The Munich Security Conference & Developments 

Vanessa Chioaru 

The Munich Security Conference is the world’s leading forum on international security policy (1), founded in 1963. Over the past four decades, it has become one of the most important settings for the exchange of ideas between various stakeholders (2). Each year, the conference brings together about 350 senior figures from more than 70 countries (3) including heads of states, governments and international organisations as well as high ranking representatives of businesses and media. 

Given Trump’s recent appointment coupled with the fragile political state of the world, all eyes were on the Munich Security Conference this February. The biggest topic of discussion during the event seems to have been a deal proposed by Trump to Ukraine, namely for the US to be given 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals (4). The reasoning behind this proposition was argued to be a way for Ukraine to pay back the multi-billion dollar weapons and aid package that the US has been providing since 2022. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy turned down this proposition, stating it was “not in the interest of sovereign Ukraine” (5) to take on such a commitment when the plan proposed no security provisions. The US’s stance during this 61st edition projected a negative shadow over the three day talks as many European leaders were not content with the comments of J.D Vance who criticised their approach to Democracy (6). Ultimately, the Conference ended with European leaders calling for unity now more than ever. 

Just days after the conclusion of the Munich Security Conference, French President Emmanuel Macron announced he would be convening an emergency summit of European leaders (7) to further discuss Ukraine and Europe’s security needs. An informal meeting was held at the Elysee Palace in Paris on February 17th with a proper emergency summit being scheduled to take place on March 6 (8). In the informal meeting held on February 17th, European leaders reiterated their continuing support for Ukraine as they registered their skepticism about the US rush to strike a peace deal with Russia (9). As for the emergency summit taking place on March 6, European Council President Antonio Costa reiterated the importance of the emergency summit, delineating this to be “ a defining moment for Ukraine and European security (10).” Developments on additional support for Ukraine remain to be seen. 

Just on March 2nd, the London Security Summit took place with a seemingly more positive outcome. The Summit affirmed the need for stronger support to Ukraine, with British PM Starmer stating that “Europe must do the heavy lifting” (11) in securing peace in Ukraine. Starmer equally called upon European allies to increase their arms spending and to strengthen the NATO alliance (12). Further updates are pending as world leaders continue to express their views. 

AI Investment 

Vannessa Chioaru 

The AI Act, having come into force on August 1st 2024, forms the key regulatory framework for AI use (1) in the EU. The Regulation is set to fully come into force on August 2, 2025 however some important obligations have recently come into effect on February 2 2025. Through this implementation, AI systems that pose unacceptable risks are now banned. Additionally, organisations operating in the European market must now ensure adequate AI literacy among employees (2) involved in the use and deployment of AI systems. Further obligations for providers will come into force during the Summer of 2025. 

The AI Action Summit (3), which took place February 10th and 11th  2025, highlighted a pivotal change in EU AI Policy which is moving from stringent AI regulation to substantial investment in AI development (4). This includes commitments from both France and the EU to inject billions into AI companies and infrastructure. Regardless, leaders were not completely in agreement about the future of AI at this summit. US Vice President J.D. Vance made it clear that the US was not going to be held back from developing technology by global regulation with an excessive focus on safety (5). Unsurprisingly, the US declined to sign the diplomatic declaration on “inclusive and sustainable” AI along with the UK who declared that the document had not gone far enough in addressing global governance of AI. This failure to achieve consensus over a seemingly uncontroversial document, makes achieving meaningful global governance of AI appear an even more distant prospect (6). Even though Elon Musk was not in attendance at this event, he still managed to cause waves as his representatives launched a near $100 billion bid for the non-profit that controls Open AI (7). Despite disagreement, attendees agreed that the pace at which AI is developing is one that is rapidly accelerating. However, the question of who would come out on top in this AI race still remains. 

Developments in the EU-Turkey Relations   

Nikola Pantelić

Climate Change Developments in the EU

Oleksandr Mysyk 

Although geopolitical tensions between the EU and the USA over the course of last month were a primary trigger of attention for politicians and policymakers in Brussels, the Union is not deviating from its path toward becoming the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 (1). In pursuance of such efforts, on February 26th, the European Commission presented the Clean Industrial Deal (the CID): A joint roadmap for competitiveness and decarbonisation (2). Its main objective is to accelerate decarbonisation (3) of the economy while supporting the competitiveness and resilience of the European industries.

Among many diverse solutions provided, the Commission emphasized the importance of climate neutral investments in energy intensive industries and clean tech. In particular, it is reported that the deal undertakes to mobilise over €100 billion (4) for the production of clean products within the EU. In order to reduce the duration of the lengthy and bureaucratic permit-granting procedures that slow down the certification of clean businesses, it is planned to adopt the Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act in Q4 2025 (5), which would establish a low-carbon product label and apply sustainability, resilience and minimum EU content requirement in public and private procurement in strategic sectors to ensure lead markets for low-carbon products. Furthermore, Brussels is willing to adopt a new Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework together with the Circular Economy Act in 2026 (5) to allow for simplified and quicker approval of State aid measures for the roll-out of renewable energy and accelerate the circular transition and ensure that scarce materials are used and reused efficiently. The aim set is to have at least 24% of materials circular by 2030.

At the same time, the CID has faced a generally negative reaction from the environmentally-friendly NGOs. For instance, the European Environmental Bureau claims that the plan weakens the holistic approach (6) of the European Green Deal (7), which was introduced by the Commission six years ago, and uses competitiveness as an excuse to justify concessions to polluters. It is believed by some that the new Deal failed to include strong social and environmental safeguards (8), leaving public money at risk of benefiting corporations without clear conditions on environmental protection, and disregarded the need for the adoption of emerging technologies and digital solutions (9)for enhancing the sustainability of the industry. Nevertheless, most disturbingly, a last-minute decision has postponed the announcement of the 2040 climate targets (10), which were expected to be part of this package. So is the CID a step back or a slight move forward? It remains to be seen…