fan of Winston Churchill. But what would the British iconic leader conclude, who became known for his action during World War II, for the Munich Security Conference in 2025?

“You have been given the choice between war and disgust. You chose the derogation and you will have war” These were Churchill’s words, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlen left the city of Bavaria, holding a piece of paper that proved to be no sense.

Would this reaction from Churchill in trying to end the war in Ukraine, in terms that Kiev and his European allies are afraid of being favorable to Moscow and simply mean that there will be an even bigger war on the way?

History never says goodbye but always to re -enemy

Started yesterday and ending tomorrow the critical 61th Munich Conference on Security and many are worried that ‘History never says goodbye but always to re -enemy“, One of which is the former British Defense Minister Ben Wallace. In this context this year’s conference echoes the Munich agreement in 1938.

A few words about the past … under the name of Munich Agreement, as it was established, the Pact that emerged and signed at the Munich International Conference that met in a hurry on September 29, 1938 in Munich, Germany, hence its name, so that prevented War clash between Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Under the “final” time limit, unprecedented in international diplomacy, on September 29, at noon the (“summit” in modern conception) “International Conference of Munich” began in a hurry. Mussolini arrived first, accompanied by his groom and Foreign Minister Galleatsu Tsiano, who was welcomed by Hitler at the airport. Subsequently, the Prime Ministers of France and England E. Dalandier and N. Chamberlen, respectively, arrived. The large hall of the Fymerbao Megaro was chosen as a conference site.

The work They started in absentia of the Czechoslovak governmentwithout a spokesman, even as an observer, in the afternoon and continued up to two hours after Midnight (September 30), when the eight articles pact was completed, which was signed with immediate effect, but provided for the application of the International Recommendation. Committee and entry of German troops to Sudetia from the day after the signature, ie 1 October.

Following the drafting of the above pact, British Prime Minister Chamberlen, before departing from Berlin, had a private meeting with Hitler where they argued and signed a bilateral agreement, a Chamberlene -Hitler agreement, which was signed by which he was in charge Differences always through consultations.

Return to the present… European leaders remain in the aftermath of yesterday’s speech by Jay Di Vance, who followed Trump’s one -and -a -half -hour telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegshez said during a visit to Warsaw that European countries should now invest in defense because they cannot assume that the US presence in Epirus will last forever.

For former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, these statements were warning that the US is not sure to remain a guarantor of Europe’s security.

The end of NATO?

Like others, Landsbergis feels the end of an era. “May well sign the end of NATO“, He said. “Especially when you combine it with what I think Washington will soon announce – the departure of 20,000 US troops from Europe“

In the US and Europe, unstoppable and stormy announcements of members of the Trump government have raised severe concern, giving the involved some time to take a breath and reorient.

And the American legislators who participated in the Summit tried to offer some assurances to a restless Europe, which is becoming an increasingly difficult task in the long run.

Among them was Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Forces Committee and told Politico that Hegseth made a “wrong rookie” in Brussels: “I don’t know who wrote the speech. It could have been written by Tucker Carlson. Carlson is a fool“He said, reassuring that there are many serious people around Trump who are very careful.

Wicker also noted that Hegseth had already withdrew some of his toughest observations, but admitted that among them was not the statement of US withdrawal from Europe’s security guarantee, a move that would undermine Article 5 of NATO. which binds alliance members to collective defense.

“Trump’s immediate approach to Putin, in conjunction with Defense Minister Hegschez who informs the allies in Brussels that the US accepts some of Russia’s basic demands before the talks even begin is a double blow – not only for Ukraine but also for Ukraine but also for Ukraine For the future of Europe“, Observed Keir Giles of Chatham House.

And added: ‘[Με την αποδοχή] That the attacker can maintain the territory he has understood in return for a call for peace, the parallels in 1938 could only be clearer if Trump held a note and said that Mr Putin had assured him that he had no other territories ambitions in Europe“

Vance speech that left the ‘mouths open’

Meanwhile, Vice President Jay Di Vance’s speech in Munich, who focused on the criticism of democracy in Europe, has exacerbated European worries, and those of NATO US supporters.

He was received, minimal fragmentary applause and some polite heads, when he began to speak of migration as a threat to European culture. “The threat that I am worried about more about Europe is not Russia. It’s not China, it’s no other external factor. I am worried that the threat is from within“, He said.

“Think of the boldness of someone involved in the government of a man who inspired a uprising against our Congress in 2020, to come to Europe and say: “You have problems with democracy“, Said the academic and former US diplomat Michael McFol. “And we have a constitutional crisis that is currently underway with the power of executives and the health of the US Republic“

Vance also avoided referring to the “elephant in the room”, the War of Ukraine. “He could use his speech to clarify their negotiating position and chose not to do so. This speech was for people back home, not for people in the summit“, McFol added.

And now?

Three years ago, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seemed to make NATO more timely than it was previously, as it had been limited by the reason after the Cold War. It is difficult for anyone watching developments to shake the thought that we will witness a schism. Of course, the “US vs Europe” tone was also existed during Trump’s previous term. However, there would be discomfort not complete ruptures.

And for Europe, the US remains the excellent nation, the necessary nation to call for times of difficulty. To whom to address now?

Maybe, in itself.

Former German diplomat Wolfgang Isinger told Politico that “perhaps Europe had to be hit with a taiser” to be shocked because it was more progressive and autonomous.

His position is that European leaders are partly responsible for the situation that is now shocked and displeased. They had a multitude of warnings about what the second term of the US President could entail, and yet moved too late to increase their own defense spending.

Landsbergis’s successor, KÄ™stutis Budrys, agrees that Europe has been delayed. “We’re late, really. We have to accelerate and show that we have real defense and that we are ready and capable and trained to fight“, He told Politico.

But Budrys hopes that this is not a “Munich moment” like 87 years ago. “The fact we mention in 1938 shows that we are aware. Yes, there is a risk of repeating certain elements, but we can also see how to avoid it“, He said. And this will require all allies to share “the seriousness of the situation we face” if they want to keep NATO.

Others are wondering if it is too late and are afraid that the Trump government is no longer a friend but an enemy. A senior EU diplomat said: ‘We now have an alliance between a Russian president who wants to destroy Europe and an American president who also wants to destroy Europe“

“The transatlantic alliance is over“