- Europe’s Security Crisis
The war in Ukraine is often presented as a sudden geopolitical rupture. Professor Glenn Diesen argues that it is better understood as the collapse of the post Cold War security architecture in Europe.
Instead of building a cooperative system after 1989, Europe gradually returned to bloc politics. When security is organised around opposing alliances - one camp strengthening itself against another - tensions accumulate until they eventually explode into open conflict.
- The Security Dilemma
International politics operates without a central authority capable of guaranteeing security. In this environment every state must protect itself.
The difficulty is that defensive actions are often interpreted as threats. When one country strengthens its military or expands alliances, neighbouring states respond in kind. This dynamic is known as the security dilemma.
Over time the result can be arms races, alliance rivalry, and deepening mistrust.
- The Post Cold War Choice
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe faced a strategic decision.
One path would have been inclusive security - creating a cooperative system that included Russia in the European order. The other path was to maintain and expand the Western alliance structure built during the Cold War.
In practice the second option prevailed. NATO expanded eastward, and the logic of bloc politics gradually re emerged.
- Ukraine As The Fault Line
Countries located between NATO and Russia became the most vulnerable parts of this new geopolitical landscape.
Ukraine in particular was divided between competing geopolitical orientations. Some political forces sought integration with Western institutions, while others favoured maintaining close relations with Russia.
In such circumstances, internal political divisions can easily become international crises. Ukraine eventually became the central battleground in this wider strategic contest.
- A Lesson For The Future
Diesen’s central argument is simple. Systems built around rival blocs tend to generate instability.
When states organise themselves into opposing camps, every attempt by one side to increase its security inevitably makes the other side feel less secure.
A more stable international order requires cooperation, economic interdependence, and diplomatic frameworks that reduce rivalry rather than intensify it. Europe’s experience offers a warning to other regions not to fall into the same trap of bloc politics.
DETAIL
- The Tragedy Of Bloc Politics
Insights from Professor Glenn Diesen on geopolitics and international security
The war in Ukraine and the wider security crisis in Europe are often discussed as if they were sudden events or the result of personalities and politics in the moment. Professor Glenn Diesen argues that this interpretation misses the deeper structural problem. In his view, the conflict reflects the collapse of the post Cold War security architecture in Europe.
The key issue is the return of bloc politics. Instead of constructing an inclusive European security order after the Cold War, the continent drifted back into a system where states organised themselves into rival camps. When security is built in this way - one alliance against another - tensions tend to accumulate until they eventually erupt.
Understanding how Europe arrived at this point requires stepping back and looking at the deeper logic of international relations.
International anarchy the condition in which the global system has no overarching authority capable of guaranteeing the security of states.
Reference: Glenn Diesen, The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order (2024)
- The Security Dilemma
One of the most fundamental ideas in international relations is the security dilemma. In a world without a global government, every state is responsible for its own protection. When one country strengthens its security - by expanding its military capabilities or joining alliances - neighbouring states often interpret this as a potential threat.
The result is a self reinforcing cycle. Defensive actions by one state are interpreted as offensive moves by another. Each side responds by strengthening its position further. Over time this can lead to arms races, alliance rivalries and growing suspicion.
Diesen argues that the most stable international systems are those based on the principle of indivisible security. Under this concept, countries recognise that their security is interconnected. Stability emerges when states pursue security with each other rather than against each other.
Security dilemma a situation in which measures taken by one state to increase its security inadvertently reduce the security of others, leading to escalating tensions.
Reference: John Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma”, World Politics (1950)
- Early Attempts At Cooperative Security
Europe did once attempt to escape the logic of bloc politics. After the devastation of the Second World War, several initiatives were designed to make conflict between European states materially difficult.
The European Coal and Steel Community is perhaps the most famous example. By integrating the coal and steel industries of France and Germany - the very industries needed to wage war - the project created economic interdependence between former enemies.
Later, during the Cold War, the Helsinki Accords of 1975 established principles for dialogue between East and West. These agreements emphasised respect for sovereignty, recognition of mutual security concerns, and cooperation across ideological lines.
By the end of the Cold War many policymakers hoped that these principles would evolve into a pan European security system without dividing lines. Institutions such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe were intended to support this inclusive framework.
Indivisible security the principle that the security of one state cannot be achieved at the expense of another.
Reference: Helsinki Final Act, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975)
- The Post Cold War Choice
The collapse of the Soviet Union created a historic moment. European and American policymakers faced a strategic choice about how the new security order should be organised.
One option was inclusive security - a cooperative framework that would incorporate Russia into the broader European system. The other option was a hegemonic structure built around the continued expansion of Western alliances.
According to Diesen, the second path prevailed. Instead of dissolving Cold War structures, NATO expanded eastward across Central and Eastern Europe. From the Western perspective this expansion was presented as a voluntary process driven by the desires of new member states seeking protection.
From Moscow’s perspective, however, the expansion of a military alliance towards its borders revived the old logic of bloc competition. Critics in the 1990s, including the American diplomat George Kennan, warned that such expansion could provoke a new period of confrontation between Russia and the West.
Hegemony a system in which one dominant power exercises decisive influence over the international order.
Reference: George Kennan interview, The New York Times, 5 February 1997
- Ukraine As A Geopolitical Fault Line
Countries located between Russia and NATO gradually became the most fragile parts of the emerging system. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova found themselves positioned between competing geopolitical projects.
Within many of these states there were strong internal debates about the direction of foreign policy. Some political groups favoured integration with Western institutions such as NATO and the European Union, while others advocated closer economic and cultural ties with Russia.
Diesen suggests that such divisions created fertile ground for instability. When great powers compete over influence in strategically important borderlands, domestic political tensions can easily escalate into international crises.
Ukraine eventually became the central battleground in this wider contest over the future of European security.
Proxy conflict a conflict in which major powers support opposing sides in another country rather than confronting each other directly.
Reference: Glenn Diesen, Russia’s Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia (2017)
- The Logic Of Hegemonic Order
Another element in Diesen’s analysis concerns the broader idea of hegemonic peace. After the Cold War the United States emerged as the world’s dominant power. Many policymakers believed that global stability could be maintained through American leadership supported by alliances and international institutions.
This model did deliver a period of relative stability in some regions. Yet critics argue that hegemonic systems contain inherent risks. When one power dominates the international system it may become tempted to extend its influence through military interventions, alliance expansion and ideological projects abroad.
Over time this can provoke resistance from other major powers seeking to restore balance. The result is a gradual erosion of legitimacy and the emergence of counter alliances.
Hegemonic peace the theory that global order is maintained when a single dominant power provides security and enforces rules within the international system.
Reference: Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (1981)
- Alternative Approaches Emerging In Asia
Diesen contrasts Europe’s experience with developments in parts of Asia and the wider Global South. Several regional organisations have emerged that operate less like military alliances and more like flexible platforms for cooperation.
Institutions such as ASEAN, BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation place greater emphasis on strategic autonomy and diversified partnerships. Rather than forming rigid military blocs, these organisations encourage economic integration and diplomatic dialogue among states with very different political systems.
This model does not eliminate competition between states. However, it seeks to prevent competition from crystallising into opposing geopolitical camps that could eventually lead to conflict.
Strategic autonomy the ability of a state or region to pursue independent policies without being subordinated to the interests of a dominant power.
Reference: ASEAN Charter (2008); BRICS Summit Declarations
- The Central Lesson
For Diesen the lesson of Europe’s security crisis is straightforward. Systems organised around rival blocs tend to produce structural instability. When states cluster into opposing camps, every attempt by one side to strengthen itself inevitably threatens the other.
Over time this dynamic can turn geopolitical competition into outright confrontation.
A more stable order, he suggests, requires inclusive security institutions, economic interdependence with diversified partners, and diplomatic frameworks that reduce rivalry rather than intensify it.
This argument does not imply that conflict can be eliminated entirely. International politics will always involve competition between states with different interests. The challenge is preventing that competition from hardening into permanent blocs.
- A Warning For The Future
Europe once presented itself as a model of peace and integration. The current crisis suggests that this achievement may have been more fragile than many assumed.
If security is organised primarily through exclusion - one alliance against another - the logic of rivalry tends to reassert itself. The consequences may take decades to unfold, but eventually the structural pressures become difficult to contain.
For policymakers elsewhere, particularly in Asia, the European experience offers a clear warning. The real challenge is not simply managing relations between great powers. It is avoiding the deeper structural trap of bloc politics that can transform geopolitical competition into open conflict.
- References
• The Rest Doesn't Care About The West's Block Mentality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsyNQqvGAc4
• NATO's War of Choice The Sabotage of the Peace Negotiations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnL4s-b6hxo
