Share
The Institute for National and International Security (INIS) successfully organized a high-level international webinar on May 5, 2026, titled “The New Bipolar Tension: Europe’s Position in the Emerging US–China Strategic Rivalry.” The event brought together leading experts from China, Europe, and the United States to analyze the current geopolitical landscape and deepen understanding of emerging conflicts and pathways for their management and resolution.
At the very outset, the webinar was framed around a fundamental analytical premise of Security Science: every war is a conflict, but not every conflict becomes a war. This distinction guided the entire discussion. Participants emphasized that the contemporary international system is increasingly characterized by multi-layered conflicts—economic, technological, informational, intelligence-driven, and geopolitical—particularly amid intensifying rivalry between the United States and China. These forms of confrontation, while often below the threshold of open warfare, carry significant escalation potential and directly affect European stability.
Opening the discussion, Prof. Dr. Darko Trifunović, Director of INIS, stressed that the key challenge for modern security thinking is not merely to understand wars, but to identify, interpret, and manage conflicts before they escalate into armed confrontation. He highlighted that Europe is positioned at the intersection of competing strategic pressures and is therefore uniquely exposed to the consequences of unresolved global tensions.
From the Chinese perspective, Prof. Dr. Jian Junbo offered a detailed critique of the European Union’s current approach toward China, arguing that it closely mirrors the United States’ strategic posture. He described the EU’s policy as a combination of cooperation, competition, and systemic rivalry, accompanied by economic “de-risking,” technological restrictions, and reduced academic exchange.
However, he emphasized that such policies may unintentionally deepen structural tensions rather than mitigate them, thereby contributing to a broader environment of strategic mistrust.
Importantly, his analysis introduced a key conflict-management perspective: if policies are framed primarily in terms of rivalry and containment, they risk turning manageable conflicts into destabilizing confrontations. He advocated recalibrating Europe’s approach, grounded in strategic autonomy and the preservation of open channels for cooperation.
Prof. Dr. Zhang Jiandong further expanded this argument by situating the US–China rivalry within the transformation toward a multipolar international order. He stressed that the current global environment is not defined by a single conflict but by a network of interconnected disputes, where economic competition, technological dominance, and geopolitical influence overlap. In such a system, a miscalculation in one domain can trigger consequences across other domains, increasing the overall risk of escalation.
From the European perspective, Prof. Dr. John Nomikos highlighted the structural dilemma facing the European Union: balancing its security dependence on the United States with its economic interdependence with China. He emphasized that this duality inherently generates tension and keeps Europe in a constant state of strategic adjustment. The key issue, as he noted, is not the existence of conflict itself, but Europe’s capacity to manage competing pressures without becoming a passive arena for great-power confrontation.
A particularly important contribution came from Prof. Dr. Thomas Wegener Friis, who approached the issue from the standpoint of smaller European states. He emphasized that for such actors, conflicts are rarely abstract—they manifest through concrete vulnerabilities in intelligence, security, and political stability. His analysis highlighted the growing importance of hybrid threats and intelligence competition, noting that these domains often signal the early stages of broader conflict dynamics.
From the United States, Prof. Dr. Joseph Fitsanakis addressed the evolving intelligence environment, highlighting that modern conflicts increasingly unfold in the intelligence and cyber domains before becoming visible in traditional military terms. This reinforces the need for early detection, information-sharing, and coordinated responses among allies.
Prof. Dr. Scott G. Nelson expanded the discussion by focusing on the geopolitical dimensions of energy and culture as instruments of competition. He emphasized that conflicts today are not limited to military confrontations but also extend into economic systems, energy dependencies, and narratives shaping public perception.
Prof. Emeritus Gregory Moore introduced the concept of managed strategic competition, suggesting that the United States and China may seek to avoid direct war while maintaining a structured form of rivalry. Within this framework, the central challenge for Europe is to operate within a permanent state of controlled conflict, where tensions are constant but escalation is not inevitable.
Throughout the webinar, a key conclusion emerged: the world is entering an era where conflict is becoming a permanent condition of the international system, rather than an exception. In such an environment, the primary task of policymakers and scholars is not to eliminate conflict—which is impossible—but to prevent its transformation into war.
It was precisely this need for deeper understanding and constructive engagement that motivated the organization of this scientific webinar. By bringing together leading experts from diverse geopolitical and intellectual backgrounds, INIS aimed to foster mutual understanding at the highest academic level, recognizing that misperceptions and a lack of dialogue are among the primary drivers of escalation.
The discussions highlighted that effective conflict management requires several key elements: maintaining open channels of communication, strengthening institutional resilience, promoting strategic autonomy, and developing mechanisms for cooperation even amid rivalry. Europe, in particular, was identified as a potential stabilizing actor, capable of bridging divides and contributing to a more balanced and predictable international order.
In conclusion, the webinar reaffirmed that understanding conflict is a prerequisite for preventing war. As global tensions between major powers continue to evolve across multiple domains, initiatives such as this one play a crucial role in fostering dialogue, reducing strategic uncertainty, and advancing the principles of Security Science.
The Institute for National and International Security (INIS) once again demonstrated its role as a leading international platform for addressing complex security challenges and promoting innovative approaches to conflict analysis and resolution.
Share
The Institute for National and International Security (INIS) successfully organized a high-level international webinar on May 5, 2026, titled “The New Bipolar Tension: Europe’s Position in the Emerging US–China Strategic Rivalry.” The event brought together leading experts from China, Europe, and the United States to analyze the current geopolitical landscape and deepen understanding of emerging conflicts and pathways for their management and resolution.
At the very outset, the webinar was framed around a fundamental analytical premise of Security Science: every war is a conflict, but not every conflict becomes a war. This distinction guided the entire discussion. Participants emphasized that the contemporary international system is increasingly characterized by multi-layered conflicts—economic, technological, informational, intelligence-driven, and geopolitical—particularly amid intensifying rivalry between the United States and China. These forms of confrontation, while often below the threshold of open warfare, carry significant escalation potential and directly affect European stability.
Opening the discussion, Prof. Dr. Darko Trifunović, Director of INIS, stressed that the key challenge for modern security thinking is not merely to understand wars, but to identify, interpret, and manage conflicts before they escalate into armed confrontation. He highlighted that Europe is positioned at the intersection of competing strategic pressures and is therefore uniquely exposed to the consequences of unresolved global tensions.
From the Chinese perspective, Prof. Dr. Jian Junbo offered a detailed critique of the European Union’s current approach toward China, arguing that it closely mirrors the United States’ strategic posture. He described the EU’s policy as a combination of cooperation, competition, and systemic rivalry, accompanied by economic “de-risking,” technological restrictions, and reduced academic exchange.
However, he emphasized that such policies may unintentionally deepen structural tensions rather than mitigate them, thereby contributing to a broader environment of strategic mistrust.
Importantly, his analysis introduced a key conflict-management perspective: if policies are framed primarily in terms of rivalry and containment, they risk turning manageable conflicts into destabilizing confrontations. He advocated recalibrating Europe’s approach, grounded in strategic autonomy and the preservation of open channels for cooperation.
Prof. Dr. Zhang Jiandong further expanded this argument by situating the US–China rivalry within the transformation toward a multipolar international order. He stressed that the current global environment is not defined by a single conflict but by a network of interconnected disputes, where economic competition, technological dominance, and geopolitical influence overlap. In such a system, a miscalculation in one domain can trigger consequences across other domains, increasing the overall risk of escalation.
From the European perspective, Prof. Dr. John Nomikos highlighted the structural dilemma facing the European Union: balancing its security dependence on the United States with its economic interdependence with China. He emphasized that this duality inherently generates tension and keeps Europe in a constant state of strategic adjustment. The key issue, as he noted, is not the existence of conflict itself, but Europe’s capacity to manage competing pressures without becoming a passive arena for great-power confrontation.
A particularly important contribution came from Prof. Dr. Thomas Wegener Friis, who approached the issue from the standpoint of smaller European states. He emphasized that for such actors, conflicts are rarely abstract—they manifest through concrete vulnerabilities in intelligence, security, and political stability. His analysis highlighted the growing importance of hybrid threats and intelligence competition, noting that these domains often signal the early stages of broader conflict dynamics.
From the United States, Prof. Dr. Joseph Fitsanakis addressed the evolving intelligence environment, highlighting that modern conflicts increasingly unfold in the intelligence and cyber domains before becoming visible in traditional military terms. This reinforces the need for early detection, information-sharing, and coordinated responses among allies.
Prof. Dr. Scott G. Nelson expanded the discussion by focusing on the geopolitical dimensions of energy and culture as instruments of competition. He emphasized that conflicts today are not limited to military confrontations but also extend into economic systems, energy dependencies, and narratives shaping public perception.
Prof. Emeritus Gregory Moore introduced the concept of managed strategic competition, suggesting that the United States and China may seek to avoid direct war while maintaining a structured form of rivalry. Within this framework, the central challenge for Europe is to operate within a permanent state of controlled conflict, where tensions are constant but escalation is not inevitable.
Throughout the webinar, a key conclusion emerged: the world is entering an era where conflict is becoming a permanent condition of the international system, rather than an exception. In such an environment, the primary task of policymakers and scholars is not to eliminate conflict—which is impossible—but to prevent its transformation into war.
It was precisely this need for deeper understanding and constructive engagement that motivated the organization of this scientific webinar. By bringing together leading experts from diverse geopolitical and intellectual backgrounds, INIS aimed to foster mutual understanding at the highest academic level, recognizing that misperceptions and a lack of dialogue are among the primary drivers of escalation.
The discussions highlighted that effective conflict management requires several key elements: maintaining open channels of communication, strengthening institutional resilience, promoting strategic autonomy, and developing mechanisms for cooperation even amid rivalry. Europe, in particular, was identified as a potential stabilizing actor, capable of bridging divides and contributing to a more balanced and predictable international order.
In conclusion, the webinar reaffirmed that understanding conflict is a prerequisite for preventing war. As global tensions between major powers continue to evolve across multiple domains, initiatives such as this one play a crucial role in fostering dialogue, reducing strategic uncertainty, and advancing the principles of Security Science.
The Institute for National and International Security (INIS) once again demonstrated its role as a leading international platform for addressing complex security challenges and promoting innovative approaches to conflict analysis and resolution.
