Analysis of: World order as we know it ‘no longer exists’, Merz warns at Munich Security Conference – live
The Guardian | February 13, 2026
TL;DR
German Chancellor Merz declares post-WWII US-led order 'no longer exists,' calling for European military autonomy while maintaining NATO ties. This signals intensifying inter-imperialist rivalry as capitalist powers scramble to secure resources, markets, and strategic advantage in a fragmenting global system.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's declaration that the post-1945 world order 'no longer exists' represents a significant moment in the realignment of imperialist powers. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Merz articulated what amounts to a ruling-class consensus: European capital must develop independent military capacity to pursue its interests, rather than relying solely on US hegemony. His call to make the Bundeswehr 'the strongest conventional army in Europe' and discussions of European nuclear deterrence signal a qualitative shift in Germany's post-WWII posture. The contradictions within this moment are striking. Merz simultaneously criticizes US unilateralism while insisting Europe cannot 'write off' Washington as a partner. He rejects 'hegemonic fantasies' while pledging military supremacy. He defends 'free trade' against US tariffs while calling for deregulation to boost European 'competitiveness.' These contradictions reflect the structural position of European capital: large enough to have independent interests, yet still dependent on US security architecture and deeply integrated into transatlantic trade and finance. The ruling classes of Europe find themselves caught between accepting subordination to US imperialism or developing the capacity for independent imperial action—neither option serves working-class interests. The conference's framing as a crisis of 'rules-based order' obscures the material reality: this is inter-imperialist competition over resources, markets, and strategic position intensifying as US hegemony weakens and China rises. The repeated references to 'commodities, technology and supply chains' reveal the economic stakes beneath the diplomatic rhetoric. For European workers, the implications are clear: increased military spending means austerity in social services, while militarization serves capital's need to secure access to resources and labor in the periphery, not genuine security for working people.
Class Dynamics
Actors: European ruling classes (represented by heads of state), US ruling class (represented by Rubio and administration), Military-industrial capital, European working classes (absent from discourse), Ukrainian state (dependent actor), Russian ruling class (adversary), Chinese ruling class (competitor)
Beneficiaries: Defense contractors and military-industrial capital, European finance capital seeking strategic autonomy, Political elites positioning for new power arrangements, Technology and AI sectors receiving state investment
Harmed Parties: European working classes (facing austerity to fund militarization), Peripheral nations subject to great power competition, Ukrainian workers caught between imperial interests, Public sector workers losing funding to military budgets
The conference represents ruling-class coordination across national boundaries, with state managers negotiating positions on behalf of their respective capitals. Working-class interests are entirely absent from the discourse—workers appear only as potential soldiers ('military service reforms') or as abstract 'restless, agitated societies' to be managed. The power dynamic between US and European elites is being renegotiated, with European capital seeking more autonomy while remaining within the broader Western imperialist bloc.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: European GDP roughly 10x Russia's yet 'not 10 times as strong'—revealing gap between economic capacity and military power, Constitutional changes to increase German defense spending, Competition for AI and technology sectors, Supply chain security and resource access, Trade tensions (tariffs) between US and EU
The conference highlights the contradiction between socialized production at a global scale and national/bloc-based competition for control over that production. Merz's call to 'cap European bureaucracy and regulation' signals capital's push against even modest constraints on exploitation. The drone factory visit with Zelenskyy illustrates the military-industrial nexus: Ukrainian labor and German capital producing instruments of war marketed as 'AI-powered' and 'battle-tested.'
Resources at Stake: Greenland's strategic and mineral resources, European defense budgets (potentially trillions in spending), Ukrainian territory and reconstruction contracts, Supply chains for critical technologies, Energy resources (implicit in Russia relations), Access to markets and labor in periphery
Historical Context
Precedents: Pre-WWI inter-imperialist rivalry between European powers, Post-WWII US hegemony and Marshall Plan subordination of European capital, 1970s crisis of US hegemony and European integration, Post-Cold War unipolar moment now ending, Germany's historical oscillation between European leadership and hegemonic overreach
This represents a potential phase transition in the capitalist world-system. The US-led order established after 1945 integrated Western European capital as junior partners under American hegemony, exchanging subordination for security guarantees and access to US markets. The current crisis reflects both the relative decline of US productive capacity and the maturation of European and Chinese capital to the point where the old arrangements no longer serve their interests. Merz's invocation of Poland's Sikorski fearing 'German inactivity' more than 'German power' signals a return to questions that produced two world wars.
Contradictions
Primary: European capital requires strategic autonomy to pursue its interests but remains structurally dependent on US security architecture and financial systems—the contradiction between the need for independence and the reality of integration cannot be resolved within the current framework.
Secondary: Merz defends 'free trade' while calling for European protectionism in strategic sectors, European unity is proclaimed while national interests (Germany as 'strongest army') take precedence, Democratic values are invoked to justify increased military spending and reduced social spending, Peace rhetoric accompanies massive rearmament, Climate commitments conflict with military expansion and resource competition
These contradictions will likely intensify rather than resolve. European capital may achieve greater military autonomy, but this requires either massive wealth transfers from workers (austerity) or debt expansion. The fundamental contradiction between social production and private appropriation means that any 'resolution' for capital creates new contradictions. The most likely trajectory is continued integration within a reformed Western bloc, with periodic crises as interests diverge—unless working-class movements intervene to pose an alternative to inter-imperialist competition.
Global Interconnections
The Munich conference cannot be understood outside the context of global capitalist crisis and restructuring. The Ukraine war functions as a proxy conflict in which US and European capital seek to weaken Russia and maintain NATO expansion, while simultaneously testing and developing weapons systems. China's rise as an independent pole of capital accumulation—noted repeatedly by speakers—fundamentally challenges the post-1945 order in which the US served as guarantor of capitalist stability globally. The Greenland dispute, Iran protests, and discussions of 'supply chains' and 'commodities' reveal the material stakes: control over strategic resources and trade routes in an era of intensifying competition. For the global periphery, this great-power competition means continued extraction and subordination regardless of which imperial bloc dominates. The conference's careful exclusion of Global South voices—except as objects of policy—demonstrates whose interests 'international order' actually serves.
Conclusion
The Munich Security Conference reveals a ruling class in crisis, scrambling to reorganize its global arrangements while containing the social contradictions that threaten domestic stability. For working people, the key insight is that none of these factions represent our interests. European 'strategic autonomy' means austerity and militarism; US hegemony means the same with extra steps; Russian and Chinese alternatives offer no liberation for workers anywhere. The path forward lies not in choosing between imperial blocs but in building international working-class solidarity against the system that produces these conflicts. The billions earmarked for bombs and drones could fund healthcare, housing, and climate transition—the contradiction between social need and capitalist priorities has never been clearer.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and the division of the world among great powers directly illuminates the current scramble for strategic autonomy and the underlying economic competition driving military buildup.
- The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' helps explain why European and US capital are competing over Greenland, Ukraine reconstruction, and supply chain control—the geographic expansion of capital accumulation.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the state as an instrument of class rule clarifies why these conferences of ruling-class representatives cannot produce peace—the capitalist state exists to manage inter-capitalist competition and suppress working-class alternatives.