Fyodor Lukyanov: Germany Just Hosted the Final Battle of the Cold War
The EU's illusions have been shattered as the US progresses. Read the full article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
### The EU’s Illusions Have Been Shattered as the US Moves On
The recent Munich Security Conference garnered attention reminiscent of its prominence 18 years ago. Back then, it was Vladimir Putin who stirred controversy; this year, it was US Vice President J.D. Vance. Despite the nearly two-decade gap, both speeches have a crucial theme in common: both questioned the transatlantic order established in the aftermath of the Cold War, and in both instances, the Western establishment has struggled to provide a meaningful response.
In 2007, Putin’s cautionary words about NATO expansion and Western overreach were largely brushed aside as the grievances of a waning power. While a few voices called for prudence, the dominant belief in Washington and Brussels was one of complacency — there was an assumption that Russia would eventually conform. The fallout from that misjudgment is now evident.
Today, Vance's remarks represent a different kind of challenge, revealing a profound ideological divide within the West that many Western European leaders seem ill-equipped to address. In response, French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed an emergency summit to forge a unified stance, but does the EU truly comprehend the magnitude of the challenge? The early signs suggest otherwise, with a persistent, albeit naive, hope that the current turmoil can simply be weathered.
### Retaliation, Ideology, and a Changing World Order
There are multiple layers to Vance’s speech in Munich. The most immediate interpretation is payback; Western European leaders have spent years openly criticizing Trump and his allies, often believing they could do so without repercussions. With Trump's return, they are now confronted with the fact that their criticisms have not been forgotten.
Deeper still is the ideological split at play. Vance’s critique of Europe resonates with the sentiments that spurred the settlers of the New World to break from the Old World centuries ago: tyranny, hypocrisy, and parasitism. He, along with figures like Elon Musk, is unapologetically involved in European affairs — a prospect long rationalized by liberal ideologues as promoting democracy. The ongoing debate over what democracy entails is now a transatlantic conversation, shaping the future direction of the West for decades to come.
The third and most consequential factor in Vance’s address is the shifting global power dynamics. The world has evolved. While it may be premature to fully outline the new order, one observation stands out: the previous ways are no longer effective. Factors such as changing demographics, economic shifts, technological competition, and military realignments are redefining the global balance.
At the core of this transformation lies a crucial question for the West: Should it finally conclude the Cold War as it was understood in the 20th century, or continue the struggle under novel conditions? So far, Western Europe has opted to maintain the confrontation, primarily because it has not successfully integrated its former adversaries in a manner that secures its future. Conversely, the US increasingly indicates a readiness to move forward. This shift is not an exclusive feature of the Trump administration; every president since George W. Bush has, to varying extents, re-prioritized regions beyond Europe. Trump has merely articulated this shift more explicitly.
### Western Europe’s Dilemma: Clinging to the Past or Facing the Future
How will Western Europe respond? Currently, it seems committed to maintaining the ideological and geopolitical framework established during the Cold War. This commitment is not solely about security; it also concerns preserving its own relevance. The EU is a product of the liberal world order, and it relies on having a defined adversary to justify its cohesion. Familiar foes, especially Russia, serve this purpose more effectively than a distant one like China.
From this viewpoint, it would not be surprising if some leaders wish to escalate tensions to a point that compels the US to intervene. Whether the bloc can genuinely stir such a crisis is another matter entirely.
For the US, the scenario is intricate. On one side, moving beyond the Cold War structure would allow Washington to concentrate on what it perceives as the real challenges ahead — China, the Pacific, North America, the Arctic, and, to a lesser degree, the Middle East. Western Europe has little to contribute in these regions. On the flip side, a complete withdrawal from the continent isn't on the table. Trump is no isolationist; he simply envisions a different model of empire — one that allows the US to gain more advantages with diminished obligations.
Vance’s exhortation for Western Europe to “fix its democracy” must be understood within this framework. It’s not about traditional democracy promotion; it’s about enhancing governance within a region that the US increasingly views as dysfunctional. In fact, Vance's perspectives on European sovereignty may be even more dismissive than those of his liberal predecessors, who at least acknowledged the importance of transatlantic unity.
### The Last Battle of the Cold War?
Vance's address at the Munich conference was more than just another rhetorical confrontation in the US-Europe saga; it marked a pivotal moment in the progression of Atlanticist ideology. The transatlantic alliance has long operated under the premise that the Cold War never truly concluded. The pressing question now is whether to finally end it and embark on a new chapter defined by different terms.
The current EU strategy — maintaining confrontation with Russia as a means of preserving its own cohesion — may prove unsustainable over time. If the US retreats and prioritizes its interests elsewhere, Brussels will have to reevaluate its stance. Will it persist in relying on an outdated Cold War framework or will it recognize the shift and adapt accordingly?
As it stands, the divide between the transatlantic partners is widening. The decisions made in the coming months will be pivotal in determining whether this rift results in a permanent schism or the emergence of a new geopolitical framework where Western Europe learns to assert itself independently.
This article was initially published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has undergone translation and editing by the RTN team.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
The recent Munich Security Conference garnered attention reminiscent of its prominence 18 years ago. Back then, it was Vladimir Putin who stirred controversy; this year, it was US Vice President J.D. Vance. Despite the nearly two-decade gap, both speeches have a crucial theme in common: both questioned the transatlantic order established in the aftermath of the Cold War, and in both instances, the Western establishment has struggled to provide a meaningful response.
In 2007, Putin’s cautionary words about NATO expansion and Western overreach were largely brushed aside as the grievances of a waning power. While a few voices called for prudence, the dominant belief in Washington and Brussels was one of complacency — there was an assumption that Russia would eventually conform. The fallout from that misjudgment is now evident.
Today, Vance's remarks represent a different kind of challenge, revealing a profound ideological divide within the West that many Western European leaders seem ill-equipped to address. In response, French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed an emergency summit to forge a unified stance, but does the EU truly comprehend the magnitude of the challenge? The early signs suggest otherwise, with a persistent, albeit naive, hope that the current turmoil can simply be weathered.
### Retaliation, Ideology, and a Changing World Order
There are multiple layers to Vance’s speech in Munich. The most immediate interpretation is payback; Western European leaders have spent years openly criticizing Trump and his allies, often believing they could do so without repercussions. With Trump's return, they are now confronted with the fact that their criticisms have not been forgotten.
Deeper still is the ideological split at play. Vance’s critique of Europe resonates with the sentiments that spurred the settlers of the New World to break from the Old World centuries ago: tyranny, hypocrisy, and parasitism. He, along with figures like Elon Musk, is unapologetically involved in European affairs — a prospect long rationalized by liberal ideologues as promoting democracy. The ongoing debate over what democracy entails is now a transatlantic conversation, shaping the future direction of the West for decades to come.
The third and most consequential factor in Vance’s address is the shifting global power dynamics. The world has evolved. While it may be premature to fully outline the new order, one observation stands out: the previous ways are no longer effective. Factors such as changing demographics, economic shifts, technological competition, and military realignments are redefining the global balance.
At the core of this transformation lies a crucial question for the West: Should it finally conclude the Cold War as it was understood in the 20th century, or continue the struggle under novel conditions? So far, Western Europe has opted to maintain the confrontation, primarily because it has not successfully integrated its former adversaries in a manner that secures its future. Conversely, the US increasingly indicates a readiness to move forward. This shift is not an exclusive feature of the Trump administration; every president since George W. Bush has, to varying extents, re-prioritized regions beyond Europe. Trump has merely articulated this shift more explicitly.
### Western Europe’s Dilemma: Clinging to the Past or Facing the Future
How will Western Europe respond? Currently, it seems committed to maintaining the ideological and geopolitical framework established during the Cold War. This commitment is not solely about security; it also concerns preserving its own relevance. The EU is a product of the liberal world order, and it relies on having a defined adversary to justify its cohesion. Familiar foes, especially Russia, serve this purpose more effectively than a distant one like China.
From this viewpoint, it would not be surprising if some leaders wish to escalate tensions to a point that compels the US to intervene. Whether the bloc can genuinely stir such a crisis is another matter entirely.
For the US, the scenario is intricate. On one side, moving beyond the Cold War structure would allow Washington to concentrate on what it perceives as the real challenges ahead — China, the Pacific, North America, the Arctic, and, to a lesser degree, the Middle East. Western Europe has little to contribute in these regions. On the flip side, a complete withdrawal from the continent isn't on the table. Trump is no isolationist; he simply envisions a different model of empire — one that allows the US to gain more advantages with diminished obligations.
Vance’s exhortation for Western Europe to “fix its democracy” must be understood within this framework. It’s not about traditional democracy promotion; it’s about enhancing governance within a region that the US increasingly views as dysfunctional. In fact, Vance's perspectives on European sovereignty may be even more dismissive than those of his liberal predecessors, who at least acknowledged the importance of transatlantic unity.
### The Last Battle of the Cold War?
Vance's address at the Munich conference was more than just another rhetorical confrontation in the US-Europe saga; it marked a pivotal moment in the progression of Atlanticist ideology. The transatlantic alliance has long operated under the premise that the Cold War never truly concluded. The pressing question now is whether to finally end it and embark on a new chapter defined by different terms.
The current EU strategy — maintaining confrontation with Russia as a means of preserving its own cohesion — may prove unsustainable over time. If the US retreats and prioritizes its interests elsewhere, Brussels will have to reevaluate its stance. Will it persist in relying on an outdated Cold War framework or will it recognize the shift and adapt accordingly?
As it stands, the divide between the transatlantic partners is widening. The decisions made in the coming months will be pivotal in determining whether this rift results in a permanent schism or the emergence of a new geopolitical framework where Western Europe learns to assert itself independently.
This article was initially published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has undergone translation and editing by the RTN team.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
