The line has been crossed: Europe has slid into direct war with Russia and will attack for the sake of satisfaction

27 826 46

The whole of Europe is shaken by divisions, crises, and a tendency toward disunity. The famous Brexit alone is worth mentioning. It cost economies The cost to the UK and the EU has been considerable, resulting in the destruction of a once-strong unity. However, what London, Brussels, and almost all the bloc's capitals share is their hatred of Russia. Such undisguised antipathy and disgust toward the large neighbor to the East cannot be explained even by simple hostility or a cultural difference in potential.

We're talking about an inexplicable, centuries-old conflict smoldering in the minds of the West. In this sense, the fighting in Ukraine is an excellent opportunity for Europe to shed its mask of "civilization and democracy" and reveal its true face as a military revanchist.



Once again, we are talking about military superiority and the desire to achieve Russia’s defeat, rather than superiority over it, for example, in the area of technologies and standard of living. Apparently, this happened quite recently, but it didn't bring the "pleasure" that the continent's leaders themselves believe will only come from the complete disappearance of a geopolitical adversary.

Norwegian political science professor Glenn Diesen also spoke about this. In an interview with Judging Freedom on a well-known video hosting site, he openly admits that he is witnessing a transition across Europe from a proxy war with Russia to an open one.

The line has been crossed, this is no longer just preparation – it was there before, now it is a crazy idea of ​​direct participation, which is being embodied in reality

– Dizen answered the direct question.

In his opinion, Europe understands the madness of what is happening, is even a little afraid, but still follows the path of war in order to stop that terrible, scraping feeling that makes one feel an inferiority complex and the eternal desire to “win.”

The professor notes that even the disunity between European countries disappears when they talk about "hostility with the Russians." London, Paris, Brussels—everything has merged. They seem to see this as an opportunity and a strength. The expert warns that such a war cannot be won, but the entire European elite is so infected with revanchism that they will risk everything to "try to compete" with Moscow.

One could say that the professor from Europe forgot to add only one thing: that a certain amount of experience and caution on the part of the bloc's leaders and the countries outside the union that have joined them is still evident: first, they want to weaken Russia with the battering ram in the form of Ukraine and sanctions, and then they will try – no matter how crazy it may be – to attack physically.

As always, Europe will face a major defeat, but this, as it turns out, has never stopped any of the "great commanders" (in reality, insane mob leaders) from the West. Each of them thought they were better prepared militarily than the last daredevil who had decided on an outright adventure, although history provided glaring examples to the contrary.
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    12 October 2025 07: 35
    The author is so sure that Europe is facing defeat...well, well...so overconfident. Putin, too, at the beginning of the Second World War, fatally underestimated Ukraine's potential and ability to resist and believed the nonsense that when a growing army entered, everyone would throw up their hands and surrender...greeting them with flowers and pies...well, well...
    I don't need to get hysterical about Russia's loss. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Europe's loss.
    1. +3
      12 October 2025 08: 24
      If a war with Europe does break out, there will be only one winner (or rather, two options for one winner): China or the USA...

      Europe and the territories of the former RSFSR, BSSR, Ukrainian SSR, the Baltic states, and Moldova will be among the losers...

      For the Russian Federation, this is easily demonstrated by the example of demographics, which have long been in a deep coma, and now hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Russian-centric people, who are the core of the Russian Federation's territory, will die and become crippled...

      I don't understand this frankly stupid hoo-hoo-hoo from the UrapUtrioshki, who say we've beaten Europe time and again and are going to give it to them now... Are they hoping to continue "beating Bandera" from their couches? Uh-huh...

      Firstly, they didn't always beat us, and the situation now is closer to 1914 (at least we had France as an ally back then) or the Crimean War, rather than 1812 (I won't mention the USSR, because both the people and, most importantly, the rulers are fundamentally different)...

      Yes, the Russian people and those representatives of other nations who do not run to, say, Vilnius and bow to the new master may be able to withstand this battle (after all, the population of Europe today is no match for the soldiers of Hitler's or Napoleon's armies), but this will be our last battle, which will finally kill Russia demographically.

      Besides, I have absolutely no confidence in our leadership's readiness to fight... As much as I can't stand their Emperor's nonentity, Nikolai the Bloody, it must be admitted that even he would give today's chess players a hundred points...

      In my opinion, the best solution for Russia now would be to strengthen the state and put the country on a path of development.

      We need to arm ourselves with the slogan again:

      "We're 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We have to cover that distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we'll be crushed..."

      Yes, it will be difficult, and yes, office plankton, incapable of creating or working, will flock to Georgia and Kazakhstan... but the development of science, education, and industry is the only way to save Russia.

      Continuing to live in the paradigm of false leaps and breakthroughs means destroying both the state and the Russian people.
      1. -4
        12 October 2025 11: 30
        What a "sufferer" for the Russian people...
      2. -6
        12 October 2025 13: 03
        Point of view (on statements and prospects):
        https://t.me/HUhmuroeutro/55290
      3. +1
        12 October 2025 16: 01
        Well, first of all, embarking on a path to development only makes sense if a country has sovereignty. Otherwise, the fruits of its development will be enjoyed by shills in other countries. This is what's happening now, for example, with Germany. Its economy is being exported to the States because of cheaper energy prices there. And Germany is afraid to even utter a word about who blew up its joint venture and got it hooked on expensive energy. And every single family, at that. Because since 22, every German family has overpaid for gas (just for gas!!!) by 2000 euros. That's 200 euros more per month. What's the point of economic development if it can be negated at any moment in favor of something else?
        Russia has no allies? I wouldn't jump to conclusions. China, of course, is unlikely to directly participate in a conflict with Europe, but understanding that if Russia is defeated, it will be left without cheap energy and will very likely be the next victim, it will undoubtedly provide military aid. North Korea, however, could very well participate directly, as it did in the Second World War. Furthermore, unlike in 1812, 1856, and 1941, Russia now has the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical. This mitigates all demographic problems. Moreover, Russia also has hypersonic weapons as a means of delivering tactical nuclear weapons, against which the Europeans and Americans currently have no arguments in the form of air defenses.
        As for lagging 50-100 years behind "advanced" countries—don't be ridiculous. Where's the US hypersonics, where's the icebreaker fleet, where's the Sarmatians and Avangards?
        1. 0
          13 October 2025 21: 20
          When its economy is transferred to the States due to cheaper energy costs in the States

          Explain what a cheap price is? A product may be cheap, but not its price.
          1. 0
            14 October 2025 09: 31
            Low cost is the relatively low value of a product or service, expressed in monetary terms, formed under the influence of economic and, sometimes, political factors.
        2. 0
          13 October 2025 23: 11
          Russia has a lot, you're right, but the bad thing is that the government of hucksters and crooks lacks willpower; they're cowards and will never be brave! Why? May I ask you, how many passports do you have?
          1. 0
            14 October 2025 09: 48
            I agree with your arguments. Sometimes our leadership's moves seem overly cautious. But if we'd started the Strategic Military Operation in 14, before we had those Daggers, Iskanders, Zircons, and orbiting reconnaissance satellites, the renewed nuclear triad-SVO would have been even more difficult. Those at the top undoubtedly possess more complete information than we do regarding the overall state of the economy, weapons stockpiles, and political risks. Although, in many instances, I repeat, the leadership's actions seem, as do you, overly cautious. But cautious moves make the enemy bolder and more brazen. And it's quite possible that such a pattern of behavior will lead to a situation where you'll have to respond harshly right away, otherwise you'll be politically bankrupt. Just imagine—they'll send tomahawks to the independent state now. And it will calmly carry out strikes—against those same early warning systems, strategic airfields, and nuclear power plants—deep in Russia. God forbid, people will die, and in significant numbers. In this scenario, limiting itself to strikes on Ukrainian thermal power plants and claiming retaliation will no longer be possible. It will be necessary to either strike American bases in Europe, or similar facilities in the UK, or Arleigh Burkes or aircraft carriers. And even Rzeszow won't cut it in this scenario. A powerful escalation will begin, which could lead to far more serious consequences than a strike on Rzeszow, for example, as a logistics hub.
            I only have one passport. But if it comes to a nuclear standoff, it won't matter. Those who have villas abroad and children studying at Cambridge won't be questioned. Well, they started the SVO without taking their opinions into account—even though they turned out to be the main victims, considering the confiscated villas, yachts, and frozen assets.
      4. +1
        12 October 2025 18: 45
        Dear Sir, open your eyes. Just when Russia begins to live more or less normally, chaos erupts at its borders, gradually escalating into a takeover. Globalists will never let us develop; don't be fooled. Read the article carefully. The same applies to China, but there are many of them, they're hard-working, and it's more difficult with them. But no one has changed the fact that, not long ago, they tried to hook China on opium in order to slow its development.
      5. -1
        12 October 2025 21: 17
        The author apparently has no idea what the Crimean War was like in the mid-19th century. After this event, the ruble lost half its value, serfdom collapsed (61), and Alaska was lost (67).
    2. +3
      12 October 2025 09: 28
      Russia can have as many nuclear briefcases and nuclear buttons as it wants, but since the Russian elite's $500 billion is sitting in our banks, you'll have to figure out: is this your elite or is it ours? I don't see any situation in which Russia would use its nuclear potential.
      1. 0
        12 October 2025 20: 08
        Well, Russia did launch the Strategic Defense Forces. Despite the easily predictable consequences for this very elite—from yacht confiscation to asset freezes. And no one asked them. And the situations in which nuclear weapons would be used are all described in the nuclear doctrine.
    3. +5
      12 October 2025 12: 20
      Ukraine is not being leveled with carpet bombing, in case you haven't noticed.
    4. +3
      12 October 2025 12: 32
      First, they want to weaken Russia with the battering ram in the form of Ukraine and sanctions, and then they will try – no matter how crazy it may be – to attack physically.

      Weakening Russia is certainly an option. But attacking Russia is more of a scare tactic for the Russians, and it remains to be seen from what angle. For now, they're scaring their people to extract more money for militarization.
  2. +1
    12 October 2025 07: 55
    Europe is essentially bankrupt. They've already destroyed their economy by refusing cheap gas from Russia and shutting down their nuclear power plants. That once-wonderful, blooming garden is now covered in toxic waste—migrants. Nothing will grow there anymore. So, the action is on.
    1. +7
      12 October 2025 08: 15
      This once wonderful blooming garden is now covered with toxic waste - migrants.

      It's good that in Russia everything is not like that, right? laughing

      P.S. Yes, I don't consider people, including migrants, to be waste... Comprador capitalism turns people into waste... and it doesn't matter whether they're Tajiks or spiritually strong Russians, who are dying out at such a rate that Rosstat has stopped publishing demographic statistics.
      1. +2
        12 October 2025 08: 55
        Migrants from sunny Asia don't work in Germany; they merely parasitize on its residents. They reproduce like bacteria and become even more parasitic. They are generally unable to learn German, which means they are fundamentally unable to integrate into society.
        As for us, all our problems are artificially created by our "captains," whose goal is to inflict irreparable damage on Russia BEFORE the last saleswoman in a rural Magnit store realizes it.
      2. -1
        12 October 2025 17: 38
        Why did he stop publishing? All the data is there for 24 years. There's a mortality rate surplus. But we also have to take into account the population that became part of the Russian Federation in Donbas and Luhansk. So, the bottom line is, we'll end up with a profit.
    2. +4
      12 October 2025 09: 51
      Alexey, this is definitely for you:

      All your tendency to optimism
      - from the inability to imagine
      what kind of enema tomorrow,
      Destiny is ready to give you


      A. Zhemchuzhnikov. "For the Album of Modern Portraits," 1890.
    3. +2
      12 October 2025 12: 21
      It's interesting that they're bankrupt, but the cost of electricity for industrial enterprises there is 2 times lower than here due to government subsidies. Why then, in our country, where we have our own gas, oil, and electricity generation, don't we have such preferences for production? So, with geochess players like those in the Kremlin, we'll have to wait and see when and who will kick the bucket first.
      1. oao
        -2
        12 October 2025 12: 47
        Well, at the very least, their subsidies are fictitious and unsupported, just like Hitler's in his day. And then...
      2. +6
        12 October 2025 13: 15
        Well, you answered it yourself: they're taking money from other industries and using it to offset the high cost of electricity. The companies seem to be afloat, but globally (in the country) the money isn't increasing. I think they're trying to curb China's expansion.
        As for us, this is outright sabotage and betrayal, coming from the very top, under slogans about a special "Russian gene" and the "Russian way." They're simply not allowing us to develop. They're deliberately stunting the growth of public prosperity, under cries of "Naibullina is to blame for everything, and NATO is at the gates." Their target is probably an impoverished and dependent population willing to do anything to survive.
  3. +4
    12 October 2025 12: 18
    We are talking about an inexplicable conflict rooted in centuries

    Why is it so inexplicable? England hates Russia and teaches all other countries this hatred.
  4. +3
    12 October 2025 12: 23
    Regarding the "defeat of Europe (conditionally, since NATO is, first of all, the USA and only then its European satellites)" in the "pan-European Drang nach Osten" under the leadership of Washington - this is a "difference between the two", alas! winked
    With such Western-servile compradorism and the "level of managerial and military talent" demonstrated by the Kremlin and the Russian "elites" as a whole, their SVO in the American colony of Bandarland, it is not surprising that the "respected Western partners of the Kremlin" - the revanchist "Pan-Europe" - are so excited about another "campaign", naturally hoping and counting on success.
    And so, the current situation reminds me (!) of the eve of, by no means victorious, sad “pages” of our Russian history.
    I only express my own point of view and do not impose it on anyone!!!
  5. oao
    +1
    12 October 2025 12: 45
    Well, we gave reason to think so. Both in 1905 and in 1939.
  6. +6
    12 October 2025 15: 42
    The strange reasoning of various Norwegians and Danes about a war with Russia. If they start winning, they'll get a nuclear winter at home. Conclusion: the world's leaders have accepted that nuclear weapons won't be used, but only for the time being. Conclusion: the Kremlin's softness and indecisiveness breed wars...
    1. +2
      12 October 2025 16: 33
      Or maybe the Norwegians and Danes understood something that we didn’t?
      Compare the words from the Soviet and American military oaths: "... to stand up for the defense when ordered..."
      And "to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic..."

      Consider why the "invincible and legendary" ended up defenseless, like children in kindergarten facing Yeltsin and Co. There was no order...

      And the conclusion we have to draw is this: In Russia, everything is done by order. That's why in Russia, orders can be anything. But for Norwegians and Danes, they can't be anything. They have a different mentality.
      1. 0
        12 October 2025 16: 46
        Interesting observation, Boris! good
        I didn’t even think about it (although I did make fun of our American emigrants, because when they received an American passport, they swore to defend exclusively the USA and to fight even against their Russian Fatherland).
        But we memorized the text of the Soviet military oath before its ceremonial adoption with arms in hand! And even now, it still recites itself off the top of my head, just as it did half a century ago. Yes
      2. -1
        12 October 2025 17: 43
        Well, if everything in Russia had been done by order, there would have been no revolution of 1917 or the events of the 90s. But in America, despite all their orders, nothing like that happened. Not counting the civil war between the North and the South that took place 200 years ago. But they have the CIA and the FBI and so many intelligence agencies that Russia can't even dream of. And as for the Norwegians and Danes—under what orders did they recruit the Waffen SS? Under what orders did they exterminate millions of Soviet citizens? So what's their mentality like? Please elaborate.
        1. +1
          12 October 2025 19: 25
          Quote: Botrops
          Well, if everything in Russia was done by order, then this wouldn’t happen.

          I didn't come up with this myself, it was Saltykov-Shchedrin. It's a shame you haven't read it.
          In general, read more carefully.
          The division of the USSR in 1991 occurred precisely because there was no order to protect its laws. We don't live in the USA, after all...

          And in 1993, there was an order to shoot the All-Russian Congress of People's Deputies and betray the 1992 oath.

          The events of October 1917 occurred because the Red Guard was subordinate not to the government, but to the legislative branch—the Petrograd Soviet. And the Soviet ordered the government arrested, not to obey orders.

          If you could not only read but also understand the meaning of what you read, no explanations would be necessary. As it is, there's no point in explaining further. Because it's all the same—meaningless. hi
          1. +2
            12 October 2025 19: 44
            Two hundred years have passed since Saltykov-Shchedrin, and the situation in Russia during the reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III is fundamentally different from today. And Saltykov-Shchedrin isn't the ultimate authority. And I quite possibly read more than you do. Including Saltykov-Shchedrin.
            In 1917, the Red Guard still had to be formed. And in 1916, the Tsar's troops were on the front lines of the First World War. And their oath commanded them to defend the Tsar and the Fatherland. What other order do you need? Don't force facts to support your wild fantasies, especially since they don't correspond to real events. Revolution is always the demolition of the old and the construction of the new. And whether there was an order or not is irrelevant. If a revolution is ripe and the conditions for its emergence are in place, it will happen. Read Lenin—he wrote a lot on this topic, including in "State and Revolution."
            There's really no point in explaining it. Because the meaningless things you're expounding are worthless.
    2. 0
      13 October 2025 17: 56
      ...that's how they'll get a nuclear winter at home.

      Dear Sir, do you think nuclear winter will bypass your personal sofa?
      I doubt it.
      1. 0
        13 October 2025 19: 42
        If you have any doubts, move beyond the Urals to a small town. You could easily live to a ripe old age of a hundred... That's the difference, the difference in territory, which offers a significant advantage when using nuclear weapons. Conclusion: prepare the population of the European part of the country, especially in large cities, for resettlement inland in the event of a major epidemic, war, and other such events. Stalin prepared industry for remote locations; today, perhaps, we'll need to save the most important thing—citizens.
  7. 0
    12 October 2025 17: 46
    What does it mean that Europe has descended into outright war? Europe is made up of a number of states. There is the military-political bloc NATO. If anyone attacks Russia, it will be NATO. A NATO attack on Russia would immediately lead to nuclear war. Or does anyone think that NATO members Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia will attack Russia and there will be a conventional war? The war will be fought on the territories of the Baltic states and Russia, but all NATO countries and their satellites will participate. This is a convenient position for NATO, initiated by the Kremlin with its position on Ukraine.
  8. -2
    12 October 2025 18: 19
    The communists brought Russia to a coma. Zhirinovsky was right: in 1914, 140 million people lived in Russia. A hundred years have passed, and we still have the same 140 million. In Turkey, for example, in 1914, 40 million lived.
    and in 2014 it was already 80 million, and in other countries the increase was at least 50%.......
    1. +1
      12 October 2025 20: 52
      And here I thought the First and Second World Wars had a negative impact on the population growth of the RSFSR. Incidentally, in the 30 years from 1960 to 1990, Russia's population increased by 30 million, whereas after the fall of the USSR, Russia's population didn't increase by even one person.
  9. -2
    12 October 2025 18: 31
    The reason why the West goes to war against Rus' every 100 years is simple: The population of Europe 40 thousand years ago consisted of peoples with haplogroup R1a.
    Around the same time, nomadic tribes with the R1b haplogroup began migrating from Africa to Spain, spreading across Western Europe to the shores of the Baltic Sea. The nomads brutally dealt with the local population, freeing up land for their own habitation, but the main battle between the R1a haplogroup carriers and the R1b haplogroup carriers occurred 5000 years ago at Tollense... and, one might say, never ended... The R1b haplogroup carriers, the current population of Western Europe, absorb the aggressive aspirations of their ancestors with their mother's milk... It can be considered that it was from that time, 5000 years ago, that the idea was born Drang nach osten...
    https://aftershock.news/?q=node/977816&full
    1. -1
      12 October 2025 19: 18
      Where would we be without racial theory? Skullomer will help you.
      1. -1
        12 October 2025 19: 35
        Well, this isn't really a racial theory, it's a well-known concept of halogroups, how they settled and who their carriers are. There's a theory called "DNA genealogy" by A.A. Klesov, who talks extensively and in a popular way about how peoples settled.
        1. +1
          13 October 2025 07: 49
          Quote: rotkiv04
          A.A. Klesov

          The author of the pseudoscientific concept of "DNA genealogy," which he promotes as a "new science" studying population migrations and the genetic history of humanity. Within the framework of "DNA genealogy," Klyosov seeks to prove the antiquity and "Aryan" origins of the Slavs, the genetic primacy and cultural primacy of the Slavic "Aryans," who, in his opinion, migrated from the Russian Plain in ancient times ("Aryans" in this case is a pseudoscientific synonym for Proto-Indo-Europeans, "Aryans," not the historical Aryans, the ancestors of only the Indo-Iranians). In other publications, Klyosov, within the framework of "DNA genealogy," dates the origin of the Slavs, or Russians, to 700 years ago and asserts that they were the progenitors of all humanity, and that the further ancient peoples moved from the Russian Plain, the more they degenerated. Overall, in his concept, Klyosov, by identifying haplogroups with clans, traces the "Russian clan" back to the Paleolithic era. Klyosov views his "DNA genealogy" as the basis for "scientific patriotism," which he proposes as a Russian national idea.

          As one Austrian artist said, "Don't copy exactly."
          1. 0
            13 October 2025 10: 06
            You can argue a lot about pseudoscience, but copying from lovejournal and presenting the scribblings of an unknown avixa here speaks volumes about your level of immersion in the topic. Incidentally, Klesov himself never spoke of Slavic primogeniture or superiority. You live by the principle of "I haven't read it, but I condemn it."
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. +1
    13 October 2025 11: 42
    Quote: Botrops
    Well, first of all, embarking on a path to development only makes sense if a country has sovereignty. Otherwise, the fruits of its development will be enjoyed by shills in other countries. This is what's happening now, for example, with Germany. Its economy is being exported to the States because of cheaper energy prices there. And Germany is afraid to even utter a word about who blew up its joint venture and got it hooked on expensive energy. And every single family, at that. Because since 22, every German family has overpaid for gas (just for gas!!!) by 2000 euros. That's 200 euros more per month. What's the point of economic development if it can be negated at any moment in favor of something else?
    Russia has no allies? I wouldn't jump to conclusions. China, of course, is unlikely to directly participate in a conflict with Europe, but understanding that if Russia is defeated, it will be left without cheap energy and will very likely be the next victim, it will undoubtedly provide military aid. North Korea, however, could very well participate directly, as it did in the Second World War. Furthermore, unlike in 1812, 1856, and 1941, Russia now has the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical. This mitigates all demographic problems. Moreover, Russia also has hypersonic weapons as a means of delivering tactical nuclear weapons, against which the Europeans and Americans currently have no arguments in the form of air defenses.
    As for lagging 50-100 years behind "advanced" countries—don't be ridiculous. Where's the US hypersonics, where's the icebreaker fleet, where's the Sarmatians and Avangards?

    Where are the Russian smartphones, irons, televisions, and so on? What you listed is based on Soviet developments. Nothing purely Russian was created.
  12. 0
    13 October 2025 21: 07
    He will definitely attack, only to immediately capitulate and get cheap energy from Russia)) Once again, the industry will breathe again and, perhaps, be revived...
  13. 0
    13 October 2025 23: 21
    The Russian Security Council is taking these ideas seriously, and Dmitry Medvedev and Peskov themselves voiced the ideas and decisions made yesterday at the Security Council. Western generals believe the first tactical nuclear weapons strike will hit Lviv in the near future, and radioactive rain over Poland will cool Europe's ardor and lead to a speedy peace.
  14. PsgQey
    0
    23 January 2026 00: 09
    I don't understand what revanchism you're talking about. Did Europe once lose to Russia and now it wants revenge? Am I missing something?
    As far as I remember, Putin attacked Ukraine, and now he's claiming he's at war with the collective West. So, he attacked the collective West. But if you're attacked, it's logical to defend yourself. Or did he attack deliberately, to expose the wolfish grin of capitalism?

    So, Europe was dreaming of attacking Russia. But there was no pretext. And now Putin has given it that pretext.