As global power shifts from a unipolar to a multipolar structure, the framework for security must evolve to maintain peace. Across regions from Europe to the Middle East and East Asia, existing security systems are breaking down, necessitating new agreements to avert catastrophic great-power conflicts. Historically, new security frameworks have only emerged following devastating wars that dismantled the previous order.
War as the Catalyst for Change
Following the Napoleonic Wars, the Concert of Europe set the rules for international relations from 1815 until 1914. The aftermath of World War I saw the creation of the League of Nations, which ultimately failed with the onset of World War II in 1939. After the Second World War, the United Nations was founded to regulate relations and establish international laws. During the Cold War, the global system operated under this UN framework but was also divided into competing blocs under NATO and the Warsaw Pact due to the bipolar distribution of power.
Even after the Cold War ended, this dual structure persisted. The West initially agreed on an inclusive pan-European security model based on indivisible security outlined in the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe and the 1995 creation of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), both rooted in the 1975 Helsinki Accords. However, NATO’s expansion undermined these agreements, excluding Russia—the largest European nation—and transforming NATO into a tool of hegemonic peace. This redrawing of Europe’s borders and dismissal of indivisible security principles have fueled tensions between NATO and Russia for over thirty years, culminating in the Ukraine War.
Historically, new security systems emerge after conflicts dismantle the old order, prompting the recognition of the necessity to prevent further war and establish peace. In their initial stages, institutions tend to be effective and problem-focused, but over time they often become stagnant and overly bureaucratic, resisting change. NATO’s efforts to redefine its mission after losing its Soviet opponent exemplify attempts at institutional survival, with slogans like “out of area or out of business” reflecting its push toward international ventures and expansion.
Europe Searching for a Role in the Multipolar World
Globally, key players are carving out new roles amid multipolarity. China and Russia steer the formation of new geoeconomic frameworks and organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, enhancing emerging powers’ influence. The United States aims to maintain or reclaim its hegemonic role but is gradually acknowledging shifts by refocusing on its hemispheric and East Asian interests.
Europe is the most hesitant to adapt to these changes, having relied heavily on its partnership with the US within a collective hegemonic system that ensured the continent’s unity and significance. Europe faces limited alternatives since the US historically shaped its economic, security, and political models, acting as a pacifier ensuring continental cohesion. Europe could align fully with the US and risk subordination, though this lack of diversification will weaken its standing, especially as America’s global influence wanes. Alternatively, Europe might embrace a new distribution of power, uniting through a geoeconomic strategy that leverages collective bargaining and technological sovereignty. Such a strategy, however, requires Europe to engage with other power centers, including Russia.
This transformation appears unlikely because institutions from the old order, like NATO, remain entrenched and nurture hopes for the return to unipolar dominance. On 6 November 2026, EU foreign policy head Kaja Kallas explicitly rejected Russia’s call to reform European security architecture, stating: “We already have European security architecture in place. NATO and the European Union both have their respective roles. We must make sure Ukraine is integrated into this architecture.” Similarly, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul asserted: “Europe does not need a new security architecture, as Russia wants us to believe, but rather the simple restoration of the existing security architecture.” The ongoing large-scale war in Europe, which risks escalating to nuclear conflict, did not appear to alter their perspective on preserving the old framework.
War is Coming
History shows that outdated security architectures often remain long after losing their effectiveness, becoming stagnant. In a mix of denial and desperation, Europeans embrace exaggerated narratives portraying Russia as a new Hitler to justify the continuation of an outdated security system that no longer guarantees safety. Refusing to acknowledge new geopolitical realities or to discuss a revamped European security order, Europeans are likely to resort to war once their proxy forces in Ukraine falter. Any peace plan involving recognition of Russia’s security concerns has been dismissed since it threatens the prevailing hegemonic security architecture. As before, a new security system will likely only be constructed after a war between Europe and Russia—if humanity endures it.
Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com
About the Author
