Our world is in the midst of rapid and large-scale changes that pose a psychological challenge to people regardless of whether they are so-called ordinary individuals or those whose decisions shape the fate and future of many others.

No matter the cost, we must adapt to these changes because the strategies and tactics that once worked no longer guarantee success. New, more effective approaches must be developed and then implemented. Wise decisions begin with an objective assessment of the situation, taking into account all possible arguments for and against taking or not taking action.

Some of the most dramatic changes are currently happening in the field of security, particularly for the Western world. At the heart of it all, for the people of the West, the question is no longer about self-fulfillment, but about survival.

This shift upends the entire logic of life that had prevailed in our civilization since 1945. That period was called the "long peace" and from today's perspective, even the Cold War might more accurately be called the "Cold Peace." Looking back now, it seems clear: it was truly a good time, during which many countries in the Western world built welfare societies where life steadily improved.

It is time for Europe to wake up from its slumber and realize that it is facing malevolent forces —and that dealing with them must begin with its own efforts. The fact that Europe can no longer count on the United States as a reliable ally, one that would come to its aid unconditionally in the event of a real conventional war, must be taken with the utmost seriousness. The threats and insults directed at the European Union by President Donald Trump and those close to him carry an ominous tone.

US security strategy

Today, Ukraine is the military force carrying out NATO's Article 5 — that is, defending Europe from the Russians, even though it is not officially a member of either the European Union or NATO. As is well known, NATO was established to "keep the Americans in and the Russians out," not to resolve conflicts in far-flung corners of the world. All of NATO's previous operations can be seen as rehearsals, exercises for "a military conflict with a real enemy" — a way to check whether the alliance actually functions as it should.

President Trump brought an end to the traditional assurance that America could always be counted on right at the start of his second term. When journalists asked him during his first European visit whether the U.S. would step in during a military conflict with Russia, Trump's response was unequivocal: "Under no circumstances, you'll have to manage on your own." In effect, he encouraged Russia to be more assertive toward Europe.

America's latest national security strategy put a bold exclamation mark on this shift. It clearly lays out what the Trump administration considers a top priority and what it deems secondary.

First, China is no longer viewed as an ideological enemy, but as an (economic) competitor, one that has benefited most from globalization and the postwar world order, particularly at America's expense, which Trump aims to reverse in his quest to "make America great again."

In this maneuver, Trump hopes to use Russia against China — a prospect that, considering both Russia and China are authoritarian states deeply infected by the virus of communism, seems highly unlikely. Secondly, the White House appears to welcome Russian pressure on Europe, seeing it as a way to force EU leaders into greater obedience.

In Trump's eyes, Russia is a vast resource that the United States could exploit if only "good deals" can be made with the Kremlin. The European Union, which Trump has claimed was created to rob and destroy America, is seen as a structure that must be dismantled so that European nations and peoples would once again be divided and individually too weak to resist the major powers. It is telling that Moscow views the European Union with the same predatory gaze.

America's current policy toward Europe is deeply hypocritical. On the one hand, it refuses to take responsibility for Europe's security; on the other, it shamelessly meddles in the internal affairs of the European Union and its member states.

The current U.S. administration seems to forget that, to the Russians, the United States is the Great Satan — the embodiment of everything Russia's rulers have always despised. As far back as Ivan the Terrible, Russian leaders have scolded the English crown for handing over power to merchants. President Trump is likely seen by Vladimir Putin as just another "useful idiot," like the Western businessmen who tried to get rich in Lenin's Russia — only to end up "selling the rope with which they would later be hanged."

States have a tendency to be lazy

For Estonia, the collapse of the Soviet Union meant an opportunity to regain freedom — an opportunity we successfully seized. In a single generation, we have built up our state and done quite well. Anyone who is even slightly willing to look should have no doubt about that.

We've also adapted to the values of a welfare society where, figuratively speaking, "even flying squirrels must be allowed to fly and battery hens must be freed." These kinds of topics are entirely appropriate for peacetime welfare societies, but they lose their weight in times of war, even if we hesitate to call it war and prefer instead a state within the bounds of peace, a status mixtus or hybrid war.

Raul Rebane offered a good suggestion: to understand a person, ask who they think our main enemy is. He was absolutely right when he said, "Astonishingly many people believe it's someone within Estonia, some political party or individual. If that's the answer you get, it's clear the poor soul is confusing discomfort, misfortune and catastrophe. Estonia's only true catastrophe would be the loss of freedom. Everything else is just a problem."

We now find ourselves in a situation where Russia sees Europe as a tempting prize, while the current American administration wouldn't mind taking a bite out of it either — if it proved useful.

It's important to clarify that, on a practical level, the United States has not (yet) turned its back on Europe. But it has become an unreliable ally, one that, in a crisis, could go either way. With such a partner, it's wise to always plan for the worst, to avoid being hopelessly disappointed later.

So what resources does Europe truly have in the event of a conflict with Russia if its greatest security guarantor steps aside or even seeks to exploit the situation for its own gain, as has repeatedly happened in Ukraine?

Europe's options can be viewed in two ways: first, as completely on its own; second, through the formation of a new defense bloc — a coalition of allies without the United States. In either case, the combined strength of EU countries, bolstered by members of a "coalition of the willing" such as Canada, Australia, South Korea and Japan, could be enough to withstand Russian aggression even without American involvement.

Of course, we can and should hope that what is happening with the U.S. is temporary. Maybe things will change — we'll see. But for some reason, certain "well-meaning advisors" who suggest aligning Estonia's policy with pre–World War II thinking are hard to ignore. Back then, the belief was: concede a little and the worst might be avoided; a big war is coming anyway and everything will eventually sort itself out. The war came, but setting things right took half a century — two full generations — not to mention the countless sacrifices we endured under occupation.

When will we finally understand that we're supposed to be seated at the table when European decisions are made — not on the table, where we may end up if things take a dark turn? Yes, Europe has been hesitant and cautious, but that posture was carefully taught to Europeans after World War II. After all, NATO's third core goal was to "keep Germany down" and in practice, that meant restraining all the powerful European nations. The cornerstone of America's postwar policy was to ensure that war would never again break out in Europe and risk spiraling into a global conflagration, as it did twice in the 20th century.

America kept Europe in a "soft embrace" throughout the postwar decades, even though it had initially promised to withdraw from Europe as quickly as possible. But it didn't leave — not until the end of the Cold Peace. All that time, Europe's allies were steered down a path of disarmament and pacifism.

Nations, like individuals, tend to grow lazy and comfortable if allowed to do so. The result was real disarmament and a fundamental surrender of nuclear capability to NATO. France's rebellion against this "embrace" in the early 1960s ensured that its nuclear weapons remain solely under national control to this day.

Yet when America now criticizes Europe for the resulting state of affairs, it acts unjustly, because it was the one that made such a situation possible in the first place. And now, as war has once again broken out in Europe, America is not addressing the root cause — Russia's aggressive ambitions — but something else entirely. History shows that Russian imperialism and aggression must never be ignored, but it is even more foolish to encourage the Kremlin. And that is precisely what America is currently doing under the leadership of President Trump.

No one denies that the United States remains a democratic country. And hopefully, Americans will in time resolve their internal issues. Of course, we should always hope that the next elections correct the major strategic missteps of the past. But no one knows when things will turn around for the better and that delay could prove fatal for us.

Even more puzzling is the emergence, alongside "Islam-understanders" and "Putinverstehers," of a new group in the Western world: those who claim to grasp President Trump's deep wisdom and foresight — truths allegedly beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals.

Why, then, do I recall the domestic "advisors" of the past — those who urged us to prepare for Russia's inevitable return to greatness and power, so we might benefit from its goodwill? These new "understanders" suggest we should entrust ourselves without hesitation to the whims of decision-makers across the ocean. In plain terms, this means following nearly all of the United States' initiatives and accommodating as many of its business interests as possible in the hope that they will be benevolent toward us and stand with us to "defend Narva."

But what happens if that benevolent power from across the ocean strongly urges us to make peace with Moscow or else? What then? It's always worth recalling the eve of World War II when Europe's great decision-makers were faced with a choice between dishonor and war. They chose dishonor and got war as well, as Winston Churchill put it.

Our task now is to support all those on both sides of the Atlantic who remember that grave error in judgment and are determined never to repeat it.

Family feud between Europe and America

We must tirelessly repeat that we are one family — a Western, Christian civilization — in which unity is essential in an increasingly anxious world. Even in a good family, arguments happen, but eventually, peace is made and people return to being a loving household. What we are witnessing now is a family dispute between Europe and the United States and into this quarrel, outsiders — figures from entirely different families — are being dragged in, whether out of ignorance, greed or malice. For Europe, this is an opportunity to truly wake up and leave behind its previous helplessness, whether that helplessness was self-taught or instilled from outside.

Americans are no longer credible guarantors of European security, as shown, among other things, by the fate of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Russia's primary objective in Europe is the subjugation of Ukraine — in essence, the destruction of that country's sovereignty. But Putin's ambitions go further: he also wants a say in NATO affairs, an audacious demand that is nothing short of outrageous.

What is today's supposedly "terrifying" Russia really like? What are the Kremlin's resources when assessed objectively? Even Putin has admitted that Russia has only a fraction of the military resources available to the United States. As a result, he has said, Russia must rely on asymmetric tools to make up for its conventional military shortcomings.

In truth, Europe is now experiencing a paradoxical situation: it is Ukraine that is providing security for Europeans — not the other way around. The side that loses is the one that runs out of strength first. Russia is clearly on a path to defeat, having staked everything on fear. Only collective cowardice in the West could still hand Russia a victory in its war against Ukraine.

In this war, Russia has already depleted its reserves. That strategic emptiness means that it's only a matter of time before the country descends into yet another period of major internal turmoil. A new "Time of Troubles" is practically at hand and trying to prevent it with help from the West would be an incredibly foolish mistake. Such a breakdown in Russia could give hope to all of us, including to reasonable Russians, that a better and less aggressive Russia might one day emerge.

"You know who your friends are in a pinch," as old Estonian wisdom puts it. A true friend doesn't turn their back in difficult times, doesn't put on a good face for a bad situation and certainly doesn't exploit a friend's weaknesses for personal gain.

Who are truly our friends and partners in fate? That's a question we must ask ourselves honestly, without evasion. And the honest answer is: they are here, close by, in our neighborhood — in Europe. And so is our centuries-old enemy, whose transformation we naturally hope for, but in the current circumstances, it's best not to count on it.

Friends, try for a moment to forget the grand confrontation between America and China in the Pacific — a clash that may well become enormous, even colossal, but which has little to do with us. Come back down to earth, where right beside us stands an aggressive Russia that will not hesitate to exploit any of our weaknesses.

America, too, needs Europe as an ally now more than ever. Trump's second term began with turmoil in this same Western Hemisphere that his own security strategy declares to be an area of vital national interest. No one wants to talk about Canada or Greenland anymore, though those countries surely haven't forgotten the bellicose rhetoric aimed at them. And we, the Europeans, must be ready, when necessary, to tell the Americans plainly: "Gentlemen, you're on the wrong path. That way lies disaster."

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!