Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Europe
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

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.