The security system in Europe will obviously transform, especially under pressure from the United States. Eurasia will remain on its path, where the main priority will be a balance between integration and preserving national sovereignty, Darya Saprynskaya writes.
At the 61st Munich Conference, US Vice President J.D. Vance outlined three systemic challenges to security in Europe: migration, the sustainability of democratic principles, and the revival of freedom of speech. The context of his speech is related to the foundations of the transatlantic alliance and the role of the US as a leading force. It is obvious that the Americans are changing the rules of the game for Europe; whether they change them for the rest of the world is a tricky question.
In recent years, the countries of the Global South, including Russia, China, and the Central Asian states, have been taking steps toward institutionalising a regional security architecture. The key mechanisms are integration projects — the SCO, BRICS, the EAEU, and the CSTO, as well as major infrastructure initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the North-South Transport Corridor. These integration projects form an alternative format of interaction that takes into account the features of a multipolar world; they also allow for the creation of a foundation for a new image of security in Eurasia.
The transatlantic alliance operates according to a similar structure, going beyond US-Europe relations, and includes the entire collective West and other institutions of the alliance, particular NATO. Therefore, in Munich, Vance pointed out not only the problems in interaction with Europe, but also the general importance of “true” democracy, which allies of America should follow. Before Vance’s theses, the Global South, represented by Russia and China, was designated as the West’s existential enemy. Containing these powers had been the main goal of transatlantic security. Now the focus is on the internal stability of European institutions. This shift in rhetoric underscores the change in the US approach: from global confrontation to strengthening its own position within the alliance. In addition, the new approach outlines a different divide between the collective West and the Global South.
Could the challenges outlined by Vance be relevant for the countries of Eurasia? The first challenge is migration. It is definitely a common problem for a single security framework, regardless of the region. For modern Europe, migration is akin to the invasion of the Huns. From the American perspective, this destabilising force is bringing Europe closer to its end.
For the Eurasian space, migration has a double effect: it contributes to the growth of economic well-being, but is also associated with a disproportion in demographics. The interaction between Russia and the Central Asian countries is a good example of the dual effect of migration: on the one hand, it contributes to economic growth due to the labour force, while on the other, it creates demographic and social challenges. Central Asia, along with regions of Asia with a high population density, are experiencing obvious demographic pressure, which can destroy the regional security system.
The crisis of values was another challenge outlined by Vance. Europe needs a new gendarme in the person of Trump, who will reconsider not only the value orientation of democracy, but also financial support for these ideals. Unlike Europe, the Global South is only just forming a single reference point. The specificity of the region is in its diversity and traditionalism. It is important that all countries related to the Global South have multidirectional interests; almost all implement their foreign policy in the context of a multi-vector approach. Manoeuvring between preserving their sovereignty and shared Eurasian security is a significant obstacle.
Despite Vance’s statement that the main threat to Europe’s security comes from within, Russia and China still remain factors of destabilisation for it. That is why the role of the connecting region – Central Asia – may increase.
Thus, the security system in Europe will obviously transform, especially under pressure from the United States. Eurasia will remain on its path, where the main priority will be a balance between integration and preserving national sovereignty.
