On July 10th, local time, U.S. President Donald Trump stated in a media interview that he would make a “major statement” on the Russia-Ukraine issue on the 14th. Most analysts believe that his remarks might pertain to adjusting policy towards Russia.
On the same day, Trump once again expressed his “disappointment” with Russian President Vladimir Putin and claimed that he had agreed to provide Ukraine with more weapons, including the Patriot air defense system, under the condition that NATO pays all costs.
Currently, Trump still harbors “final hopes” for mediation of the conflict. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also mentioned that he held nearly an hour-long talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on July 10th. The Russian side offered some “new ideas” for resolving the Ukraine issue, which the U.S. will assess.
However, the battlefield situation shows no clear trend towards a closer stop to the conflict. On July 10th, both sides launched larger-scale drone operations than before, firing over 300 and more than 150 drones respectively at each other’s cities and rear targets.
“This is definitely a long and dirty war,” said Barry Buzan, a retired professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and an academician of the British Academy, to China Newsweek. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a “proxy war” and also a war about “civilizational boundaries.” Both Russia and the West have made significant bets, making it difficult for the conflict to end in a short period of time.
Mr. Buzan, who is now eighty years old, is one of the most influential international relations scholars in the world today, especially known for his expertise in security studies, and is considered a representative figure of the “British School” and the “Copenhagen School” of international relations. His theory on regional security complexes accurately predicted the changes and collapses in security order across Europe and the Middle East today.
In July of this year, during the 13th World Peace Forum in Beijing, Buzhan was interviewed by China Newsweek. He candidly stated that after the arrival of “Trump 2.0”, he still struggles to determine where Trump will stand in the new confrontational competition and whether the transatlantic relations between the United States and Europe have been “significantly weakened” or completely collapsed. “However, one thing is certain: the level of trust between the US and Europe has plummeted, and it’s impossible to return to that level.”
On July 4th, the third session of the 13th World Peace Forum took place in Beijing. Photography/China Newsweek, Jiang Qiming
Europe “Rearms,” Consequences Unpredictable
China Newsweek: How do you understand the essence of the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
I understand this war from two perspectives. Firstly, it is somewhat similar to the Vietnam War as a “half-proxy war”. This means that Russia and the West are in a Cold War state, but Russia and its Western proxy Ukraine are engaged in a hot war.
Secondly, this war is about a “civilizational boundary”. Nowadays, countries around the world are thinking about issues from a civilizational perspective. The boundaries of Chinese civilization, Indian civilization, European civilization, and American civilization are relatively clear. However, Russian civilization is a vague concept. The Russian society has always struggled to determine whether it represents a relatively independent civilization with elements such as Slavic culture and Eastern Orthodoxy, or part of European civilization (Western European civilization). In a sense, Russia is oscillating between these two definitions of civilization.
Against this backdrop, this war seems particularly important for both Russia and Europe. If Russia cannot win, then its claim for an independent Russian civilization spanning across Eurasia would be undermined. For Europe, the European civilization is seen by many countries worldwide as in decline.
If Europe loses Ukraine, the country that wanted to become part of Europe, this would prove the correctness of other countries’ views on “Europe’s decline.”
“China News Weekly”: Will there be a clear winner and loser like in the Vietnam War this time?
Firstly, in wars, those who are killed are losers. This means that in the Russia-Ukraine war, millions have already been lost. We should not forget this fact.
As for your mention of winners and losers, since both sides in the war—Russia and Europe—have significant stakes, neither side will easily give up, making the war prolonged and dirty. However, the direction of the war now depends on the attitude of President Trump of the United States, as well as whether the relationship between the United States and Europe will break down.
Over the past three-quarters of a century, the transatlantic relationship between the United States and Europe has always been one of the most stable allies in the world order. However, with Trump’s two presidential elections, it is uncertain whether the relationship between the US and Europe will collapse or only experience a serious weakening once. This uncertainty arises from Trump’s policies lacking coherence and predictability.
It can be confirmed that Trump’s appearance is an “unexpected event” for Europe. Therefore, Europe’s current situation is very difficult. The explicit stance of European countries is not to allow Russia to win in the war. The problem lies in: Europe can prevent Russia from winning with the help of the US, but what if the US withdraws or deliberately obstructs?
Furthermore, now, the war between Russia and Europe is a very low probability event, but this low probability is closely related to NATO and the presence of the United States in Europe. What worries Europe is that if the US no longer helps, Europe will be in danger.
As we saw at the recent NATO summit, European countries began to pledge a significant increase in defense spending because Europe cannot create weapons on its own; this requires large-scale mobilization. But it seems no one has considered the consequences of Europe “rearming.”
This will significantly alter the global military balance, with its long-term consequences being unpredictable.
China Newsweek: In the new “post-war” international order, what might be the role of Europe?
Firstly, it’s still too early to say whether transatlantic relations have completely collapsed, but they have certainly changed. The level of trust between the United States and Europe has plummeted, never to return. Trust is hard to establish but easy to destroy. I believe that a more likely scenario would be that Europe and the United States maintain their partnership, yet become more militarized and independent on their own. However, when European military autonomy is strengthened, the relationship between the US and Europe will also change, and the trend remains difficult to predict.
Secondly, the future European security order will not include Russia. From the fundamental logic of security order, Russia is too “big” to allow for a balanced European security order. Instead, as a whole, Europe can reach some kind of stable agreement with Russia, similar to the first Cold War. At the same time, due to the existence of this “common enemy,” Britain will rejoin Europe in military partnerships.
China Newsweek: In the discussions earlier, you mentioned the Cold War multiple times. In recent years, you proposed the concept of “the second Cold War” in defining the current and future international order, believing that the international community has entered this new Cold War cycle. This judgment has sparked much discussion and controversy among scholars and policymakers in Europe and America. Could you explain to the public in simple language what “the second Cold War” is?
Many people, especially historians, do not view the Cold War as an international relations or security concept, but rather as a historical event.
So, when they discuss whether we are entering a new Cold War cycle, they try to find a “second Cold War” that is exactly the same as the last one, which of course is impossible.
But I believe the focus lies in the fundamental logic of the Cold War. Talking about the Cold War essentially divides war into two categories. One is hot wars, where people feel something worth fighting for openly. The other is the Cold War, where people feel something worth fighting for but are afraid of direct combat happening. Why are they afraid? Because the outcome might exceed the preset goals of the battle, such as making the conflict uncontrollable or even turning it into a nuclear war that destroys all humanity.
Therefore, the start of the Cold War cycle means that the two forces engaged in the confrontation each believe there are some issues worth fighting over, and this conflict has already occurred, including political conflicts, as well as other conflicts not involving open warfare, like cyberwarfare, attacking each other’s infrastructure and shipping networks through online means or other means.
Such struggles may quickly determine their victories, enter an impasse, or turn into hot wars. The problem is, how much can the parties in the “second Cold War” achieve in pursuit, meaning preventing the situation from escalating into hot war. The cost of the Cold War was high, but the direct harm was relatively minor, while a hot war means societal high-level mobilization and direct damage. Modern society cannot afford a full-scale hot war. Of course, we all know that the first Cold War lasted for quite a long time, and the second Cold War could also last within this limit.
“China Newsweek”: After the “Trump 2.0” era began, have you had any new thoughts and revisions on your “second Cold War” proposition?
This indeed adds uncertainty because the United States is an important force in the international system, but we do not know what side Trump’s America will “stand on.”
Despite the appearance of the United States and China becoming major competitors, the uncertainty surrounding US-Russia relations will change the entire landscape.
Moreover, Trump is not particularly inclined towards “war,” and it can be said that he does not seek any form of war; meanwhile, the Iran War has shown that Trump is not averse to occasionally seizing opportunities in wars. Overall, it is difficult to predict how this will impact international order.
I would like to emphasize another issue: Trump is not the biggest variable we face. At this World Peace Forum, everyone has remained silent on one thing: environmental and climate change issues. All the issues we discuss here today are very important, but do not forget that behind the “Cold War” or confrontation, there is a larger game going on, which could easily push aside the current negotiations we are focusing on.
My view is that if we cannot resolve climate change through immediate international cooperation, global relations will change in ways that are quite unpredictable. Think about it, the temperatures in our cities are rising, and if one day, like London, a world-class city is submerged, what kind of world would that be? Everything would change completely.
Published on July 14, 2025, in the 1195th issue of China Newsweek magazine.
Barry Buzhan: Is the “Second Cold War” Here?
By Caoran@chinanews.com