Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, often regarded as a unifying external threat for the Western world, political and social cohesion within many democracies began to fray. Over the decades that followed, increasing polarization emerged, exemplified by the rise of partisan divides in the US Congress, the growth of right-wing political figures in Europe and Australia, and the proliferation of media outlets reflecting these divisions. This shift occurred despite generally stable economic conditions during the so-called “Goldilocks” period.

Analysts suggest that the absence of a clear external adversary contributed significantly to this fragmentation. During the Cold War, the perceived Soviet threat served as a common enemy that, to some extent, bonded Western societies. After its defeat, the “peace dividend”—post-Cold War reductions in defense spending—largely benefited domestic consumption and welfare but came at a cultural cost. Freed from external focus, societies increasingly turned inwards, with old divisions intensifying and newer ones emerging. Attempts to rally unity following attacks by groups such as Al-Qaeda proved short-lived due to the diffuse nature of such threats.

Today, a return of geopolitical tensions, notably due to Russia’s military actions in Eastern Europe and rising concerns about China’s strategic ambitions, has prompted many European governments to reconsider defense policies, including discussions about reintroducing conscription. While these developments have unsettled some, especially in sectors accustomed to assessing risk without factoring in large-scale conflict, others see an opportunity for renewed social cohesion—what some describe as a “war dividend.”

This concept envisions that a credible external threat might reduce internal polarization by rallying citizens around a shared cause, fostering civic unity and potentially stimulating economic revival through increased defense spending and industrial activity. However, experts caution that this outcome is not guaranteed. The presence of an adversary can itself become a point of contention, with some political actors dismissing preparations for conflict as elitist or unnecessary until threats become undeniable, such as disruptions to critical infrastructure.

The idea of an “optimal enemy” is raised, one that is sufficiently menacing to encourage solidarity but not so destructive as to permanently fracture society. Western countries experienced this dynamic during the Cold War years, which contributed to social cohesion during that era. Beyond practical politics, historical and cultural narratives underscore the role of external foes in forging group identity. Classical stories, such as those depicted in Christopher Nolan’s recent cinematic adaptation of “The Odyssey,” though subject to varied critical reception, serve as a reminder of how societies have long defined themselves in interaction with external others—whether portrayed as outright enemies or complex figures.

Drawing parallels between these longstanding patterns and contemporary dynamics, some observers argue that the prolonged absence of a clear adversary, alongside challenges such as increased immigration and economic crises, has been a relatively underexplored factor behind current social and political fragmentation. As global tensions reshape, the reappearance of these external pressures may once again influence the internal landscape of Western democracies, potentially fostering renewed unity amid uncertainty.