Fyodor Lukyanov: The last battle of the Cold War just took place in Germany

18 Feb, 2025  

The EU’s illusions have been shattered as the US moves on

US vice president JD Vance (2L) participates in a bilateral meeting with German Foreign minister Annalena Baerbock (6thL) and German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier (7thL) at the 61st Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025 in Munich, Germany. © Getty Images / Getty Images

This year’s Munich Security Conference attracted as much attention as it did 18 years ago. Back then, it was Vladimir Putin who caused an uproar; this time, it was US Vice President J.D. Vance. Though separated by nearly two decades, these two speeches share a critical theme: both challenged the transatlantic order built on the legacy of the Cold War. And in both instances, the Western establishment failed to offer a substantive response.

In 2007, Putin’s warning about NATO expansion and Western overreach was largely dismissed as the grievances of a declining power. A few voices urged caution, but the prevailing sentiment in Washington and Brussels was complacency — Russia, they believed, would ultimately fall in line. The consequences of that miscalculation are now plain for all to see.

Today, the US Vice President has thrown down a different kind of gauntlet. His speech signaled a deep ideological rift within the West itself, one that Western European leaders seem unprepared to confront. In response, French President Emmanuel Macron has called for an emergency summit to establish a common position. But is the EU truly grasping the scale of the challenge? The early reactions suggest not. There remains a hope, however misguided, that this storm can simply be waited out.

Retaliation, Ideology, and a Changing World Order

There are several explanations for Vance’s remarks in Munich. The most immediate is payback. Western European leaders have spent years openly disparaging Trump and his allies, assuming they could do so without consequence. Now that Trump is back, they are facing the reality that their words have not been forgotten.

But there is a deeper ideological divergence at play. In many ways, Vance’s critique of Europe echoes the grievances that led the settlers of the New World to break from the Old World centuries ago: tyranny, hypocrisy, and parasitism. He and others, like Elon Musk, are unapologetic about interfering in European affairs — something liberal ideologues have long justified in the name of promoting democracy. Now, the debate over what democracy truly means has expanded beyond the US to the entire transatlantic alliance. This ideological struggle will shape the West’s trajectory in the coming decades.

 

Read more

 Fyodor Lukyanov: Vance only said what Americans really think

 

 

 

The third and most significant factor behind Vance’s speech is the broader transformation of global power dynamics. The world has changed. While it is still too early to define the new order fully, one thing is clear: the old ways no longer work. Demographics, economic shifts, technological competition, and military realignments are all reshaping the global balance.

At the heart of this transformation is a key question for the West: Should it finally end the Cold War as it was defined in the 20th century, or should it continue the struggle under new conditions? Western Europe’s answer, so far, has been to cling to the confrontation — largely because it has failed to integrate former adversaries in a way that secures its own future. The US, however, is increasingly signaling a willingness to move on. This shift is not unique to Trump; every American president since George W. Bush has, to varying degrees, deprioritized Europe in favor of other regions. Trump has merely been the most explicit about it.

Western Europe’s Dilemma: Clinging to the Past or Facing the Future

What will Western Europe do in response? For now, it appears committed to preserving the ideological and geopolitical framework of the Cold War. This is not just about security; it is about preserving its own relevance. The EU is a product of the liberal world order, and it requires a defined adversary to justify its cohesion. A familiar enemy — Russia — serves this purpose far better than an unfamiliar one like China.

From this perspective, it is logical to assume that some may even seek to escalate tensions to a point where the US has no choice but to intervene. Whether the bloc is actually capable of provoking such a crisis is another question entirely.

Read more

 Shutting the EU and Ukraine out of the talks is the only way to peace

For the US, the situation is more complex. On one hand, moving beyond the old Cold War framework would allow Washington to focus on what it sees as the real challenges of the future — China, the Pacific, North America, the Arctic, and, to a lesser extent, the Middle East. Western Europe has little to offer in these theaters. On the other hand, completely abandoning the continent is not on the cards. Trump is not an isolationist; he simply envisions a different model of empire — one where the US extracts more benefits and assumes fewer burdens.

Vance’s call for Western Europe to “fix its democracy” should be understood in this context. It is not about spreading democracy in the traditional sense, but about improving governance in what the US increasingly sees as a dysfunctional province. In fact, Vance’s stance on European sovereignty is arguably even more dismissive than that of his liberal predecessors, who at least paid lip service to transatlantic unity.

The Last Battle of the Cold War?

Vance’s speech in Munich was not just another rhetorical salvo in the US-Europe dispute. It was a milestone in the evolution of Atlanticist thought. For decades, the transatlantic alliance has operated on the assumption that the Cold War never truly ended. Now, the central question is whether to finally put an end to it and start a new one on different terms.

The EU’s current strategy — preserving confrontation with Russia as a means of securing its own coherence — may not be sustainable in the long run. If the US steps back and prioritizes its own interests elsewhere, Brussels will have to reassess its position. Will it continue to rely on a Cold War-era framework that no longer fits the modern world, or will it finally acknowledge the shift and adapt accordingly?

For now, the transatlantic divide is widening. The choices made in the coming months will determine whether this rift leads to a permanent fracture — or the beginning of a new geopolitical order where Western Europe finally learns to stand on its own.

 

This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RT team 

ANALYSIS

You can share this story on social media:  Source: https://www.rt.com/news/612981-last-battle-of-cold-war/