Let’s not delude ourselves: one speech at an international gathering — as important as it was — even by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will not repair all the cracks in relations between the US and the other members of NATO. Still, last week’s speech was a significant and welcome step in the right direction. Rubio, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, was far from presenting harmonious relations between the US and Europe, but he struck a more conciliatory tone, underlining more what the US and Europe have in common than what differentiates them, especially under the current American administration.

One hopes there is a profound recognition that it is the US and Europe, commonly regarded as the West, together with countries such as Australia and Canada, which would be the losers if there were a deep and long-lasting rift within NATO, leaving the liberal-democratic camp divided.

If last year’s speech by Vice President J.D. Vance was a cause of anxiety in Europe, spreading fear of a gloomy future for transatlantic relations, Rubio’s remarks must have come as a huge relief. He said: “For the United States and Europe, we belong together. America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent long before.” He added: “We are part of one civilization — Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share.”

The US and Europe, historically and in the long-term, have more in common than separates them

Yossi Mekelberg

Rubio’s speech led to a lengthy standing ovation. Yet, it was not without controversy, as he also suggested that forces of civilizational erasure are menacing both America and Europe, which has been seen as an attack on the more liberal European approach to migration and multiculturalism.

The spirit of shared interest and values must remain the spirit, as the US and Europe, historically and in the long-term, have more in common than what separates them. Above all, if they do not work together, this plays into the hands of their competitors/enemies, which they can hardly afford.

The keyword that many European diplomats have used to describe Rubio’s speech is “reassuring” — and that is probably the best that can be expected at this point. On the other hand, there were quite a few commentators who suggested that, at most, there was a change of tone but hardly of substance. But they are ignoring that diplomacy, including among allies, operates mainly in the zone of accepting differences within a general framework of agreement.

There will be periods in which the US and Europe are more harmonious and others in which the differences will be more pronounced, as is the case now. However, as long as an irreparable rift does not open up and as long as a working formula is found that compromises neither side’s interests or values, this should be a cause for optimism.

The challenges both sides of the Atlantic are currently facing, domestically and internationally, are not dissimilar and they are better off addressing them together. In the realm of geopolitics, Russia remains a primary threat. Supporting Ukraine in the war against Moscow’s aggression, whose fourth anniversary is being marked this week, is morally justified beyond doubt. However, equally, it is in the West’s interest to stop further Russian encroachment into Europe, whether physically or through its “slow-burning” hybrid actions, including cyberattacks on critical European infrastructure.

This war has been a lesson for European countries that the dividends of the post-Cold War era are well and truly over. Europe, with the active encouragement of the US, has now shifted into a much-accelerated building up of its military power. The war has started a process in which Europe will eventually regain its position not only as an economic power, but also as a military power to be reckoned with. This is likely to ease tensions with Washington.

The challenges both sides of the Atlantic are facing are not dissimilar and they are better off addressing them together

Yossi Mekelberg

A major area of contention between the US and Europe is finding common ground in negotiating a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine that is not on Russian terms, which most experts agree would leave Kyiv vulnerable, undermine European deterrence and not make the US any safer. Another contentious issue is the transatlantic approach to China. Bridging differences within NATO and any other political and economic organs in which Europe and the US work together is important to ensure that their interests on these issues are not harmed.

The US’ roots, as Rubio rightly mentioned in his Munich speech, go back to Europe. By and large, the US was formed out of rejecting what Europe represented at the time — the Old World — and it took wars and political and economic crises to bring them back together and discover that their common roots are more important than what separates them. Unfortunately, it took two cataclysmic world wars to prompt the US and Europe to build the most powerful political, military and economic alliance in the world.

The two sides’ close cooperation has regularly encountered differences and hiccups, which to date have always been overcome because of the underlying belief that this alliance has been the bedrock of a rules-based international order that has protected liberal-democratic values for more than a generation. The years in which the Marshall Plan was crucial to the rebuilding of Europe and NATO declared its commitment to defend all members against external threats have laid the foundation for these relations — and they have endured for more than 80 years to the benefit of all member states.

At least for the next few years, relations between the US and Europe are bound to see ups and downs and will be prickly at times. However, it would also serve the interests of both to identify the areas in which their cooperation is mutually beneficial and where they could operate independently, but without breaking the bond between them.

  • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg