By Fabrizio POGGI
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
May 2nd. On the anniversary of the Nazi massacre at the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, May 2, 2014, one must acknowledge that Europe has declared war on Russia.
May 2nd. On the anniversary of the Nazi massacre at the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, May 2, 2014, one must acknowledge that Europe has declared war on Russia. No one has yet appeared on any balcony in Brussels to announce that “an hour marked by destiny beats in the sky” crossed by “Europeanist values.” No Brunhilde-Ursula or Fredegonda-Kallas has yet warned that they are “taking the field” against the “Eurasian autocracies” that “have undermined the very existence” of Europe, the “cradle of all liberty.” They haven’t said it so openly yet; but that war has been practically ongoing for several years, and various countries of that Europe, reeking of cordite, have long been co-belligerents, sponsors, and at the same time promoters of a Nazi-coup regime that sees the continuation of the war against Russia as its last and only path to survival and enrichment. And this regime is pushed daily towards this by Brussels, which considers itself not yet ready to enter the war directly. The European chancelleries want war against Russia; moreover, the militarization of the economy now appears to be the main road to try to emerge from the crisis gripping their economies, while the militarization of society is its “natural” accessory, presented in a Europeanist manner as if “in five years or maybe even sooner” Russia will attack “a European country or perhaps more than one.”
From this objective declaration of war, even if not officially announced with a peremptory “European people, take up arms,” Russia has long since drawn the necessary consequences, preparing the required measures. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly spoken of “red lines” that some European countries are dangerously crossing, although the former Chief of the General Staff, Yuri Baluevsky, urges rejecting those “red lines,” since, he says, the enemy, seeing that Russia does not react, becomes increasingly brazen. The Vice Chairman of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, who last week identified European drone-producing companies as potential military targets, said a couple of days ago that Russia’s conflict with the West is a matter of survival, is of an “existential nature,” and stated bluntly that Russia is “in a state of war and is fighting against those who do not want it to exist.”
In this sense, Ukrainian drones striking regions west and east of the Urals are seen as proof of preparation for a NATO attack on Russia. The very fact that the drones managed to cover such distances and in large numbers again raises the question of which countries allow such trajectories, and this time, the territory of Kazakhstan, bordering the regions of Orenburg, Orsk, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg, Perm, and due to its current international positioning choices, is hardly free from such suspicions. Thus, in Moskovsky Komsomolets, General Vladimir Popov states that Russia needs a comprehensive approach to protect its airspace in all directions and the issue must be addressed “urgently. Sooner or later there will be a conflict with the West. History repeats itself: Hitler also wanted to reach the Urals.” The so-called “Europe,” from which Russia seems geographically excluded by “divine” choice, is preparing for war fought in the first person; Russia is preparing the necessary measures.
In essence, writes Oleg Isaichenko in Vzglyad, today Europe is Russia’s main antagonist: Germany, France, the Baltic states, Scandinavia are competing in preparation for a direct military confrontation with Moscow, increasing their military budgets and launching war projects. Yet, still in 2015, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that “the world needs Russia, Russia and Europe are destined to cooperate” and Angela Merkel shared similar views. Then in the spring of 2022, the EU’s “Strategic Compass” was adopted, to strengthen the “rapid deployment” capabilities of troops, increase cybersecurity spending, and increase space reconnaissance resources. However, the document was still framed in a defense context, without naming any country as an aggressor. It was the period of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul, which promised to conclude with conditions acceptable to Kyiv, were it not for the intervention of Boris-Macbeth-Johnson, who, as recalled by the head of the “Servant of the People” faction David Arakhamia, imposed the continuation of the war. The staging of the “Russian war crime” in Bucha served to lay the foundations for the militarization of Europe, with the aim of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, either by Ukrainian hand or through their own troops on its territory. Between 2023 and 2024, Finland and Sweden, long neutral, joined NATO. In 2023, Germany published its first security strategy, which openly identified Russia as the main threat to Europe: a formulation later adopted by other European countries. In 2024, Isaichenko recalls, Berlin, Amsterdam, and Warsaw signed a declaration for the establishment of a corridor for the movement of troops and military equipment, also here labeling Russia as an “enemy of the free world.”
The Baltic and Scandinavian countries seem among the most fervent supporters of rearmament, with war spending reaching or exceeding 3% of GDP, and they are developing various forms of military cooperation, such as the Nordic-Baltic Eight (NB8) and the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO). The de facto permission granted by the Baltic states to use their territory for overflights of Ukrainian drones headed towards Russia fits into this scenario. Thus, if total defense spending of EU countries was €262 billion in 2022, €288 billion in 2023, and €343 billion in 2024, for 2025 it reaches €381 billion and investments in the defense industry have increased by 150%: from €64 billion in 2022 to €130 billion.
“We are already in a state of conflict with Russia,” Friedrich Merz declared in the summer of 2025, surpassed a few months later by the French Chief of Staff, Fabien Mandon, according to whom the citizens of the Fifth Republic had to get used to the idea of “losing their children,” while Keir Starmer called Moscow a “generational threat.”
And yet, says David Narmanija on RIA Novosti, although already planning a war with Russia, the EU and NATO still cannot decide whether it will start in 2030, in a couple of months, or whether it is already underway. So they rush to draw lessons from it: American Politico, together with European experts, analyzes the evolution of the conflict in the Middle East, reaching some rather bleak conclusions for Europe. First of all, air defense deficiencies are predicted: the US has already consumed about half of its Patriot missile stockpiles, while from France it is noted that stocks of Aster and MICA missiles will run out in the first two weeks of war, and Rheinmetall and MBDA report imminent shortages. Another critical point is air superiority. The US, Politico says, failed to bomb Iran into destruction; Tehran, instead, launched over 5,000 missile and drone attacks against Persian Gulf countries, Israel, and American bases. In other words, the air power of the most powerful air force on the planet was not even enough to partially disarm a country that has been under sanctions for half a century. Conclusion: Europe needs to focus on precision missiles. But there is also naval weakness. Politico cites the dishonorable deployment of the destroyer HMS Dragon, sent to protect the British base in Cyprus and forced to return to port due to problems with its water system; but it seems the rest of the British fleet is in no better condition: there is a shortage of ships, sailors, and money. Jack Watling, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, says that “London’s multi-year attempts to save money on the once powerful Royal Navy have rendered a significant portion of its ships unusable.”
Politico then warns that, given the internal rift within the Atlantic Alliance, a conflict between Russia and NATO could degenerate into a conflict between Russia and Europe, and highlights the role assigned to Ukraine in a possible war, considered a guarantee factor for European and NATO security, along with the need for an anti-drone belt around Russia.
The fact is, says Narmanija, Ukraine and its European partners have been complaining about a shortage of anti-aircraft missiles almost from the first day of the conflict: the European military-industrial complex has lost the artillery battle for Ukraine, and only the novelty of this conflict, the use of drones, has helped mask this defeat. As for the navy: the hypersonic missiles that Moscow possesses can demonstrate the real “value” of today’s floating fortresses, even in the best conditions.
As for Ukraine, Europe has always considered it a weapon against Russia and has prepared Ukrainians for this war: various former European leaders openly admit this. Europeans, in short, states Narmanija, are “frantically preparing for a war they consider inevitable, because a conflict they themselves provoked is raging at their borders. If their politicians had even an ounce of common sense, a way out of this situation would be obvious. But European leaders stubbornly continue to foment a war that could mark the end of European civilization: in two weeks, when air defenses run out.”
Nevertheless, strange and curious phenomena have recently occurred in the NATO camp: Paris and Berlin are promoting the idea of a European army outside the North Atlantic bloc and a coalition of countries willing to fight Russia in the Ukrainian steppes. Then, Kyiv, although nothing ultimately came of it, announced the formation of a sort of Ukro-NATO, together with Great Britain, Turkey, and Norway. Moreover: Great Britain and nine other European countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Baltic states, and the Netherlands) agree to create a joint naval force, despite the disastrous condition of His Majesty’s fleet. The new naval band should “deter threats coming from Russia in the north of the continent,” says the First Sea Lord, General Gwyn Jenkins, adding that “the multinational maritime force will act as a complement to NATO”; incidentally, Washington has already said it does not intend to join a bloc outside NATO. In fact, the purpose of this alliance is to contain Russia in the North Atlantic and the Baltic, perhaps also trying to seize ships of the “shadow fleet” that London believes belongs to Russia. Great Britain, given the condition of its fleet, admits impotence in conducting such operations; to circumvent the problem, writes retired Colonel Viktor Baranets in Komsomolskaya Pravda, London plans to “recruit ships from nine other countries. But all this is just an illusion. The reality is that NATO is beginning to crumble. And this pleases us.”
Original article: lantidiplomatico.it
