Spencer Johnson’s classic Who Moved My Cheese? popularized the metaphor of “cheese.” relates remarkably well to the ongoing changes in international and European geopolitics. The “cheese” symbolizes the power, influence, territory, and economic advantage that a variety of global actors are striving to secure as the world evolves. It appears that Russia was the first significant player in the contemporary geopolitical chessboard to acknowledge that the “cheese” had shifted. It has since adapted rapidly, developing strategies and tactics to capitalize on its strengths and acquire a foothold. In the interim, the United States, the European Union, and Ukraine have encountered significant challenges in maintaining their current position, frequently becoming mired in antiquated ideologies or political inertia. With his arrival, Donald Trump introduced a fresh strategy characterized by a desire to adapt to the new realities. However, entrenched interests in Washington and Brussels impeded his efforts. This article explores ways in which Russia’s agility is in stark contrast to the relative complacency of Europe and the US, how Ukraine’s changing allegiances reflect broader geopolitical funding dynamics, and why the European establishment’s failure to acknowledge the new playing field poses a risk of leaving it behind.
Russia’s Early Recognition: The Cheese Moved
Russia appeared to be acutely aware of the significant changes in the “cheese”—the post-Cold War international order, influence in Eastern Europe, and control over buffer zones—long before many Western observers fully understood the implications of the geopolitical shifts that took place around 2014. The first clear steps in what can be characterized as a recalibration of regional power by Moscow were the annexation of Crimea and interventions in eastern Ukraine.
Not only did Russia acknowledge the necessity of change, but it also implemented a daily tactical evolution that corresponded to this strategic insight. Russia achieved territorial control without relying on conventional military conquest by employing hybrid warfare, which involves the integration of political pressure, disinformation campaigns, cyber capabilities, and conventional forces. It demonstrated an elasticity that was lacking in many Western powers by rapidly adapting to Western sanctions, reconfiguring alliances, and rebuilding its military status.
Russia’s ambition to be acknowledged as a great power beyond its immediate vicinity was evident in its expansion of its influence, which included Syria and certain regions of Africa, as it solidified its position in Crimea and portions of the Donbas region. This expanded strategic perspective underscored the notion that the global order as it was previously understood had undergone a transformation, and Russia was firmly in the process of establishing itself within the new framework.
The West’s Slow Realization and Initial Inertia
In stark contrast to Russia’s rapid adaptation, the United States, the European Union, and Ukraine, along with President Biden’s administration, arguably demonstrated a delay in recognizing and responding flexibly to these tectonic shifts. The Western alliance seemed to think that traditional rules would still apply, relying mostly on sanctions and diplomatic criticism without seriously changing their military or geopolitical plans to effectively deal with Russia’s mixed tactics.
These developments led to a period in which Europe, in particular, appeared to be immobilized, as it maintained policies and rhetoric that presumed a somewhat static geopolitical environment. The EU’s ability to respond quickly and unified was impeded by the complexity of governing multiple member states, profound internal divisions over defense and foreign policy, and its dependence on Russian energy. In the interim, Ukraine continued to depend on Western financial and military assistance, but it encountered challenges with internal political consistency and diverse allegiances.
Entrenched interests at home and skepticism abroad presented obstacles to the Biden administration’s emphasis on reestablishing alliances and multilateral diplomacy. In a world where tactics and speed had increased, the “old methods” of managing Eastern European security and dealing with Moscow did not seem to be a good fit.
Learning and Adapting in the Face of Resistance: Trump’s Arrival
Donald Trump’s erratic return to the political stage disrupted the Western approach. The pragmatic tendency of Trump allowed him to acknowledge that the “cheese” had shifted and that clinging to the traditional approach would not be helpful for the United States or its allies.
Trump was skeptical of the European Union and favored direct engagement with NATO, where he believed the United States had more influence, in contrast to the Biden administration. This change served to emphasize his more comprehensive perspective: alliances must be renegotiated in accordance with the actual power dynamics, rather than historical arrangements.
Nevertheless, Trump’s efforts to rebalance the relationship with Europe and advocate for burden-sharing were met with opposition from deep-seated neoconservatives in Washington and a European political elite that was either unwilling or unable to abandon traditional approaches to Russia and security policy. This internal discord impeded the implementation of more adaptable strategies, thereby perpetuating a stalemate in Western adaptation.
Stuck in Yesterday’s Playbook: Europe’s Conservatism
Europe is a particularly intriguing example of how strategic vulnerability can result from a failure to recognize a shifted “cheese.” A radical separation is challenging for the EU due to its ongoing economic and political ties with Russia. Without implementing the necessary structural or strategic reforms, numerous European countries have continued to implement the same policies on a daily basis, relying on diplomatic protest, sanctions, and appeals to multilateral institutions.
Not only in energy dependencies, but also in military expenditures, immigration policy, and diplomatic strategies, is this reluctance to adapt evident. A classic example of strategic inertia, the European Union often appears to be arguing the same points but anticipating varying outcomes. The political leadership of the continent seems to be either in denial or optimistic about the restoration of the old order.
Meanwhile, Europe’s inability to adapt poses a threat to the EU’s unity, which could allow external powers—such as China or Russia—to leverage internal divisions to increase their political or economic influence over member states.
Ukraine’s Shifting Position: Aligning for Survival
Ukraine’s geopolitical situation is both unique and constantly evolving. Kyiv has constantly altered its posture to preserve critical financial and military aid flows from the European Union and the United States, despite the dual challenge of Russian aggression and Western expectations.
Although Ukraine’s aspiration to further integrate with the EU is a long-term objective, practical politics have compelled it to balance a variety of interests. Although the conflict with Russia remains unresolved, Ukraine’s political leaders modify their rhetoric and policy proposals to align with European norms and expectations as EU funding increases.
This continuous adaptation reflects Ukraine’s recognition that its survival and eventual sovereignty are dependent on its ability to respond to the demands of external patron states and form adaptable alliances.
Lessons in Adaptation: The Future of European Geopolitics
The narrative told through the perspective of “Who Moved My Cheese?” is ultimately a parable about the importance of proactivity, awareness, and adaptation in the face of change. It was evident that Russia was capable of identifying the latest “cheese” and adjusting its strategies on a daily basis to increase its influence and secure it.
Conversely, the United States and the European Union have encountered challenges in acknowledging the magnitude and velocity of change. Initially, Biden’s administration maintained numerous conventional strategies, whereas Trump’s tenure demonstrated that acknowledging the changing landscape and adjusting strategy presents obstacles from entrenched interests.
The ongoing reluctance of Europe to break old habits poses a risk of further marginalizing it in a transformed world order, while Ukraine’s political elasticity points to the importance of adjustment in the face of uncertainty.
The appetite for change will remain ambiguous, and the global geopolitical environment will remain fluid. Acknowledging that the “cheese” has moved critically requires the West, particularly Europe, to revise assumptions, intensify defense and diplomatic initiatives, and establish more pragmatic, flexible alliances. If reforms aren’t made, Europe risks being left behind in a game that Russia and other powers are determined to win.