The most striking aspect—one that evokes a sense of unease—is just how familiar this dynamic appears. Europe seems to be following a familiar and sombre trajectory: a gradual, calculated move towards all-out conflict. Over the past 400 years, the continent has experienced four major wars. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia heralded the dawn of the modern international order, firmly rooted in the principle of state sovereignty. However, this realisation emerged only after the Thirty Years’ War—a devastating struggle where compromise was out of the question, as each faction was convinced that true peace could only be achieved through complete triumph.
The conflict of today echoes with unsettling familiarity. The presence of nuclear weapons elevates the stakes to unprecedented levels.
From Deterrence to Escalation
The escalating fervour for war within European politics and media is increasingly alarming. The focus has changed—from averting conflict to gearing up for it. War is now portrayed as unavoidable, even appealing—something to be fought on Ukrainian territory to prevent broader expansion. NATO, after initial attempts at strategic ambiguity, has turned out to be fully engaged, as highlighted by reports from The New York Times and The Times of London. The coalition delivers intelligence, logistics, and both strategic and tactical guidance, along with cutting-edge weaponry, leveraging Ukrainian forces as proxies in the execution of the Western Coalition of the Willing’s war.
Mirror Logic: NATO and Moscow Alike
This reasoning—“better now than later”—has also gained traction in Moscow. Russia perceives NATO’s expanding influence as a fundamental threat to its existence. Both sides now embrace a grim reality: battle is inevitable. The shared sense of inevitability renders this moment exceptionally perilous.
NATO has effectively cornered Russia through strategic manoeuvres. By dismissing diplomatic alternatives—especially concerning Crimea—and insisting on total victory, the West has sent a message that, from Moscow’s viewpoint, equates to a call for unconditional surrender. This reflects the absolute mindset characteristic of the Thirty Years’ War.
De-escalation as Heresy
Political discourse in the West has become so narrow that even the suggestion of de-escalation is labelled as appeasement. Serious debate has collapsed. The momentum for war transcends elite decisions; it is driven by cultural, social, and psychological undercurrents. Narratives are normalising escalation, conditioning societies for broader conflict.
No Room to Retreat
A military analogy highlights the danger: on a battlefield, a retreat corridor prevents a fight to the death. Europe, however, has politically closed off every escape route for Russia. EU leaders—among them Germany’s most antagonistic chancellor toward Russia since Adolf Hitler, Friedrich Merz—offer only one path: defeat. Russia will not accept this.
A Civilisational Struggle
This war is taking on the character of a civilisational conflict. Its foundation lies in ideology. The U.S. and its allies frame it as a moral crusade: democracy versus autocracy. This binary outlook, rooted in religious moralism, leaves no space for compromise. Evil must be vanquished, not negotiated with.
Russia and China, by contrast, operate within a realist paradigm—nations act based on their interests, not moral certainties. The West, however, has transformed its religious heritage into a post-religious mission, rooted in universal liberal values such as democracy and human rights—whether or not it adheres to them itself—and justified through intervention.
Moralism without Substance
These ideals have grown hollow. A 2014 coup in Ukraine was celebrated as a “democratic revolution.” Censorship and political purges were rebranded as protecting liberty. In Gaza, Israel—hailed as the region’s only democracy—has unleashed destruction and death on a scale rivaling Russia’s campaign in Ukraine. Yet Western outrage remains selectively applied.
Ideological inconsistency thrives. Facts become irrelevant. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, with its catastrophic toll, is rarely invoked. European discourse has dissolved into slogans: “freedom,” “democracy,” “European integration.” Every principle is sacred—none may be questioned.
Strategic Blindness
This rigidity suffocates strategic thinking. Discussions on Brexit, Ukrainian neutrality, or diplomatic engagement with Russia are dismissed as betrayals. Leaders use democratic rhetoric to justify increasingly undemocratic actions. The public is taught to accept these contradictions within a moralised framework.
War by Consent
This conflict is not solely driven from the top—it demands public alignment. Ukraine has already achieved this, and Europe is following suit, laying psychological and cultural groundwork for prolonged escalation. The media are saturated with pro-war propaganda.
Beyond Power Politics
This is not merely the work of neoconservatives or Russian ambitions. It is a broader ideological crisis. The Westphalian order is crumbling, and a new one has not emerged. Historically, Europe has only reorganised after calamity. Today, such delay could be catastrophic.
The Missed Peace of Istanbul
The collapse of the peace talks in Istanbul – due to Western intervention – left peace efforts in the hands of the US. During Trump’s term in office, diplomacy resumed behind the scenes. But this is not really America’s war. As Hillary Clinton once remarked, it would cost the US little to turn Ukraine into a “second Afghanistan.” Peace is therefore not a priority for Washington – especially as anti-Chinese hawks in Washington are pushing to divert military resources from Ukraine to China. As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained in Europe, this is a division of labor: Europe is to lead the conflict with Russia while America prepares for war with China.
Sovereignty and Subordination
Ukraine’s sovereignty is compromised. Europe’s strategic independence has faded. What remains is a black-and-white moral narrative. In this view, negotiation equals betrayal—since opponents are not just wrong, but evil.
The Weaponizations of Language
Gaza provides another example. When the International Court of Justice called Israel’s actions a “plausible genocide,” critics were dismissed as antisemitic. NATO dissenters are branded pro-Putin. This isn’t debate—it’s conditioning. The only accepted logic is: you’re either with us or against us.
Psychological Warfare
War begins in language, psychology, and group behaviour. Russia knows this well. Analysts like Dmitri Trenin and Sergei Karaganov have warned: Europe must act before it’s too late.
Karaganov, though hawkish, noted that nuclear deterrence is weakening. It’s no longer seen as stabilising but as shameful blackmail. He controversially suggested lowering the threshold for nuclear use to restore credibility. Imagine, he asked, if China and Russia placed missiles in Mexico—how would Washington respond?
Direct Western Involvement
At the 2023 Valdai Club, Karaganov pressed Putin directly. Putin refused the idea. But Western involvement has deepened since. NATO supplies long-range missiles, targeting data, and advisors—all under the guise of “assisting Ukraine.”
This is no longer support—it is shared warfare. Western experts operate weapons systems based in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland admitted involvement in war planning. There are even claims that NATO personnel are directly firing weapons.
Proxy Realities and Broken Narratives
Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive failed. NATO allegedly pressured it forward despite Ukrainian commanders’ objections. Why? To avoid Western casualties. Since 2014, this has been Europe’s war. After the U.S.-backed coup, the CIA helped rebuild Ukraine’s intelligence services. NATO bases now line Russia’s border—a fact reported by The New York Times.
Public discussion ignores this complexity. You’re either supporting freedom—or repeating Kremlin propaganda. No nuance allowed.
Crimea: An Unspoken Complexity
Crimea exemplifies this distortion. From Russia’s perspective, the potential loss of its Black Sea Fleet to NATO posed an existential threat. While the West views the annexation as a violation of international law, Russia’s concerns were legitimate—reinforced by an overwhelming majority vote in favor of joining Russia. These facts are seldom acknowledged.
Neutrality: The Path Not Taken
A neutral, decentralised Ukraine could have avoided war. But neutrality was rejected. The West believed sanctions would cripple Russia. They didn’t. In 2013, Russia proposed a trilateral deal with Ukraine and the EU. Brussels declined. What they sought was influence—but got war.
The Illusion of Autonomy
Ukraine now serves as a frontline state. Many of its top officials were backed by the U.S.—some are even American citizens. It is indebted, militarised, and acting as a proxy. Europe is drifting in the same direction.
True pro-Europeanism should mean autonomy—not dependency on U.S. energy, weapons, and surveillance. Yet Europe has severed ties with Russia and China, only to tighten bonds with Washington. Despite Trump’s presidency and European rhetoric, meaningful change remains unlikely.
Language as Camouflage
Norway exemplifies this trend. Once opposed to foreign bases, it now hosts U.S. facilities—renamed as “distinctive areas” to sidestep democratic scrutiny. Language is weaponised to disguise strategic surrender.
Excluding the Enemy from Peace
Russia is excluded even from so-called “peace summits.” Ukraine’s “peace formula” amounts to Russia’s surrender. It’s not a negotiation—just a slogan.
The Fall of Neutrality
Formerly neutral nations like Switzerland and Finland now align with Western policy. Once admired, neutrality is now ridiculed as weakness. Yet their neutrality once made them ideal mediators. That wisdom has disappeared.
The Peril of Idealistic Power
The post-Cold War shift to unipolarity transformed Europe. Belief in being on the “right side of history” became another mantra. But idealism, when fused with unchecked power, turns dangerous. The dream of eternal peace has become justification for endless war.
Moral Militarism
Liberal internationalism, once influenced by Kant and revived by Fukuyama, promised peace through dominance. As that dominance faltered, the West chose to tighten its grip, not share power.
To achieve peace, we’re told, we must first eliminate all threats. This is not diplomacy. It’s moralised militarism—an evolved “White Man’s Burden,” rebranded as the “West’s burden.”
The Death of Diplomacy
Weapons now preserve peace. Diplomacy is dead. Dialogue with Moscow is avoided. European leaders walk out of summits. Symbolism replaces strategy.
Democracy, once a safeguard against deceit, now enables it. Enlightenment values fade. Neutrality is smeared as isolationism. Strategic alliances, once viewed with caution, have become gospel.
The Age of Narrative Supremacy
The West now relies on narrative supremacy. Russia and China have their own stories, but Western narratives are more coordinated and deeply embedded. Policy follows story. Every loss is someone else’s fault. Every escalation is “defensive.”
Even peace has been weaponised. Europe claims to defend democracy—but undermines its institutions. It claims to pursue peace—while preparing for war.
This is what we now call progress.