For too long, Europe has been a passenger in its own foreign policy, a junior partner in a geopolitical drama largely written and directed from Washington. The script, handed down over decades, has been one of perpetual hostility toward Russia. This narrative, a hangover from the Cold War, has served a singular purpose: to maintain the primacy of a U.S.-led security architecture that now appears increasingly anachronistic and detrimental to European interests. It is time for Europe to write its own script, to reclaim its sovereignty, and to forge a new path of mutual benefit and genuine security with its largest neighbor, Russia.
The foundation of our current predicament lies in a flawed premise: that a continent of over 450 million people (Europe), with some of the most advanced economies in the world, needs protection from a nation of 144 million (Russia). The idea that the United States, an ocean away, with a population of 350 millions, is a more suitable protector than Europe is a dangerous illusion. Our combined economic and demographic weight far surpasses Russia’s. Yet, we have ceded our strategic autonomy, allowing ourselves to be led down a path of confrontation that has brought us to the brink of a major European conflict. It is time to ask: are we not capable of defending ourselves? The answer is a resounding yes.
To understand how we arrived at this point, we must revisit the post-World War II agreements that set the stage for the Cold War. At the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, the key Allied powers—the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union—met to decide the fate of post-war Europe. These agreements, while not explicitly a formal division, created a de facto understanding of spheres of influence. Germany was divided into four zones of occupation, a decision that cemented the country’s split and became a microcosm of the wider European division. The Soviet Union was given a free hand in the countries liberated by the Red Army, and the Western powers accepted this reality. While the “Declaration on Liberated Europe” called for free elections, the outcome was the establishment of pro-Soviet governments that formed the Warsaw Pact.
The moment for a new European security framework was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Warsaw Pact, a military alliance born of a different era, rightly ceased to exist. But instead of dissolving NATO, its Western counterpart, we expanded it. We chose to perpetuate a Cold War structure in a post-Cold War world. The opportunity to build a new, inclusive security order from Lisbon to Vladivostok was squandered. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which explicitly stated that NATO and Russia “do not consider each other as adversaries,” was a brief flicker of hope, a testament to what might have been. But we failed to live up to its spirit, allowing the logic of expansion to override the logic of cooperation.
Instead of taking a friendly approach toward a post-Soviet Russia that was eager for partnership, we allowed the “Russian hoax” and the “Russian bogeyman” narrative to fester. The idea of a revanchist Russia, an existential threat to all of Europe, became the centerpiece of our collective strategic thinking. This narrative, pushed by think tanks and political leaders in Washington, served to justify continued American military presence and leadership in Europe. It has been a brilliant geopolitical maneuver for the United States, ensuring its dominance. For Europe, it has been an act of self-harm. We have willingly sacrificed our economic and security interests for a manufactured threat.
The agreed-upon pacts and assurances were not maintained. After the reunification of Germany, which was made possible only with Russia’s consent, the West gave assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. This is not a matter of debate. Declassified documents and personal accounts from key figures confirm that U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher made a similar promise. We broke that promise. NATO expanded into Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states, effectively moving our military alliance right up to Russia’s borders. Russia did not reciprocate by moving “an inch towards the West.” Its military forces remained within its borders, while ours encroached on its sphere of influence. We have been told this expansion was to ensure the freedom of these nations. But at what cost? We have sacrificed the possibility of a stable security order for the sake of an ever-expanding military bloc, and we are now paying the price.
Russia did not attack when Poland, Romania, or other countries joined NATO. But Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2022 were different. They were, and are, existential red lines for Russia. These are not just any countries; they are former Soviet republics with deep historical and cultural ties to Russia. A NATO presence in these nations, particularly Ukraine, would be an unacceptable security threat from Moscow’s perspective. It would be akin to the Soviet Union placing nuclear missiles in Cuba during the Cold War. The U.S. in 1962 rightly saw that as an existential threat and was prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet, we have consistently told Russia that it does not have the same right to a sphere of influence and that a sovereign nation can freely join an alliance that puts an adversary on its doorstep. This is a clear double standard that ignores the reality of great power politics. For a sovereign nation to have its red lines ignored is not just a diplomatic failure; it is an invitation to conflict.
In a world order dominated by the West, it is a sad reality that sovereign nations cannot even trade freely without facing punitive measures. The sanctions regime, a tool of Western foreign policy, has become a blunt instrument to punish any nation that deviates from the American-led path. We have witnessed this with secondary sanctions targeting nations that dared to trade with Iran or Cuba. In the context of Russia, this economic coercion has been weaponized on an unprecedented scale. If we, as sovereign nations, cannot trade with a country of our choosing, how can we possibly expect to enter into defense pacts? A truly sovereign Europe should be able to pursue its own interests, which include robust trade relations with its neighbors. The current system makes this impossible, trapping us in a cycle of dependency and antagonism.
Europe’s abdication of its own security has been a direct result of a lack of a strong, unified European leadership. We have allowed ourselves to become militarily weak, relying on the U.S. to carry the burden of our defense. This has been a comfortable and convenient arrangement, but it is no longer tenable. Our recent efforts to increase defense spending, while noteworthy, reveal the depth of our neglect. While the U.S. spends nearly a trillion dollars annually on defense—more than the next nine countries combined—Europe’s collective military spending, though increasing, remains a fraction of that, with many nations still failing to meet the 2% of GDP target. This chronic underinvestment has left us with fragmented military capabilities, incompatible equipment, and a lack of a unified command structure. We have allowed the United States to lead, and as a result, we have lost the ability to stand on our own feet.
With the changed geopolitical scenario, it is imperative that Europe takes charge of its own destiny. We must build our own robust military, capable of defending our continent without foreign assistance. But more importantly, we must return to the idea of a friendly, cooperative relationship with Russia. Like the U.S. and its neighbors Canada and Mexico, we should aim for a relationship built on mutual respect and shared prosperity. This does not mean appeasement. It means recognizing that our long-term interests are best served by diplomacy, trade, and cooperation, not by endless military buildups and proxy conflicts. A prosperous Europe is one that trades freely, secures its own borders, and makes peace with its neighbors. The time to choose that path is now. The future of our continent is too important to be left to the whims of a geopolitical game that is not our own. We must break free from the past and build a new future, a truly European future.
Comments are closed.