The End of Hegemony, the West, and Fossil Fuels

Three certainties believed in for decades are now coming to an end. The end of hegemony, the West, and fossil fuels are creating a new geopolitical reality.

There is no longer a global hegemon.

The fall of the Berlin Wall 35 years ago marked the end of one hegemon, the Soviet Union. But it was also the beginning of the end for the other hegemon, the United States. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya revealed their overreach. Today, the U.S. can no longer organize a global order. Under Trump, they no longer want to. Trump only wants to lead the strongest gang in a world governed by the law of the jungle.

Whether rising China can become a hegemon remains an open question. The world has become multipolar. In this new reality, Europe must redefine its role.

The West is no longer a global model.

For 80 years, democratic capitalism stood for the combination of prosperity and freedom. In Europe and the U.S., it was often ideologically elevated as "the West." What was overlooked was that the idea of the West had to be fought for in Latin America and South Africa—against Europe and the U.S.

Today, the model of democratic capitalism is eroding. In Europe and the U.S., fascist and autocratic forces are gaining ground. Neither the promise of prosperity nor the promise of freedom is a consensus in these societies anymore.

Globally, democratic capitalism is under pressure from China. Many societies view China’s authoritarian state capitalism as the more effective development model.

Fossil capitalism is coming to an end.

The vulnerability of fossil capitalism is currently most evident in the Strait of Hormuz. Two hundred years of industrialization were inseparably linked to the use of coal, oil, and gas. The prosperity promise of democratic capitalism depended on fossil energy. Geopolitical power arose from the possession and control of fossil energy and its prices.

This is changing dramatically. The accelerating climate crisis is undermining the prosperity promise. Since the double energy crisis of 1973 and 1979, growth and fossil energy consumption have already decoupled. Today, the global boom in renewables shows that value creation and growth no longer depend on coal, oil, and gas.

There Is a New Global Polarization: Petro-States vs. Electro-States

The multipolar world is struggling for a new order. The old contradictions—between rich and poor, between democracy and autocracy—persist. But they are increasingly determined by a new polarization: the divide between petro-states and electro-states.

On one side are the traditional petro-states like Russia, the U.S., or the Gulf states. On the other are states that, instead of combustion technologies, are betting on the electrification of industry, households, and transportation.

Electro-states existentially threaten the global power of petro-states. For China, the question is not if it will free itself from fossil dependence, but when. Today, China’s energy and industrial policies align more closely with Europe’s than with those of the U.S. and Russia.

Fossil fuels are losing the race.

It is obvious that fossil fuels are losing the race against renewables. Renewables are more cost-effective. As predominantly domestic energy sources, they are more secure and reliable. This applies not only to direct electricity generation, including system costs.

Renewables reinforce the long-term trend toward electrification. This trend has been growing in parallel with global GDP for 40 years. In China, a third of all energy used today is renewable electricity. Supported by its electric vehicles (EVs), China has become the world’s largest car exporter in just five years, surpassing the U.S., Japan, and Germany.

Fossil power loss fuels an imperialism of weakness.

Both Russia and the U.S. understand that they cannot win the economic race against renewables. They are trying to compensate with military strength. Imperialism born of economic weakness is the violent response of petro-states to their lost competitiveness.

For Russia, the ability to export is tied to the survival of the Putin system. The war against Ukraine has cost Russia customers in Europe and geostrategically pushed it into dependence on China.

The U.S., on the other hand, sees its role as the global price regulator for oil and gas threatened by the rise of renewables. That is why "energy dominance" is at the center of current U.S. security strategy. Trump openly admits that in Venezuela or Iran, it is not democracy but their oil and gas that interests him. In the U.S., he is waging a campaign against wind and solar energy. Yet, the hunger for electricity driven by AI data centers is forcing even Trump’s tech ally, Musk, to invest in renewables and batteries.

The Iran War is the fossil Fukushima.

With the attack on Iran, Trump has triggered a global energy crisis of historic proportions. The IEA considers its impact more significant than the crises of 1973 and 1979 combined. The crisis hits Asia and the poorer countries of the Global South particularly hard. While U.S. oil and gas companies are reaping massive extra profits, the U.S. and Trump risk becoming the losers of this crisis. Gasoline and electricity prices are also rising for his voters in the U.S.

What’s more: Trump’s fight for energy dominance risks backfiring. More and more countries want to free themselves from fossil dependence. For them, the Iran War is the fossil Fukushima. They are betting on the expansion of renewable energy and accelerated electrification. Only Germany is betting on extending the lifespan of combustion engines and gas heating.

Petro-states vs. Electro-states in a multipolar world.

We all tend to explain the world using familiar patterns. But I must correct myself. The divide between petro-states and electro-states does not describe a new bloc confrontation. The world is not simply becoming bipolar again. A bloc requires homogeneous common interests, a common model, and a hegemon. None of this exists among either the petro-states or the electro-states.

Petro- or electro-states are not scientific categories. They describe geopolitical strategies. Not every oil- or gas-producing state pursues a petro-strategy. Norway, for example, is consistently pushing for the electrification of heat and transport. Its revenues from oil and gas sales are massively invested in climate neutrality by the sovereign wealth fund. Conversely, there are states without fossil resources that do not know which strategy to follow. Germany, under Friedrich Merz, is increasingly acting geostrategically lost in this regard.

Neither petro-states nor electro-states have clear value partners.

In another respect, the world is not returning to a new bipolarity. The world is not divided between democracy and autocracy, even though the conflict between the two shapes global confrontations.

The divide between democracy and autocracy is overlaid by the conflict between petro- and electro-states. Petro-states tend toward authoritarianism. Trump not only wants to appropriate resources from Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran. He is also massively dismantling democracy in the U.S. Russia is waging its war of aggression explicitly against Ukraine’s democracy. Democracy threatens the Russian regime, which is based on fossil energy.

Electro-states, on the other hand, are not automatically democratic. Democracy and a market economy are good prerequisites for the scaling up of renewables. Monopolies and corruption, however, block them. But the largest investor in renewables and electrification, China, is an authoritarian state capitalism.

The polarization between petro- and electro-states affects countries of the North and the Global South alike.

While many countries in the Global South suffer from the consequences of the Iran War and their fossil dependence, there are enough states whose elites continue to rely on the profits and power of fossil energies. Conversely, it is difficult for many poor countries to free themselves from fossil dependence. They cannot benefit from the competitive advantages of renewables because they lack the liquidity for the necessary investments.

Industrialized countries like Japan, South Korea, and Europe, on the other hand, have the capital, technology, and a massive interest in freeing themselves from fossil dependence. But they must do so against an old ally from whose military protection they have so far benefited. India, for its part, has decided not to take the fossil detour at all.

Electro-states of the world, unite! Dare more BRICS!

Energy cooperation between countries of the Global South and North is the path to a post-fossil future. Examples can be found in Germany’s cooperation with Chile, Namibia, and Canada. In the World Bank, IMF, and other development banks, a fierce battle will be fought between financing renewables and fossil subsidies.

Pragmatic cooperation is taking place, regardless of differences in other areas, between democracies and autocracies. In the multipolar world, such alliances will become the rule. The new world functions more like the BRICS model.

Europe’s Sovereignty and Competitiveness Depend on Electricity

Europe has only one alternative: to become an electro-state or remain in fossil dependence and stay blackmailable. After the second global energy crisis in five years, it is time to face this alternative and finally end dependence. Europe will only be competitive with cheap energy. Cheap and efficient energy is renewable electricity.

Climate neutrality creates sovereignty.

At the Munich Security Conference, Merz and Macron called for more European sovereignty. To achieve this, Europe’s energy import dependence must be drastically reduced. By expanding renewables and accelerating electrification, Europe can become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050.

A climate-neutral Europe is a geostrategically more sovereign Europe. Trump wants to prevent this by all means. That is why his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, flatly rejected the demand for a sovereign Europe in Munich. It was more than embarrassing that Wadephul and Pistorius gave him standing ovations. Instead of fighting for a more sovereign Europe, the Merz and Klingbeil government is pursuing appeasement toward Trump’s imperialism.

Germany is slowing Europe down.

As in the trade war, it is above all Germany that anxiously blocks a self-confident European course. It was Germany that pushed the EU into a bad trade deal with the U.S. In exchange for tariff-free access to the U.S. and 15–50% tariffs on EU products in the U.S., Germany gave Trump a morning gift of €750 billion. Some of this is to be used to buy U.S. fracking gas.

This is not only an attack on Europe’s climate goals. It undermines Europe’s sovereignty. Gas is not a transitional technology—it maintains dependence. Extending the lifespan of combustion engines and gas heating does not make Europe more competitive; it keeps energy costs high.

Resilience costs, sovereignty pays off.

Ending fossil dependence is necessary but not sufficient. Key technologies for renewables and electrification must be available in Europe. Those who do not want to depend on Trump and Putin must not be technologically dependent on Xi. The mistake of driving the PV industry out of Europe must not be repeated.

We need clear local content rules for the wind industry and battery technology, as well as a ban on inverters from China. Energy security in a crisis must be guaranteed by Europe. Even as an electro-state, China remains a partner, often an unfair competitor, and a systemic rival.

The same applies to other dependencies. They must be ended: no more Outlook in public services, no more public data on U.S. servers. All of this costs—but it pays off in a crisis.

The Answer to Fossil Imperialism: An Alliance of Middle Powers Against the Fossil Warriors

The alliance of middle powers proposed by Mark Carney in Davos is not an alliance of electro-states. Canada is a country that produces and exports oil and gas. Nevertheless, Carney is right.

If the law of the jungle in the multipolar world is to be countered, we need spaces of law. This requires alliances with states that resolve their conflicts with each other according to rules.

The basis of this cooperation can only be respect for and adherence to international law. A policy of double standards does not fit here. If, like Merz, one clearly condemns Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a violation of international law, then Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and his war against Iran cannot be "too complex" (Merz) under international law. This undermines global cooperation, especially with democracies like Brazil or South Africa.

Only together can Europe defend itself.

For Trump, Article 5 of the NATO treaty is an instrument to extort obedience, no longer a pledge of mutual assistance. With him, protection is only given in exchange for obedience. This ranges from buying oil and gas to participating in his illegal wars of aggression. The transatlantic NATO is no longer a reliable alliance.

Europe must invest in its military security if it does not want to remain blackmailable and wants to counter the threat posed by Putin’s imperialism. To do this, the European pillar of NATO must be strengthened together with Canada.

Europe needs spaces for rules-based trade.

This includes strategic alliances with states in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Linking common economic interests facilitates the peaceful resolution of conflicts of interest.

This goes far beyond free trade agreements like Mercosur and others. It is about genuine economic cooperation on an equal footing, about building value chains for mutual benefit. In multilateral investment banks, financing for fossil technologies must be made more difficult. Overcoming the liquidity problem of poor countries in accessing renewable technology must, in contrast, become an investment priority.

The strategy of cooperation is being undermined by the billions in cuts to economic cooperation that Merz and Klingbeil have imposed on Germany. After the U.S., Germany has the second-largest share in the collapse of global ODA spending.

Electrification and renewables create security and slow the climate crisis.

Fossil capitalism is not simply stepping down. Those who profit from it are resisting its demise with all their might. An alliance of middle powers can counter this violence. Cooperation for faster electrification and the forced expansion of renewables is the answer to the violent end of the fossil age. It is a strategy of peace, security, and independence.

This speech was held by Jürgen Trittin at the Berlin Forum on Global Cooperation 2026.