Over the centuries, “the West” has come to represent much more than a geographic region. It now embodies the enduring legacy of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, the cultural achievements of the European Renaissance, the evolution of political philosophy, and the spirit of exploration and discovery.
However, since the end of World War II the term has taken a more explicitly geopolitical and security-oriented meaning. From the mid-1940s until the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe and its allies often defined themselves not only by their shared ideals, but also by their opposition to the Soviet Union.
US President Donald Trump, in one of his many inane remarks about history and global affairs, claimed that the EU was established to “screw” the US. In fact, the opposite is true.
After 1945, Europeans were eager for the US to remain actively involved rather than turn inward, as it had after World War I. Left to their own devices, European nations risked drifting into yet another conflict, potentially forcing the US to intervene again to restore peace. To prevent that, European leaders urged the US to maintain its presence on the continent as a bulwark against the growing threat of the Soviet Union.
In response, the US encouraged Europe to pursue greater economic and political integration, leading to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community and, eventually, the European Common Market. Both were seen by the US as essential to ensuring long-term peace and prosperity among its transatlantic allies, and preventing the continent from impoverishing itself through trade wars and protectionist policies.
In 1949, NATO was established to defend Europe against Soviet expansionism. Together, the US and an increasingly integrated Europe laid the foundation for what we now call “the West” — a group of countries bound by democratic values and a strong commitment to multilateral cooperation.
The postwar order was underpinned by the US’ status as the world’s leading economic and military power. As the Soviet Union collapsed — largely due to Western unity and resolve — former communist states transformed into market-oriented democracies, with relatively little violence apart from the tragic wars in the Balkans.
Regrettably, the US has abandoned the leadership role it naturally assumed during the postwar era, as Trump continues to dismantle the international order by undermining institutions and values that he neither understands nor respects.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has shown even less regard for democratic norms and the rule of law than he did during his first term. His recent actions call to mind US Vice President J.D. Vance’s description of Trump as “America’s Hitler” (before he seized the opportunity to ride Trump’s coattails to the US Senate and, ultimately, the vice presidency.)
While I would not use such strong language, Trump is undoubtedly an authoritarian and a corrupt bully. Like a medieval monarch, he appears to believe that everything is his to claim simply because he wants it.
Given his authoritarian tendencies, it is hardly surprising that Trump does not care for the liberal democratic order. In his view, other leaders are there to be instructed, not consulted. Any hint of disagreement is likely to provoke retaliatory economic measures, often in the form of tariffs on their exports to the US.
The recent G7 meeting is a prime example. The group of the world’s leading industrialized nations once had an eighth member, Russia, but after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the group’s other members rightly expelled it, turning the G8 back into the G7. Yet despite Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine, Trump opened the summit in Canada by calling for Russia to be readmitted.
Much like his Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in February, Trump continued to blame Ukraine for being invaded. Russia’s record of unprovoked aggression appears to matter little to him. Once again, he gave the clear impression of being in Putin’s pocket.
Today, it is difficult to identify any values that most liberal democratic leaders still share with Trump. As a result, the US’ allies must confront a sobering reality: the US — once the undisputed leader of the free world — is no longer a reliable partner.
While it was once widely believed that powerful nations had a responsibility to consider the interests of weaker ones, Trump views the world differently. In his eyes, the strength of the US gives it the right to act as it pleases, and other nations should simply accept the consequences.
This mindset helps explain Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites rather than use diplomacy to persuade the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but while Trump has celebrated the outcome of his “very successful attack,” Western unity and cooperation are far more likely to encourage Iran to play a more constructive and peaceful international role.
To be sure, Iran’s dangerous and repressive regime is, at least in part, the result of serious mistakes Western nations have made in dealing with the country over the past 70 years.
The most notable example, of course, is the US-backed overthrow of its first democratically elected government in 1953.
The question now is whether Trump’s decision to bomb Iran has compounded these errors and dragged an already divided West into yet another bloody war in the Middle East. If so, it hardly inspires confidence that global stability and the international order are in the hands of a dangerously unstable leader.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is a former chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS