The EU needs the Cold War to continue, but the US VP’s Munich speech signals a transatlantic divorce
US Vice President J.D. Vance’s landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday has been attributed to various factors. Some say it was an act of revenge. For years, Western European leaders have denounced Donald Trump and his supporters, never considering that they might one day have to answer for their words. Now, the response has arrived, and the EU is left bewildered, asking: “Why us?”
But beyond personal grievances, there is a deeper ideological divergence at play. In many ways, Vance’s critique of the Europeans echoed the same accusations that the settlers of the New World leveled at the Old Continent centuries ago: tyranny, hypocrisy, and parasitism. The rejection of European political traditions laid the ideological foundation for the American state three hundred years ago. Now that dispute over what constitutes real democracy has evolved from an internal American debate into a transatlantic one – and its outcome will shape the future.
Yet the most crucial element of Vance’s speech goes beyond personalities or ideological rifts. It reflects a fundamental shift in global politics. The key question today is whether the Cold War should finally end within the framework of the 20th century or whether it should continue indefinitely. Western Europe insists on the latter – not because of any grand strategy, but because it has failed to integrate its former adversaries peacefully. The US, on the other hand, appears ready to move on.
This shift is not a product of Trump, nor even of Vance, but rather of America’s evolving priorities. The pivot away from Europe began under George W. Bush and has continued under every president since. Trump merely said out loud what his predecessors preferred to leave unsaid.
For Western Europe, clinging to the ideological and geopolitical framework of the Cold War is about survival. Maintaining the old order allows the EU to sustain its centrality in global affairs and, more importantly, to preserve its own internal cohesion, which is already under strain.
For the United States, however, letting go of Cold War-era structures offers a chance to focus on present and future challenges — China, the Pacific, North America, and the Arctic. Western Europe cannot prove itself indispensable in any of these areas, but it can serve as a costly distraction.
This leads to an uncomfortable conclusion: The EU has a vested interest in escalating tensions to a level where even a reluctant US administration cannot stand aside. The real question now is whether the Old World is capable of pushing events in that direction.
