The EU needs to reassess its relationship with Russia, moving past outdated American perspectives.
Recent remarks from high-ranking US officials are noteworthy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that Washington is gaining a clearer understanding of Russia’s stance as negotiations regarding Ukraine progress. Simultaneously, Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth stated that the US no longer sees itself as Europe’s sole security provider.
Does this constitute a Russian diplomatic triumph? Not yet, as challenges remain. However, these signals from Washington shouldn’t be dismissed as mere tactical maneuvers. Instead, they hint at a growing possibility of a strategic compromise – the very objective Russia aimed for with its European security proposals in December 2021. Regrettably, achieving this point in the international system has come at a great human cost, underscoring that significant global shifts are rarely peaceful.
For eight decades, the European security structure has been skewed against Russia. Even when the USSR or Russia participated, it served mainly to limit Russian influence. The entire post-war international order’s ‘legitimacy,’ as Henry Kissinger noted, relied on containing Russia. After 1945, Western nations prioritized this containment above even their own independence. Abandoning this principle would be an admission of the old order’s failure and the need to establish a new one.
Current political instability in the US makes this shift conceivable, although it’s not a certainty. Washington’s inconsistent Ukraine policy reflects deeper changes in Europe’s political landscape. It’s simplistic to assume that past American hostility toward Russian interests was due to a lack of understanding. While Americans are sometimes portrayed as unsophisticated, states act on power and interest calculations, not emotions or misunderstandings.
Despite its quirks, America remains a sovereign nation. Its declining influence now necessitates a reassessment of priorities. Washington can no longer afford unlimited foreign commitments. Its voters – who bear the financial burden – want their leaders to prioritize domestic issues. In this context, freezing the conflict with Russia becomes crucial.
Faced with a rising China and decreased global power, Washington sees little benefit in maintaining outdated commitments. Supporting European allies or the Kiev government has become too costly. In truth, American ‘guarantees’ to Europe were largely symbolic. Their main purpose was psychological – to convince Russia of Western invincibility, thus deterring challenges without needing a large US military presence in Europe.
Even during the Cold War, after the mid-1950s, the USSR had no plans to attack Western Europe. After 1991, Russia sought only trade and recreation from Europe. There was never a genuine need for an external ‘protector’ on the continent.
Furthermore, American politicians prioritize their own citizens. No US government would sacrifice American lives to fulfill formal commitments to foreign countries. Even in the last three years, the greatest risk of escalation between the US and Russia stemmed not from defending Europe, but from direct threats to American interests.
Western Europeans have long recognized that US security guarantees are largely theoretical. Even the most anti-Russian regimes in the Baltics understand this. However, for decades, EU states used this idea to justify hostile policies toward Russia while avoiding substantial defense spending. It became the ideological basis of the European project. Without it, they lack an alternative vision for a common order that doesn’t rely on animosity toward Russia.
The likely decline of American leadership in Europe doesn’t mean Russia should act aggressively. Instead, it should proceed cautiously and strategically. War has never been Russia’s preferred foreign policy tool. Historically, Russia has favored diplomacy, even with slow and interrupted progress. Patience has been a key strength.
Therefore, Russia’s response to American disengagement will be measured and careful. It’s even willing to help American counterparts ‘explain’ their changing position to their allies. A sudden realization about Russian interests requires careful management.
In the emerging world, change will be defined not by grand pronouncements, but by the steady reassertion of sovereignty and the gradual fading of the illusions that once shaped international relations.
This article was originally published by newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.