Follow us on social

google cta
Between friends, are there cracks in the cold war consensus?

Between friends, are there cracks in the cold war consensus?

As the G7 approaches, Biden and company should take note that European partners aren't exactly marching lockstep behind them.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

As his much anticipated summit meeting in Geneva with Russian president Vladimir Putin approaches, U.S. President Joe Biden has been on the receiving end of much unsolicited public advice from former Obama officials such as Ben Rhodes and Michael McFaul as to how to deal with his Russian counterpart. 

Even members of the press corps are wondering how Mr. Biden plans to confront Mr. Putin over the latter’s long litany of offenses against the United States. That now familiar list includes Russia’s interference in the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, and the hacking of the Colonial Pipeline. Some even throw in the infamous Russian bounties on American soldiers, despite that story being uncorroborated and largely discredited.

The Blob has decreed and thus it should be so: The new cold war requires the American president to show “strength” and “resolve” in the face of the Russian strongman. 

And maybe it does.

But in light of the other item on Mr. Biden’s European agenda, that of the G7 meeting in Cornwall, England, that will precede the U.S.-Russia summit, it may be worth pondering whether the underlying assumptions with regard to Russian malfeasance and how to deal with it, is shared by our closest allies. After all, Mr. Biden and his team have long stated that they plan to take a conciliatory approach to make up for what was often said to be Trump’s bullying of America’s closest friends and allies. Biden and Co. have made it clear that they plan to treat European concerns with the seriousness and respect they deserve. 

It has become common for writers, correspondents, and foreign policy analysts to view the new cold war in the same lens as the first one: That of a competition or standoff between “Russia and The West” (and I am as guilty of employing that shorthand as anyone). Yet do current European trends justify viewing the current great power competition in such broad strokes? In other words, are our European allies in lockstep behind the U.S. foreign policy establishment’s desire to turn the world’s largest nuclear power into a pariah state?

If the public statements of French President Emmanuel Macron are anything to go on, the answer is “probably not.” During his 2017 campaign for the French presidency, Macron described the foreign policy of his immediate predecessors (Sarkozy and Hollande) as a form of imported “neoconservatism” and, by way of contrast, pledged he would pursue a Gaullist policy that would move away from the narrow confines of cold war era Atlanticism. In the succeeding years, Macron has criticized NATO (in blunt terms that de Gaulle himself might have used) as having “experienced brain death.” In a conversation with the Financial Times this past February Macron said, “Nobody can tell me that today’s Nato is a structure that, in its foundations, is still pertinent. It was founded to face down the Warsaw Pact. There is no more a Warsaw Pact.”

He has also questioned the wisdom — so entrenched in Washington — of trying to isolate Russia from the West. As recently as 2019, Macron backed the idea of Russia’s return to the Council of Europe as well as its participation in future G7 meetings. 

Indeed, the French have long been frustrated with what they view as America’s heavy-handed policy toward Russia, particularly with regard to its over reliance on sanctions. As the Paris-based correspondent Diane Johnstone has reported, U.S. legislation targeting French and German companies doing business with the Nord Stream pipeline consortium and Iran (what are known as “secondary sections”) have sparked outrage in the French capital.

Similar frustrations have been building in Germany over U.S. efforts to stymie the construction of Nord Stream. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has spoken out against American efforts to burn “one of the last bridges between Russia and Europe” while Chancellor Angela Merkel’s possible successor, Armin Laschet (who has described himself as a “pragmatist”) has a pro-business record that leaves some pro-NATO Atlanticists worried he is not the hardened cold warrior needed in these times.

In May, Macron noted that “We are at a moment of truth in our relationship with Russia, which should lead us to rethink the terms of the tension that we decide to put in place.” And it does seem that there is plenty of re-thinking going on in Paris and Berlin about the wisdom of an enduring East-West confrontation. With the Geneva summit on the horizon, the Biden team might begin to take seriously its own rhetoric about the importance of listening to our allies.


File photo dated August 24, 2019 French President Emmanuel Macron, President of the European Council Donald Tusk, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at the EU meeting during the G7 summit held at Hôtel du Palais, in Biarritz, France. Photo by Thibaud Moritz/ABACAPRESS.COM|Image: Postmodern Studio via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Europe
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.