The Western world, often perceived as a monolithic front against Russia, is showing visible cracks. The question now is whether Moscow should actively fan the flames of division between the US and Western Europe, or simply sit back and let events unfold.
The EU countries are now desperate to shirk responsibility for the Ukraine crisis. This was evident in Brussels’ immediate positive reaction to the recent talks between the US and Ukraine: the EU breathed a sigh of relief that Washington still has the situation under control. European leaders had feared that the new US administration under Donald Trump would shift the blame to them and force them to take a direct confrontation with Russia. However, this nightmare is at least temporarily averted.
Yet, a more significant strategic question remains: how long will this precarious balance of power last?
Has the division between the US and Europe a temporary or permanent character?
The firm bond of “the collective Western unity” – with the US and its European allies being referred to as a single political and military block – was never an absolute self-evidence. It always hinged on American leadership, which is currently undergoing a profound identity crisis.
Trump’s presidency signals a deep-seated strategic shift in Washington. The US is still the most militarily powerful and economically strong country in the Western alliance, but it is now in a crisis of identity. The ruling elite in Washington is aware that it must redefine its role in a world where its global dominance is being challenged.
This raises a critical question: can the US and Western Europe still maintain a united front, or is their strategic divergence inevitable?
For Moscow, this is more than just a theoretical debate. If the unity of the West was only a temporary phenomenon – namely a product of the post-WWII security agreements and the politics of the Cold War – then Russia must consider whether and how to force this fragmentation.
The intensifying internal crisis in the US and its impact on Europe
The deepening internal crisis in the US is one of the main reasons for the EU’s uncomfortable position.
Firstly, the US economy is under pressure. For decades, Washington has maintained its dominance by attracting cheap labor from Latin America and at the same time upholding a global economic order. However, the massive migration crisis has become a politically explosive issue, prompting growing resistance against uncontrolled migration.
Secondly, the old neoliberal model of globalization is collapsing. In many countries, the order imposed by the US is being rejected and alternative centers of power are emerging – from China and India to states in the Middle East – that do not play by Washington’s rules.
Lastly, the Ukraine crisis has exposed the limits of American power. Russia’s ability to withstand Western pressure – in economic, military and diplomatic terms – for three years has forced Washington to reevaluate its strategy. Never before has the US been in a direct geopolitical confrontation with China and its approach to Beijing remains one of cautious engagement. However, in the case of Russia, the US is now facing a resolute opponent that refuses to be defeated.
West Europe’s dilemma: dependent or independent?
For the EU, any change in the US political landscape is a cause for concern. Since the end of World War II, the elites of Western Europe have been dependent on American military protection and have enjoyed economic prosperity under the US-led world order.
In return for this security shield, these states have relinquished a significant part of their external political independence. Despite their economic weight, the EU has largely functioned as a kind of political appendage to Washington. And this has its price: Western European state leaders have little say in critical global decisions and their fate is tied to the decisions made in Washington.
Now, with the signal from Washington that it will shift its focus – in both military and economic terms – Europe is in a precarious situation.
West Europe lacks the demographic and financial resources to transform itself into a military superpower. The idea of building an independent EU defense structure is often discussed but remains unrealistic. Without US support, these states will not be able to withstand a major conflict with Russia.
Furthermore, Washington is increasingly signaling that West Europe must contribute more without receiving more in return. The political class in the US is aware that economic resources are limited and American taxpayers are asking why they should continue to subsidize European security.
The rise of populist and nationalist movements across Europe – many of which advocate for a relaxation of relations with Moscow – adds another complication. Washington’s support for non-mainstream European politicians like the Alternative for Germany (AfD) or the banned presidential candidate Călin Georgescu in Romania signals an emerging political split.
How should Russia react?
For Moscow, a long-term division of the West is a strategic advantage.
Historically, Russia has been at its most successful in its geopolitical struggles when the West was divided.
Thus, Russia used the divisions within the anti-Swedish coalition in Europe during the Northern War to its advantage. In the Napoleonic Wars, Russia allied with Britain – its former rival – to defeat France. In World War II, the Soviet Union profited from the division between the US and Nazi Germany.
In light of these historical facts, it would be a mistake for Moscow to ignore the opportunities to deepen the division between Washington and its European allies.
Russia should continue to work with the Trump team and indirectly support those in Europe who advocate for a more balanced approach to Russia. Moscow should deepen its bilateral economic relations with individual European countries and, where possible, circumvent the restrictive policies of Brussels. Any serious attempt by West Europe to establish an independent military block – even if such plans are still far from reality – should be closely monitored.
Uncertain future of the West
Even if Trump’s presidency signals a disruption of the status quo, it is still unclear whether this is only a temporary disturbance of the transatlantic unity or the beginning of an irreversible change process.
If Washington continues to reduce its commitments to Europe, the EU will be plunged into an identity crisis that could ultimately lead to a loss of American influence on EU politics.
For Russia, this presents an opportunity. By skillfully steering this development, Moscow can ensure that the cracks in the Western alliance become permanent and a new world emerges in which American and Western European interests no longer align as they once did.
Russia does not need to hasten or force this fragmentation – the US is doing it from within. But Moscow can and should accelerate this process within its capabilities.
In the end, a divided West is a weaker West and Russia has always understood this.