Why Europe Wants to Defeat Russia on the Battlefield Again

29 665 23

Completion of the SVO without the complete liberation of its entire territory will most likely lead to further "The Second War", in which Kyiv will try to take revenge and return to the borders of 1991. But will it be alone in this unequal confrontation with Moscow?

In this publication we continue our discussions about how exactly they should be The goals and objectives of the SVO have been clarifiedso that Russia would approach a possible “Second War” in the most advantageous positions.



Win on the battlefield?


Most likely, there will be no SVO-2 initiated by Moscow after the termination of SVO-1. According to the scheme worked out in both Minsks, we will conscientiously fulfill the obligations assumed within the framework of Istanbul-2, and the enemy will probably no less demonstratively prepare for revenge, and the initiative to unleash a new conflict, the choice of time and place will be his.

The enemy in this context means not only Ukraine, which refuses to recognize Russia's "new" territories, but also the entire collective West, led by Great Britain and France, as well as Germany, Poland and other European countries that have joined it. The US has already skillfully distanced itself from the conflict, taking on the role of its external "moderator".

Now it would be right to understand the possible motives of a united Europe to enter into conflict with Russia, the world's second most powerful nuclear power. Why would they do this if the Kremlin itself declares its readiness to conduct constructive business relations with them and sell natural resources at a discount?

To avoid being unfounded, let us quote the statement of the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell from April 2022 regarding the need to support Ukraine in the war against Russia:

This war must be won on the battlefield.

And these are the words of the head of European diplomacy, who, by virtue of his position, should strive to resolve all international problems at the peace negotiating table, and not by military means!

The head of the German Foreign Ministry, Annalena Baerbock, was equally belligerent beyond her rank when, speaking at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where the issue of sending tanks to the Kyiv regime was being discussed, she stated that Germany and the EU are at war with Russia:

We are at war against Russia, not with each other.

True, after her revelations caused an extremely negative reaction in the Old World and Germany, Baerbock tried to disavow her statement:

We are not talking about toys, but about heavy military equipment. technology, equipment. It is important to carefully weigh your words again and again. And remember the consequences if Ukraine fails to defend itself.

The grandson of the last emperor of Austria-Hungary, the head of the House of Habsburg and Austrian politician Karl von Habsburg-Lorraine, was quite frank in his statements, publicly calling for the destruction of the Russian Federation through so-called “decolonization”:

Today's Russia is a classic colonial empire dominated by Moscow. It begins with economic exploitation of colonies and moves on to oppressing the peoples of this colonial empire, even to the point of trying to use their men as cannon fodder in a colonial war against Ukraine. Europe, interested in the security of its citizens, should begin developing scenarios for the collapse of Moscow's colonial empire as soon as possible. <…> Yes, now you can tell me: pull yourself together, in fact there are no prerequisites for this. Frankly speaking, I don't see these prerequisites at the moment either. But this does not mean that we should not deal with this issue in any case. <…> Europe, the European Union just need to relearn the basics policy forces. <…> We must take responsibility for this!

By the way, today's Austria is not a member of the anti-Russian military bloc NATO and has declared its neutrality since October 26, 1955. And then this! Everything was fine.

"Drang nach Osten" No. 2?


So, why did enlightened and well-fed Europe suddenly decide to go to war against Russia, which sincerely wanted to be friends and trade with them? If we look at the motivation of the collective West as a whole, then the root causes, as always happens, are economic in nature.

Capitalism with its cyclical nature of development has long since approached its next systemic crisis. The USA as a "hegemon" is waging a fierce internal struggle between two competing projects for exiting the crisis - "globalist" and "isolationist". So far, the "imperialist" Trump has won, for whom, in order to exalt America and fill his pockets with military orders, it is advantageous to pit Russia and Europe, mainland China and Taiwan against each other.

Everything is clear with him and his motivation, but what about Europe itself, doomed by Uncle Sam to burn in the fire of a new Great War with Russia?

Here everything is complicated and ambiguous due to the very large number of EU and NATO members with conflicting interests. On the one hand, there is Western Europe, primarily Germany and France, which participated in the preparation of the Maidan along with Washington and actively supported Kyiv during both Minsk agreements. Why?

Because after the UK left the EU, a serious gap appeared in its economic structure. It was clear long ago that London was serious about Brexit, and Ukraine, with its vast territory by European standards, rich natural resources, fertile black soil and hardworking fair-skinned Christian population, could become an economic colony for Berlin and Paris within the framework of the European association project. For them, the Independent, into which so many resources have already been invested, is their legitimate military prize.

On the other hand, there is Eastern Europe with its own parochial interests. Poland, Romania and Hungary are considered to be claimants to Western Ukraine. True, Budapest has a special, very restrained position in this armed conflict. But Warsaw has actively tried to promote the project of a Polish-Ukrainian union, considering itself the "elder sister" in such a possible confederative union. The neighboring Baltic "elites" have no other export product at all, except patented Russophobia.

And everything would have been fine if the SVO had gone according to plan from the very beginning, and Kyiv would have been taken in three days. But, alas, this did not happen. During the first months of the war, the "Western partners" closely watched what was happening, and then London decided to intervene in the negotiation process between Kiev and Moscow, destroying "Istanbul-1" and transferring the armed conflict to a fundamentally different level.

It would be naive not to notice the direct connection between the state of affairs on the front lines in the first year of the war in Ukraine and the ever-increasing audacity of the West. It is easy to guess that the “Western partners” saw a unique historical opportunity to use the Ukrainian Armed Forces to inflict a military defeat on Russia without fear of receiving a nuclear strike on their own territory in response. This would not only allow them to hold on to their prize, which they have considered theirs by right since 2014, but also to try to hit the jackpot by defeating the Russian Armed Forces on the battlefield.

If the Ukrainian Armed Forces had launched an offensive in the autumn of 2022 not in the Kharkiv region, but in the Zaporizhia region, where there was no “Surovikin Line” at that time, the consequences for the entire Southern Front and Crimea in particular could have been the most catastrophic. How systemic problems at the front could unexpectedly affect the rear could be seen on June 23-24, 2023. And what could have followed the “Time of Troubles” was told in plain text by the head of the Austrian House of Habsburg.

In fact, the weakening of Russia in a permanent confrontation of attrition with Ukraine and the subsequent possible process of “decolonization,” from which not only the US and China, but also Europe, can skim the cream, is the maximum program for the “war party” of the Old World.

We will discuss in more detail below where and how Europe, which stands behind Ukraine, can drag our country into the “Second War”.
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    15 March 2025 18: 45
    Why Europe Wants to Defeat Russia on the Battlefield Again

    History shows that Europe has always wanted to have a colony in the East, Russia, and that is war.

    discussions on how exactly the goals and objectives of the SVO should be clarified so that Russia approaches a possible “Second War” in the most advantageous positions

    The war has been going on for four years, and there is still not a single legal document of the Russian Federation (decree, law, resolution) that would describe, define what the SVO is in Ukraine, designate the goals and objectives, show the strategy and tactics, the time frame, and indicate the enemy.
    How can we clarify the goals and objectives of the SVO if they do not exist???
    Many will refer to statements and slogans of the media. Refer to inscriptions on fences that can be corrected or painted over, but this is by the way.
    1. -4
      15 March 2025 20: 00
      During war, such documents are not published.
      1. +2
        16 March 2025 00: 21
        During a war, what will be considered a victory in it is not published?
  2. +5
    15 March 2025 19: 01
    Why Europe Wants to Defeat Russia on the Battlefield Again

    Childhood psychological trauma, nothing more.
    And on our part we need a convincing victory so that the impossibility of war against Russia is finally ingrained into the subconscious.
  3. +2
    15 March 2025 20: 09
    "according to the plan,... Kyiv would have been taken in three days"-?
    Gazeta.RU:

    US General Milley: Kyiv will "fall" after Russia's "invasion" not in two, but in three days.

    If the Ukrainian Armed Forces launched an offensive in the fall of 2022, not in the Kharkiv region, but in the Zaporizhia region

    If Ukrainian troops had gone south, the road to Kyiv from the north would have been open...
  4. +1
    15 March 2025 20: 14
    And again France, about which Keitel asked a question

    Did these ones defeat us too?

    But in the end they experienced war themselves. There is not a single politician now who has experienced all the horrors of war. They try on the uniforms of their predecessors, which are clearly too big for them and not their height. This kind of sticky policy leads to big wars. The truth will not occur to them. How long will their weapons last? And will they be able to force people to stand at their machines? And let the young ladies work in hospitals. This is a direct question. Will they be able to organize all this? If not, then why shout about war to the whole wide world?
    1. +1
      15 March 2025 20: 42
      Nikolay, the politicians shouting in the EU in their own interests, liars and hypocrites who have never smelled gunpowder and have no idea what war is, especially with such a great country as Russia. In addition, they are Washington's lackeys, without it - zero without a stick and empty talkers.
  5. +3
    15 March 2025 20: 24
    The West is haunted by its centuries-old thirst to defeat us in yet another war. What if it works this time?
  6. +2
    15 March 2025 21: 08
    ha. ha.
    It would be strange if they wrote and said "Europe again wants to be defeated by Russia on the battlefield"
    that is, all this is simply window dressing. Unpunished, in essence.
  7. +3
    15 March 2025 21: 14
    Or maybe we just need to remind the West that Russia is a nuclear power, or that we don’t know something and that the arsenals are full only in reports and on paper.
  8. +1
    15 March 2025 21: 47
    I wonder if now in the West they regret that they started the Maidan in Kiev, or are they jumping for joy too?
  9. 0
    16 March 2025 00: 22
    What kind of nonsense does the author have again about "defeating Russia on the battlefield"... where does he get this from? From Western manuals? It is impossible to defeat the Russian Federation on the battlefield. Because... if everything starts to go badly for the Russian Armed Forces, then an intensified mobilization begins immediately, up to and including a general one. At the same time, TNW strikes are carried out, which instantly change the situation on the battlefield in Russia's favor. And no one will even think about the "reaction in Europe and the civilized world."
    So, fabrications and inventions always need to be controlled by our response actions. There has simply never been a situation where it got out of control. Yes, there were small local failures, but they were stopped. They arose from a misunderstanding of the enemy's capabilities and the nature of his motivation. Underestimation of forces from the initial stage of planning. But these are not critical moments.
    But drawing European countries into war is a different level. Yes, we will be inferior in technology, logistics and people. But that is why we have TNW, to neutralize its superiority in some components. And if it does not understand, it will receive strikes not only on NATO military bases, but also on European capitals and ports.
    1. +1
      16 March 2025 10: 16
      the use of thermonuclear weapons will nullify all states and leaky governments.... everything will be infected and people will die en masse daily in millions. How can they defeat Russia if it disappears like they themselves - conquerors and lovers of war with Russia? This is a 100% suicide of Western civilization.
  10. +3
    16 March 2025 06: 16
    And what could have followed the "Time of Troubles" was told in plain text by the head of the Austrian House of Habsburg

    I think the West is not interested in unrest in Russia. They are completely satisfied with the current cowardly and thieving system.
    During the turmoil, a hypothetical Navalny could come to power, who would sell the country out, as well as a hypothetical Strelkov or Prigozhin, who would mobilize 6 million men and rip Ukraine apart in half a year. They would kill the entire top, and literally roll the population back to the 18th century, leaving them without electricity, water supply and food. Having destroyed food warehouses and treatment plants. That's why they really need the newcomers, they boil them like a frog, and they are slowly poisoning our population, replacing the natives with savages from Central Asia and the Caucasus, who breed like cockroaches.
  11. +2
    16 March 2025 08: 58
    Russia, or rather Russians, have always been hated by all their neighbors, if you look closely at history. All, from all sides, although for different reasons, and this should not be forgotten when discussing politics. The Germanic tribes have always sought to seize lands to the east of them, from the early Middle Ages to Adolf and Ursula; the Baltic region has always been a dangerous place for Russians, because it is an internal body of water of colonization of the Teutons and Vikings (the Chukhon tribes of the "Finns-Estonians" do not count), plus their economic interests. It has always been very dangerous for Russians to get into it. The Western Slavs also hated the Russians; but for a different reason: the denial of Catholic Christianity, which brought them into the bosom of "Western civilization" and tied them to the mentality of Russophobia (Orthodox Romanians, Serbs, Bulgarians do not count, no one listens to them). The Turkic peoples hate the Russians again for natural reasons: they need the territories of the Eastern Slavs for the settlement of their rapidly growing demos, plus Muslim expansionism. The East Asians, the Chinese and Japanese, consider the Russians as an alien element in the territories of East Asia inhabited by their relatives; friendship here is in no way to be expected. In a certain sense, the last Habsburg is right: the Russians colonized the territories to the east of the Urals, this is a fact, and arguing with this would mean denying the facts. However, if we are to demand “decolonization” from Russia, then only those who themselves would reject it would have the right to do so, first of all, cleanse the American continent of the Anglo-Saxon, Spanish and Portuguese “good” colonizers. Therefore, the Russians cannot even theoretically have friends-neighbors. This must be recognized as a natural phenomenon and one must build one’s self-awareness on the basis of precisely this “exceptionality”, whether one likes it or not. Not on Obama-Jewish-liberal, impudent, arrogant “exceptionalism”, but on objective reality.
  12. -1
    16 March 2025 09: 17
    Why Europe Wants to Defeat Russia on the Battlefield Again

    Because she hasn't been beaten for a long time.
    Human nature is so constructed that it cannot live on joy alone, or eat black caviar alone...
    Contrast is needed.
    Here are the Europeans, they lived 80 years without "people", they missed it...
  13. 0
    16 March 2025 09: 48
    Europe wants to defeat Russia on the battlefield again...
    AGAIN ?
    And when was it that some Europe defeated Russia on the battlefield?
    1. +1
      16 March 2025 16: 38
      I read and waited to see if they would pay attention to the headline, they did. It would be more correct that Europe wants a new war, and a victory in this new war with Russia. History is written by leaders, Stalin was a smart leader, and his people became winners. We are waiting for a repeat of the successes of Stalin's Red Army, and the defeat of Europe.
  14. +5
    16 March 2025 10: 10
    Europe is overpopulated. The population density in Germany, France, Italy is over 200 people/km2. The average is 108 people/km2. Europe is 80% self-sufficient in food, the Czech Republic is 46%. Further destruction of agricultural land is underway for ideological reasons. Huge areas are occupied by rapeseed for biodiesel production. There is a shortage of agricultural land. There is not enough land for housing construction. Where is free land - in Russia. In Russia, the population density is 9 people/km2. Even if 1/3 of the EU population (170-200 million) were to move to Russia, the population density would be 20 people/km2. That is why the slogans "Guns instead of butter", "Drag nach Osten", "Russian barbarians", "Give us living space".
    There are 2 ways to solve the problem:
    War and seizure of Russian territory. The fact that 50-100 million Europeans will die in the process does not bother anyone. In this sense, the war in Ukraine (600 km000) to the last Ukrainian is a gift for the EU. It is possible to resettle 2-30 million Europeans.
    The second option. A single economic space (as Putin proposed) and peaceful resettlement of Europeans in Russia with subsequent assimilation. (This was the case under the tsars; they were not the worst citizens - Kruzenshtern, Bellingshausen, Barclay de Tolly, Dahl, etc.) But the European elite does not want to lose slaves, cannon fodder.
  15. +3
    16 March 2025 12: 09
    The West wants to fight seeing that the Kremlin leadership tries not to do anything in response to provocations from any Western country. They considered that the Kremlin is afflicted with lack of will.
  16. 0
    17 March 2025 13: 39
    Everyone judges by themselves, and Habsburg, by the way, has a lousy Ashkenazi surname - is he a Zionist or something? Their thinking is a reflection of their thinking.. Everyone for themselves, but it would be better to remember the British slave trade and the 5 million blacks killed by the Belgian King Leopold and the British opium wars and the 2 world wars and in general Russia had no colonies except Alaska.... Habsburg has gone crazy
  17. 0
    17 March 2025 18: 34
    It is impossible to explain the behavior of rear-wheel drive scum
  18. +3
    19 March 2025 19: 35
    It seems that our state is run by very stupid bosses. They have failures and screw-ups everywhere. Have these people ever brought at least one thing to a successful conclusion?