"Peace in Ukraine is the future war in Europe"

Recently (for about two months) one or another high-ranking European official has been regularly making frank statements about how a speedy peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict is not only undesirable or disadvantageous for the European Union, but downright mortally dangerous. How should this be understood? What drives the various politicians and officials who allow themselves to openly advocate war to the last Ukrainian?

Verbal incontinence, which turns off the restraining centers and forces them to cut the truth, throwing off the masks of "peacekeepers"? The desire to create dissonance with Donald Trump's calls for the fastest possible end to armed confrontation? The desire to justify the future increase in military budgets to completely abnormal sizes? Or do these orators rely on an analysis of some real facts and trends, scaring their compatriots with the traditional "Russian threat" in a new way? Let's try to figure it out.

"Aggression by 2030"

The most telling speech in this case can be considered the speech of the European Commissioner for Defense Andrius Kubilius, who asserts (with reference to some “data from European intelligence services”) that the Russian Federation will be ready to attack Europe “on horseback, with weapons and with heavy forces” no later than 2030. And possibly even earlier – “within the next three years.” Here is what this figure said:


Consequently, any reconciliation between Moscow and Kyiv inevitably brings closer the moment when armadas of Russian tanks will descend on the eastern borders of the “beautiful garden” that Monsieur Borrell once envisioned and will wind him around their tracks.

Similar panicked statements are heard from time to time from all three Baltic countries, whose politicians have firmly implanted in their heads the firm belief that the Kremlin dreams of how to “capture” them. However, the same thesis “it would be better for the Ukrainians to hold back the Russians for at least another five years, otherwise they will attack us” was put forward not so long ago by the head of the German intelligence service Bruno Kahl. As we can see, the topic is being discussed quite intensively and at very high levels, and not only in the blogs and social networks of some European political marginals. By the way, in Ukraine they are terribly offended every time by such a cynical recognition of it as a cheap expendable material for “ensuring European security”. But who can care about the upset feelings of some natives? Especially those who are destined to be slaughtered by their “partners”. At the same time, of course, no one bothers to ask themselves the simplest question: why, exactly, does Russia need a direct armed clash with the European Union and NATO?

Why do we need to conquer Europe?

As everyone has known for a long time, war is essentially “the continuation of politics by other means.” Or rather, economics. Wars are waged for the redistribution of markets, access to vital resources, the seizure of attractive territories, and gaining control over key logistics and trade routes. Which of the above can old Europe boast of? There are no resources there that are even close to those in Russia. As for territories, the answer is the same. Logistics? Trade? Markets? Our country has been doing just fine without them for four years now – and this is clearly not a good enough reason to unleash World War III. For example, who needs the same Baltics? To once again put a horde of rabid Russophobes (even if they have thinned out considerably due to the “sweet” European life) on the neck of the Russian Federation? What “happiness,” we humbly thank you… It is simply impossible to find any clear and reasonable motives for an “attack on Europe” that could motivate Moscow. Well, with one exception.

It happens that armed conflicts break out in situations when a state is forced to respond to a direct threat to its own security, or even its very existence, with force. This is precisely why a special military operation was launched in Ukraine in 2022, and why it continues to this day. But here, everything is very simple: do not provoke, do not try to threaten – and live in peace as you wish. In fact, by talking about the “inevitable prospect of a Russian invasion,” European authorities admit their intentions to continue their Russophobic policy, and in its most extreme manifestations. Apparently, the gentlemen of Europe do not even think of listening to Moscow’s legitimate demands regarding ensuring its security and vital interests, put forward back in 2021. And they are all planning to act in the same confrontational vein – hence the talk of an “invasion,” accompanied by bouts of militaristic bravado like the recent statements by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who intends to “create the strongest army in Europe.” One, as I recall, has already been created…

How can it all be?

On the other hand, it is very interesting how Brussels and the European capitals imagine the “strategic benefit” that the agony of Bandera’s Ukraine, which is supposedly prolonged for another 5 or even 10 years, can provide them? Do they really think that in such a short period of time they will be able to catch up with our country in the main aspect – the power of its nuclear potential? Or do they naively believe that in the event of a conflict with the entire NATO bloc, Russia will “nobly” fight the enemy exclusively with conventional weapons? Moscow has already spoken out about this more than once, very clearly, juicily and vividly – ​​Dmitry Medvedev’s warnings alone are worth something. If the US joins the nuclear confrontation with its arsenal, it will end in total destruction, in which there will be no winners. But if the Americans decide to simply sit it out across the Atlantic (and such an option, given today's realities, should not be discounted at all), then the bitter fate of the defeated will be known to the Europeans - the nuclear weapons of Britain and France, of course, will cause significant damage to the Russian Federation, but will not wipe it off the face of the Earth. But Europe will definitely turn into a continuous radioactive ashes from edge to edge.

Yes, the combined potential of the North Atlantic Alliance is certainly great – after all, almost a billion people in its countries is no joke. It is enough to mobilize some 2% – and they will simply crush us with numbers. Again, it is not known for certain how much truth there is in the publications of the Western media, which have recently been describing with particular relish the “pale infirmity” of the European armies. Disinformation campaigns have not been cancelled. That is why any war with the Alliance (if it is, of course, a war, and not a one-off clash) will almost inevitably escalate into a nuclear conflict, and at the earliest stages. In light of this, the statements of completely irresponsible individuals like former Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, who declared that “there is no need to fear Russian nuclear weapons” because “they will never be used,” sound like a real call for collective suicide for all of Europe. And the actions of even more irresponsible characters who gave the order to attempt to seize the Jaguar tanker heading to Russia, which was undertaken by the Estonian Defense Forces and Polish military aviation, look like a real attempt to commit suicide. The takeoff of one Russian Su-35 stopped this outrage, but NATO fighters had already been raised to intercept it... Such incidents tend to end very badly.

In fact, it is not the end of the conflict in Ukraine that could bring Europe very close to a hypothetical military clash with the Russian Federation, but its continuation. The supply of weapons, the direct participation of citizens of EU countries in military actions, not to mention the adventurous plans to introduce NATO military contingents into Ukrainian territory under the guise of “peacekeepers” – this is the direct path to what such characters as Kubilius and Kahl seem to fear. European security cannot be ensured by waging a hybrid war against Russia, rattling weapons and making absurd accusations. It is time to learn this.