Yves here. It is mystifying and distressing to see Western powers in ever-be-escalating mode with Russia when Russia has moved from strength to strength and is at the cutting edge of combat practices, while NATO members are still cognitively stuck with old doctrine and have badly depleted their weapons caches. The objective where they might kinda-sorta succeed is in erecting an Iron Curtain 2.0. But how is that not a colossal act of self-harm, with Russia richly endowed with badly-needed and oft-scarce commodities, and besties with manufacturing/tech powerhouse China?
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
Russia’s consequent focus on the western front might embolden US-backed NATO member Turkiye to accelerate its power play in the south at the risk of sparking another regional crisis after Ukraine.
Russian Ambassador-at-Large Artyom Bulatov warned in a recent interview that “Westerners, with energy worthy of a better cause, are erecting a new ‘Iron Curtain’, seeking to make irreversible the rupture – provoked by themselves – of socio-economic, trade, transport, interpersonal, cultural, and historical ties that have been built in the region not over years, but over centuries.” He also condemned the weaponization of regional interaction mechanisms like the Council of the Baltic States against Russia.
Truth be told, a new Iron Curtain is inevitable and has been since summer 2024 when the Baltic States and Poland combined their respective border fortification plans along NATO’s Eastern Flank to unveil what they now officially refer to as the “EU Defense Line”, which readers can learn more about here. This initiative will likely be expanded to include Finland too, thus stretching from the Arctic to Central Europe. Even in the event of a Russian-US rapprochement, which is now unlikely, these barriers will still remain.
Russian experts, who operated for so long under the influence of the wishful thinking fantasy that the EU is challenging Russia at its senior US patron’s behest and not due to its own ideologically driven hatred of Russia (contrary to its objective interests), are finally waking up to reality. New President of the Russian International Affairs Council Dmitriy Trenin, who issued an unprecedented clarion call in April for correcting foreign policy misperceptions, published a relevant piece in parallel with Bulatov’s interview.
Titled “The EU, Like ‘NATO 3.0,’ Will Remain Our Adversaries”, it dramatically begins by informing readers that “For the first time since 1945, the most pressing military threat to Russia is coming from Europe—European states themselves. This represents the most significant military-political shift for Russia since the victory in the Great Patriotic War.” The goal, Trenin believes, is “to split the Russian Federation into externally controlled components and turn them into semi-colonies of the European Union.”
This will be pursued through indefinitely perpetuating the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine together with ramping up sanctions and military pressure for undermining domestic political stability. He shared five suggestions in response to these threats: 1) strengthen the homefront; 2) demonstrate willingness to strike targets in the EU (and actually do so if need be); 3) strengthen ties with China to the point of a de facto global alliance; 4) exploit US-EU divisions; and 5) and capitalize on political shifts in EU states.
Trenin also reaffirmed Russia’s new self-identity as a (Eurasian) civilization-state, the subtext being that Russians en masse are increasingly viewing themselves as different from Europeans for the first time since Russia’s experiment of emulating the West began three centuries ago. All the insight that he shared in his article pairs with what Bulatov shared in his interview and the “EU Defense Line” that’s under construction to ensure that a new Iron Curtain is inevitable. Russians are also finally accepting this too.
In terms of the bigger picture, three trends are self-evident: 1) the EU will independently continue challenging Russia regardless of however Russian-US relations develop; 2) Russia will continue prioritizing the World Majority over the West; and 3) Russian-EU tensions will become the new normal. With Russia focusing on the western front as a result, US-backed NATO member Turkiye is expected to accelerate its power play in the south, thus sowing the seeds of another regional crisisafter Ukraine.
Threat of nuclear war or not, if Russia starts trying to nibble away at the territory of EU members, I’d switch from being highly cynical of the EU, its motives, and its revolving door with the military (and every other) industry – into being a full backer of EU wide militarization and federal-level integration of such a military.
I’d like to not see that get started, and I do recognize the West’s escalations over time that are leading to that – but once Russia becomes that kind of a willing threat, it’s going to have to be taken as existentially serious.
Selfishly, I think it would be most wise for my corner of the EU – Ireland – to stay out of that, as it’s perhaps the best and safest place in all of Europe to avoid such a war (as it did in WWII), maybe even standing some chance at surviving the initial results of a nuclear war it is not involved in (even if not the winter) – but the EU is going to have to quite immediately get a lot more serious about a military buildup if things go in that direction.
People tire of war. Even the Russians.
Wait. Who started this? Undoubtedly my own country had a lot to do with the current hostility, but the Euro Great Game with Russia goes back long before that. It is Russia, not Europe, that now talks about a “security architecture” that benefits all countries and Russia that rightly points to the centuries long existential threat of Euro hostility and invasions.
Not a game after all.
Exactly. Russia is not the problem here. European elites’ hatred of Russia goes back decades, if not centuries in some cases. The psychopaths involved in the international weapons market are all to eager to fuel that hatred, via think tank bribery, election-rigging, and other color revolution “soft-power” techniques that promote perpetual conflict instead of a security architecture that could stretch from Rotterdam to Vladivostok. If only those elites could be replaced. But that would require functioning democratic states in the West.
If it involves Russia trying to take EU territory then – while ‘who started it’ matters – the EU will simply be required to mass militarise to defend its territory.
Regardless of how we get to that point in the first place (and the history does matter) – I don’t see how people could think it wise to not do that, once EU territory is threatened – even if they advocate simultaneous negotiations to de-escalate.
Why? Lebanon’s government seems to be forbidden from doing anything to defend its citizens, and Palestinians are not allowed to have weapons at all. Brussels’s stance of actively harming member states means that it is not responsible for defending territory. Eastern Baltic states and now eastern Finland have become dead zones already due to the erection of hard borders that have not existed for thousands of years. Why should anyone get up in arms about who controls these depopulated rust belts that are meant to be battlefields anyway?
The West are colonialists/imperialists who terrorise/murder/genocide the citizens of the nations you mention – and I don’t regard Russia as much different – I don’t really see the logic in not deterring encroachment across the EU and its citizens, just because we are bad too.
The people who rule over EU nations/territory aren’t going to be less evil domestically or in terms of foreign policy, just because they’re the people who rule over Russia.
In the end it’s about the people of these nations trying to unwrest the corrupt/genocidal leaders of their nations – and that sure isn’t going to get any easier by replacing them with Russian ones.
Oh, bugger off. Russia was in the phase of taking territory, like every other “aspirational” country in Europe. Poland took a chunk of Cechoslovalia in 1938…
Rude… and ignorant.
Rude and wrong…
You’re going to have to define “nibble away” a lot better.
Suppose the Europeans institute a land and sea blockade of Kaliningrad, population roughly 1 million, and the Russians decide to ram a land corridor through Lithuania to the place. This is literally the “war game” that was held in Germany under the auspices of the DW media group a few months ago, widely reported in Western media, except they elided a bit as to how the “war” starts by saying “under the pretext of a humanitarian crisis in Kaliningrad” without openly saying the word “blockade”.
Is this “nibbling away”? Or is it a defensive war the Russians were forced into?
Suppose the breakaway region of Transnistria in Moldova is attacked, whether by Moldovans or Ukrainians, the Russian military responds, and ultimately annexes the place. Does that count as “nibbling away”, though technically Moldova is not an EU member (though it might as well be, as its government desperately wants and Anschluss with Romania)?
Suppose there is conflict in the Baltic Sea, with EU slash NATO members attempting to seize Russian ships and the Russian navy responding. In the wake of which, there are either strikes on Sweden/Finland/Estonia military bases, or else the Russians occupy some of the small islands in the Baltic to better control the navigable channels. Is that now “nibbling away”?
How much of Ukraine does not constitute “nibbling away”? If the Russians take Odessa and Nikolaev, does that breach the red line, for example?
What if the recent Russian report about Latvia bringing in Ukrainians to launch drones from its territory proves to be true? And what if the Russian response isn’t just harsh language, but a series of drone and missile strikes against Latvia? What if they then decide to go one better and send in a tank column or two to change the government in Riga to one more amenable to Russian security demands? Is that “nibbling away”?
None of these scenarios is a hypothetical. They are either being openly discussed slash wargamed, or are obvious future flashpoints. It is INCREDIBLY EASY to provoke a new war with Russia as things currently stand – and I haven’t even mentioned Belarus – and then claim the other side is the aggressor and so you have to build a great big European army to protect…France. Or something. So without any disrespect, to me the stance of “well, if they take any MORE territory THEN I’ll be in favor of a strong EU military” is…I don’t know what it is. But it kind of misses the point, to me.
Moldova is not in the EU. A naval blockade on Kaliningrad would be an act of war.
Russian navy escorted ships being seized would almost certainly end in an act of war against the Russian navy.
Russia touching any EU islands in the Baltic is an act of war.
Ukraine is not an EU member.
If Russia kills Ukrainian troops on EU territory I believe that is allowed under the rules of war.
If Russia attacks Latvia itself, that is an act of war.
It’s really not that complicated.
I think you might want to look at the concept and tradition around co-belligerents. If Latvia host and permit Ukrainian armed forced to launch aggressive actions against Russia from its territory then Latvia becomes a co-belligerent and any response can be against Latvia as well as whichever active force it is hosting. We saw the correct interpretation of co-belligerence by Iran in the actions against various GCC states.
This naive view about acts of war vs not acts of war is insane as it depends on what the parties think their population will buy. There is no international law per se, merely whatever the strong can enforce. Israel and USA as well as NATO regularly fabricate casus belli (Libya Syria Afghanistan yemen and so on)
The Balts the Swedes and the Finns, very much like Ireland are not militarily strong and no one who matters is going to go to war with Russia to save them if they provoke the bear.
The EU is not a military force and it will never be an independent military force (the USA would take it out if it looked like it was going to become anything), if hypothetically Russia took Gotland from Sweden, say because (Sweden was pirating Russian ships from there or whatever other reason) then that is a Swedish national problem, NATO article 5 applies and the NATO countries would rattle sabre and do nothing substantive because no NATO country wants to justify being attacked, they like to attack Russia with Russia not retaliating openly, MIC make money military and politicians don’t get killed etc
There is no such thing as EU territory either.
I have noticed people who are nationals of small or weak countries that are members of the EU like to dream that the EU will be some kind of supranational union, perhaps that makes them feel like they and their nations actually matter? but when pushy comes to shove, there is one militarily capable nation in the EU, France. Maybe in a decade or so Germany will be too, but they are not going to die for the Balts the Fins or even the idea of the EU union.
The EU missed the opportunity to be a free trade zone and economic bloc stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, that started to slip in 2003-2004 and disappeared completely in 2008. Europe will go back to fighting wars amongst themselves.
Nah. It’s because we’ve given up our sovereignty, democracy and pretty much all of our much advertised “values” so it must be for something. Right. Right?
Because otherwise we would be just simpletons, dumbasses and suckers…
With the caveat that I don’t have any direct knowledge of those countries, I would say that you are onto something here.
Latvia aren’t at that point and would do well to prevent/shoot-down any Ukrainian stagings from or over their territory – so they or other EU countries never get to that point.
If the EU wants to continue existing as a political/economic union in the face of EU countries territory being taken away – and everything points to this being the desire, warts and all, EU-wide – then it will simply have no choice but to develop an effective military to defend its territory, or the union will dissolve.
In many ways, it would be the crisis the EU have been waiting for – hoping for it to result in the federalization of the EU, much in the way similar crises in the US led to federalization.
I don’t want to see any of this come to pass, I expect a federal EU to be quite significantly worse for its people than it is now, and bad for the world overall (more wars etc.) – but Russia attacking EU territory and looking like they’re in an expansionist mood (whatever about justifications people make up for that), is possibly the only thing I think would make that extremely likely.
This!: “The EU missed the opportunity to be a free trade zone and economic bloc stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, that started to slip in 2003-2004 and disappeared completely in 2008. Europe will go back to fighting wars amongst themselves.”
Overwritten by Yves for jailbreaking and now abusive content.
Kouros
This is not a place to commence responses with things like ‘bugger off’ and ‘FU mister’. It isn’t the culture nor the high-bar we honour in gratitude to our esteemed host.
It also demeans you. In the grown up world, comments like this are generally remedied with an apology.
Kouros was banned for previous violations. I do not know how that comment got through.
Thanks for your comment. I will over-write Kouros’ remark and take further measures.
“Anschluss with Romania”.
I take great offense with this term and I can only think that comes from a deep ignorance of the history of the place and the present situation. Maybe a slight disdain for Romanians.
If you don’t know, about 4.5 Moldovans actually live in Romania, on the west side of River Prut. 2.5 live in R of Moldova. Together they used to form the historical principality of Moldova, which was split by Russians in 1812. In December 1917 the National Assembly gathered in Chisinau voted to re-unite with Moldova and of course Moldova being a part of Romania, with Romania. There is no difference between Moldovans and Moldovans and there are only superficial differences between Moldovans and Oltenians, and Muntenians and other sorts of Romanians that are there.
Calling the re-unification of Rumanians as an Anschluss, harking back to the Nazi Germani and its taking over Austria is deeply insulting and the fact that your comment was left unsanctioned by the host make me think that herself or her moderators are absolutely uninformed of the implications of your words.
The national day in Romania Is December 1, celebrating the union of Transylvania with Romania (1918), before that in March 27 1918 Basarabia (R of Moldova re-united with Romania) and in Nov 28, 1918 Northern Bucovina re-united with Romania (unfortunately this land is now with Ukraine). So calling the willing coming together of Romanians as Anschluss is deeply, deeply insulting and I am surprised that this lack of respect has not been sanctioned by the moderators.
But, like the national poet of Romanians, Mihai Eminescu, quipped in a journal article after the 1877-78 Russo-Ottoman war, when Romania declared its independence after supporting Russians in their war, that for Russians only their honour mattered, couldn’t give a fig about the Romanians’ honour, who also fought side by side and contributed to the final victory in that war, the honour of peoples like Romanians are something to laugh at. Some people would rather eat dirt than to be trampled like that.
Russia’s campaign against the West supported and enabled Kiev régime has been based on the assumption that there would be a reconciliation with the European states and the US. This assumption no longer appears to have any validity.
One outcome which few in the West have considered despite the incorporation of specific Russian technological developments into her military doctrine is a missile powered Sherman March to the seas from the Baltic, the Black and the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, leaving little more than scorched earth, and imposing a much more extensive version of the Morgenthau Plan on all European countries with arms industries and any and all dual-use manufacturing technologies potentially hostile to Russia’s legitimate interests as Russia imposes peace.
It is the logic of Empire recorded by Tacitus: “… they make a desert and call it peace”. And there many places grateful for the civilisation and laws bequeathed to them during the two centuries of the Pax Romana.
If I hear much of that stuff Russian side I’d shortly grow in favour of a mass expansion of nuclear power in the EU – knowing full well it is uneconomical as power generation, and primarily about the nuclear weapons industry.
I would really like to not see the world regress down that path.
I will be paying much closer attention to rhetoric from Russia – and I will take them at the word of their supporters.
Bar nuclear weapons, Russia would need the whole of China to work and provide the wall of steel that would allow this policy of scorched earth to be accomplished. US, Israel, and EU barely manage to do that in the sliver of Gaza…
Modern Europe is an utter abortion that is supporting Nazis, Al-Qaeda, and genocidal Zionists all at the same time. It deserves to have its territory nibbled at by all and sundry.
It is, yes – it is the people of the EU I think about, though – being one of them; they are human and flawed, and not always able to keep their governments in check – and need defending.
Russian rule over Eastern Europe wasn’t a picnic – and EU territory being nibbled away, could put an early end to the human race.
So what.
We are quickly heading towards extinction anyway.
And any sort of western victory would automatically close forever any remotely conceivable offramp from the train to oblivion.
Nuclear war has ceased to be the worst possible option.
Eff the people of Europe in particular, they had every chance in the world and blew it.
If the people of Europe are like their American counterparts, then I reserve blame for the elites. Most people are too overworked to be expected to wade through the wall to wall propaganda that our elite controlled media bombards them with to truly understand what has been going on in their name. They simply don’t have the time or cognitive energy. Nor is everyone lucky enough to stumble upon sites like this one which will give them a better understanding of their situation.
Yes, but somehow those who do have a lot of time and ability to think manage to delude themselves into supporting the narratives and policies in question anyway. The intellectuals make me despair for humanity.
Re ‘Russian rule over Eastern Europe wasn’t a picnic’ – I assume that you mean the Warsaw Pact period – well, it wasn’t a constant 1937 purge either, as the Western capitalist propaganda that you’re presumably alluding to would have you believe. There’s a huge amount of propaganda massively exaggerating every negative side and erasing every positive side of that period in different countries, and a lot of it has to do with class war, right-wing revanchism and, last but not least, Western sponsorship. In any case, there is no reason to assume that a theoretical Russian rule of Europe in the future would be the same as during the Warsaw Pact period (I would expect it to be better in some respects and worse in others).
I don’t wish to any country to be occupied by any other country, including by Russia, but after all the provocations and idiotic policies of the faux-democratic regimes of these countries, if this does somehow escalate to an armed conflict due in part to their efforts, I certainly don’t see their defence as a cause worth dying for.
The problem is, which EU? EU used to require that its prospective members not have territorial disputes so as not to get drawn into conflicts. Now, it seems to openly want to beibg in members with territorial disputes so that it can get into fights. Might they say that these are “illegitimate” disputes? Then maybe they owe an apology to Herr Adolf. (Or, maybe they already have. I heard that Rutte once again said Europeans should fight Russia like their fathers and grandfathers did. I wonder what his father or grandfather did during WW2. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/23588)
Sounds like you got a bad case of the NATO brain worms. A NATO country occupies the north of your country but you will fight for them if Russia is forced to retaliate against EU agression? You should do some more reading about the NATO war of agression on Russia before you sign up at a British Army recruiting office (or will you join the foreign legion?)
It’s only the more bizarre that anyone claiming to live in Ireland, much less actually be Irish, could imagine themselves somehow deeply invested in border disputes more than 2000 km away among people who have never had the slightest interest in your native island.
Ireland has a long history of being on the side of nations facing invasions/wars-of-aggression – as anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of our history would guess.
Ireland is routinely shown in polls to be the strongest supporter of the EU of any nation – as critical as I am of it myself.
I’d still think it best for us to stay out of conflict in general myself – but the rest of the EU absolutely needs the means to defend itself, if EU countries get invaded.
Really? World War 2.
Europe’s response to the war in Ukraine was to impose 20+ rounds of sanctions on itself and do nothing as the US (probably) blew up Germany’s source of natural gas, thus wrecking the economy for years if not decades if not forever. These people have obviously been transformed into servile morons by decades of American vassalage, incapable of living in the real world, much as how domesticated cows have brains 20% smaller than their wild counterparts. Not just evil, but evil and really, really stupid. (Evil dumb cows?) They should be isolated for the good of humanity.
I haven’t noticed Ireland opposing any of the recent US and/or NATO aggressions (the Palestine conflict being a welcome exception). I’m afraid that the diagnosis sketched by others here is right, and I recognise it from modern Scandinavia – a small, ‘provincial’ country desperately wanting to feel like a part of something big, however evil that big thing might actually be. The seductiveness of being part of the great ‘West’ and thus sharing in its ‘glory’, supposedly fighting against some barbaric evil. The Celtic victims of English imperialism and colonialism have a history of assisting and enthusiastically joining England’s imperial and colonial predation on others – and now America’s, too.
I’m one of the only people I see opposing NATO narratives here/locally. I’m not trading an enemy I know for one I expect to be a lot worse for life domestically.
Breaching EU borders is a line not to be crossed. Justifying that is as bad as justifying NATO expansionism.
Wars of Aggression are Wars of Aggression – among the greatest crimes that exist – and we are guilty of them more than any other, but that doesn’t mean they are ok to justify because of that.
If that’s truly where Russian rhetoric is heading (and it does not sound conditional at all on participation in proxy wars any longer), then we should listen to and believe their supporters – and it will require rapid militarisation in expectation of attacks on EU territory.
I want the wars to stop, have been very vocal against them and the jingoism surrounding the wars – but yes I would consider offering my skills if it started looking like direct attacks on the EU were being spoken about by Russian supporters at large.
Your opening comment said: ‘*If* Russia starts trying to nibble away at the territory of EU members.’ Invading and taking territory are both acts of war, so *if* that happens it’s not really a question of whether the EU *is going to have to* militarise further – it just *will*. That’s what happens in wars.
If we’re talking about what the EU is going to have to do, we should be talking about what the EU should be doing now, so that the shooting doesn’t start in the first place. Yes, Russian rhetoric has changed in recent months. Yes, it’s extremely chilling. Also chilling, if you’re Russian, is all the rhetoric coming out of EU leaders for the last four years, alongside an unprecedented military buildup that’s very explicitly described as aimed at fighting Russia.
What matters is what’s happening now, and de-escalating the situation such that we avoid any acts of war by either side. And if anyone was taking all of this seriously – and properly getting to grips with the catastrophic consequences for ordinary people if it does – that’s exactly what we’d be doing.
FWIW, I agree Ireland should stay out of it if it happens. In the meantime it’d be doing the world a service if it remembered its history and got to work trying to de-escalate the situation.
I agree with all of that 100%.
I would much rather see de-escalation – and if Irelands leaders weren’t slipping towards bedding NATO lobbyists and spreading anti-Russia rhetoric – it might even be a prime candidate for engaging in such diplomatic efforts.
Just stop. The war of aggression you speak of is underway, and it was initiated by the US, EU, NATO and NATO/EU allies (foolish nations who aspire to NATO/EU membership given that these organizations only exist to subjugate everyday people). I will gladly concede that this war of aggression initiated and continuously escalated by the EU has occurred at the behest of EU elites rather than the peasantry, but for the people on the receiving end of that aggression, the distinction is functionally irrelevant. Russia does indeed have it’s faults, but any rational, unbiased observer can hardly fault the Russian state and peoples for defending themselves- indeed it appears to many observers that Russia has exercised a degree of self-restraint that has only emboldened EU/US aggression. I’m a native of far away Pennsylvania, but if I were in charge of Russia, I would long ago have cut off all energy flow to EU nations (and the US), and I would have targeted the Aegis systems the US planted in Eastern Europe, as well as targeted the arms factories in the EU states supplying them to the Ukraine.
Russia is not the aggressor now. It was not the aggressor during the cold war. Russia was not the aggressor during WW2. Russia was not the aggressor during WW1. Russia was not the aggressor during the Crimean war. Russia was not the aggressor during the Napoleonic war. Get the pattern, yet? Europeans have been attacking and trying to steal territory and resources from Russia since the 1200’s. The problem that people like you seem to have, whether you admit it or not, is that every single time Russia spanks your aspirations. You can cover this in moralization and pious claims of a desire for self-defense against “potential” acts by an “aggressive” Russia, but anyone paying attention can see what is going on here. And specifically for you, and as someone with fractional Irish ancestry, I will further state the Irish elites very much appear to have thrown their lot in with the EU project, while trying to conceal that fact by hiding behind Irish history. Ireland is now an aggressor state and people like you need to accept that, or own your support for it, should that be the case.
Russian domestic criticisms aside, Russian foreign policy has never been aggressive, and certainly is not now, even during a war where Russia is decisively destroying the military capability of it’s spasmodically violent EU/US adversaries.
I will come right out and say what everyone else here thinks- If Russia were to decisively respond to EU/US blatant invitations to conflict then so be it. FAFO and all that. Politically and economically goading someone into militarily defending themselves does not make the military defender the aggressor. This is especially true given that the historical record clearly shows that political/economic aggression are far more effective in killing populations than military aggression- military action is humane in comparison. I think you need to step back and consider your (mis)understanding of the world around you, or simply come out and admit the true motivations behind your statements, whichever the case may be.
As far as I’m concerned these conflicts are and were driven and supported by racists and thieves. The aggressors/manipulators have almost always been the same, the victims have all been the same, and when you look at the historical record, you can only conclude that racism and thievery appear to be deeply rooted in some cultures, and in some cases, inseparable from them (Anglo culture probably being the most notable).
It’s basically just a long argument over ‘who started it’ – and while that matters, where we are now matters the most, and the distinctions/standards of war in international law do matter.
Russia was an aggressor in WWII – this current war makes Poland very nervous (remember them?) – Eastern Europe was not a great place to be during the Cold War (as much as Capitalism afterwards was a different kind of awful) – and Russia did engage in an illegal War of Aggression (that damn near everyone here and in adjacent places insisted would not happen) in Ukraine.
Complex? A response to encroachment started by the West? Ultimately a fight over West vs Russia spheres of influence, that sit right on Russia’s borders? Yes, absolutely.
Justifying or making it ‘understandable’ or in any way acceptable to engage in more illegal Wars of Aggression, against (mostly) democratic EU states whose people desire to be in the EU and not a directly conquered Russian vassal?
Absolutely bloody not.
There’s plenty of value in having views of all extremes come together and clash/hash-it-out politely here – I note that there’s rather a lot of them justifying Russian expansionism, as an answer to Western expansionism, though.
That’s just switching one set of ‘bad guys’/tyrants, for another.
Russia never the aggressor? The Principality of Moskva didn’t become the geographically largest country in the world by being meek. The USSR was invading Poland from the east, while the Germans did the same from the West, a pretty aggressive move. Baltic and Eastern Europeans, Central Asians and even Turks concerned about Russian aggression have legitimate historically based concerns about it. Putin talking about the Russian Empire or insisting on providing “active defense” for “Russian compatriots” abroad aint helping.
There’s an old say: Russia’s neighbors are either in terms with Russia, or part of Russia. And mostly it’s that simple.
The problem with military alliances (like NATO) is that they almost inevitably lead to war, because it so easily induces weaker countries to think they are not the weaker party and that there’s a third option with Russia.
This even when Canada and Mexico yield to USA in issues that matter to USA. Even while China, which easily dominates the USA, prefers to have cordial relations with Russia.
ps. USSR did not invade Poland in 1939, it took back parts of Belarus that Poland captured in 1921, and no country in the world recognized as part of Poland. It also created a buffer zone against the Nazi Germany, which Poland’s dictator had strongly refused to contain in any way or form seeing Hitler as an ally.
I’m sympathetic, but what is your source for the claim that these territories weren’t recognised as Polish possessions? As I’m looking that up, it seems that they were recognised as such by Russia in the Treaty of Riga, and other countries did recognise that treaty, too.
Apart from that, yes, the territories did mostly belong ethnically with Belarus and Ukraine, not with Poland. Poland only had them by the so-called ‘right of conquest’ (aka ‘might makes right’) and quite contrary to the liberal and democratic principle of self-determination. Also, the USSR really only invaded once the Germans had captured ‘their’ slice of Poland (about two-thirds). At that point Poland was finished anyway. If the USSR hadn’t invaded, Germany would have simply seized all of it and got a more convenient springboard for its invasion of the USSR.
NATO needs an Iron Curtain to return to its “glory days”. The EU needs a war to control and pass ever more restricting laws and probably suspend elections. I suggest you study the history of the Ukraine conflict. 2005 onwards.
“Threat of nuclear war or not, if Russia starts trying to nibble away at the territory of EU members, I’d …” Can you quote Russians on that? There are plenty EU quotes about the desire to fragment Russia into mini-states, check Kaja Kallas, but when Russians said anything about territory of EU members?
Barring such convincing threat, EU is on trajectory to economic stagnation with industrial decline, social divisions, and wasting increasing amounts money on for profit military buildup. Reminds me a phrase “languid suicide” (Vargas Llosa?).
I judge Russia mainly by where the rhetoric of its supporters goes – and recent events with Romania (even if minor in the large scale of things), and Russia’s ‘odd’ official response to that – focused my attention.
I’ll be glad if this apparent change dies down and things stay relatively well restricted to the current proxy war – but it’s certainly got my attention.
Contrary to what Western propaganda would have you believe, Russia’s supporters in the West are not actually on the Kremlin’s payroll or taking orders from the Kremlin. When conversing with people on this site, you are not, in fact, talking to Vladimir Putin or Sergey Lavrov. So I dare say that ‘judging Russia mainly by where the rhetoric of its supporters goes’ is quite obviously inadequate. The incidents in Romania, whatever the truth about them, are in no way suggestive of any intention on the part of Russia to invade or annex Romania. Frankly, all of this sounds to me as if you are looking for some pretext, however flimsy, to adopt the ‘mainstream Western’ position on Russia.
It is true that people should not be considered ‘supporters of Russia’ in broad strokes, and I don’t consider that to be the case here – but that’s even more damning of where the rhetoric is heading, even from the non-supporters.
Damning of whom? Not of Russia at any rate. And where are all these commenters calling for Russia to occupy the EU? I do often see, and sometimes criticise, people embracing Russian narratives and talking points somewhat more readily and uncritically than they should. But I haven’t noticed a recent surge of commenters calling for Russia to occupy or annex the territory of EU member states.
I believe the danger of a direct confrontation is indeed growing. But I still think before that happens there will be an internal breakdown of the major European countries. In Germany, France and Britain all this posturing is make believe by extremely weak governments which are bedeviled by sheer unsurmountable economic problems. If the Russians wait long enough the whole enchilada will unreval all on its own. The question is whether the Russians perceive this as well. Putin most likely does as he has a firm grasp of realities in Germany.
Poland and the Baltic states will quickly lose all appetite for confrontation as soon as chaos breaks out in Western Europe. And we are much closer to that than most people perceive.
I agree. This:
Will hold as long as neoliberal idiots are able to keep power in a few countries which might be (sadly) for long or may be not that long depending on how politics evolve though one has to say that if European countries increasingly turn to even more idiotic neoliberal fascistoid nationalists damned we are.
Imo Eu is rapidly turning fascist. Those objecting to the idiocy, such as alternate for Germany, might soon be banned or jailed. Some internal protesters are already having bank accounts confiscated. The west is rapidly turning away from democracy, not least us but certainly including Britain’s/germany/brussels.
But economically all mentioned above are doing poorly and a major recession may be upon us. Russia, already able to produce many things they used to import from eu, is tied to the world’s mfg center while the eu has successfully severed nearly all ties to Russian energy just in time for the cutoff from the Persian gulf. Any attempt to militarize will accelerate the removal of gov support for the population, generating internal protests. Eu looks to continue squabbling as it goes down the drain, just a backwater Disneyland for adults.
It is little wonder that Putin and his government said that they have written off Europe for at least a generation. Not so much the incompetence of its leaders but how readily Europeans – and the UK – turned on a dime and made their hatred of Russia manifest through banning anything Russian whether it be products, oil, gas, culture, music, singers and even Russian trees. The worse offenders are the Baltic States, Poland and the Scandinavians and all feel the need to go fight the Russians when in truth Russia probably does not care about any of those countries as in at all. So I expect that the Russians will have in place a military in the west that can deal with Europe but that they have turned their backs on them and see their future in the east.
I am aghast at my Scandinavian friends who even if educated in the humanities are entirely unable to develop a holistic view of this conflict. They throw academic rigour aside and shout that they are proud to do so.
If I lived nearby people like that I would also be very, very wary of them.
I am equally aghast, but if you read/watch mainstream media in Scandinavia, you would not be surprised. The message is consistent and constant – Russia bad, Russia wants to invade/conquer Europe etc., etc. Repeat ad nauseam. No dissenting voices allowed.
When did he/they say that?
I could remember over a month or two ago Baidu once ran a news item:
And on top of that, and as Johnny Conspiranoid says, this rupture in relations between Russia and the rest of the Europe benefits USrael as long as it perpetuates USrael’s control over Europe and denies it a place in the Eurasian Charter.
Notwithstanding old, pre-existing Russophobia as pjay mentions, every discussion of this rift makes me no less angry with USrael than I was the day before.
A new Iron Curtain sort of implies an agreed-upon barrier that both sides generally respect and neither side attempts to cross.
That would be a welcome improvement over the constant attempts by NATO countries to throw sucker punches at the Russians.
Unfortunately the last Iron Curtain involved in the USSR desperately trying to isolate its buffer states from the West and the West constantly trying to subvert or destroy them. It was through Poland they succeeded.
I understand and (sometimes) appreciate Korybko’s efforts to deflate the “non-Russian pro Russian” commentators he often criticizes. But I am puzzled by this commentary. He begins by saying this:
“Russian experts, who operated for so long under the influence of the wishful thinking fantasy that the EU is challenging Russia at its senior US patron’s behest and not due to its own ideologically driven hatred of Russia (contrary to its objective interests), are finally waking up to reality…”
What is that “reality”? According to President of the Russian International Affairs Council Dmitriy Trenin, it is that:
“For the first time since 1945, the most pressing military threat to Russia is coming from Europe—European states themselves. This represents the most significant military-political shift for Russia since the victory in the Great Patriotic War.” The goal, Trenin believes, is “to split the Russian Federation into externally controlled components and turn them into semi-colonies of the European Union.”
This is comment followed immediately by the rather obvious observation that:
“This will be pursued through indefinitely perpetuating the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine together with ramping up sanctions and military pressure for undermining domestic political stability.”
Korybko seems to be highlighting this position favorably. So… what does Korybko think NATO is? Who the hell does he think controls it? Which country is “ramping up sanctions”? If, as almost everyone agrees, the Ukraine war and the general severance of all ties with Russia is “contrary to [Europe’s] objective interests,” then *who benefits* from this “New Iron Curtain”?
I accept that there are “ancient” hatreds and fears of Russia in Europe. I understand that these fears have been mobilized ideologically by elites to manufacture consent for the current conflict. I am impressed, in a very disturbing sense, by how nearly all of the political leadership of Europe who had a more rational understanding of Russia and European-Russian relations have been thrown out and replaced by anti-Russian ideologues. But to suggest that the US is mainly just a bystander in this endeavor, and that it is basically a renewal of the old European conflicts of yore, does more to obscure “reality” than to help us understand it.
Recent noises by Trump or officials in his administration about “dealing” with Russia or leaving NATO behind are *irrelevant* to this larger historical reality.
I have noticed in Russian government-adjacent media a certain…slant, where they separate the “bad Europeans” from the “not quite so bad Americans”. I presume that surely the government recognizes the role of the US in the Ukrainian conflict and in European belligerence, but maybe their objective is to play “good cop” with the Americans to make sure that when (not if) there is a dust-up with the Euros, Washington keeps this a proxy dust-up and does not escalate it to a nuclear dust-up.
But that means a certain type of propaganda directed at domestic audiences. Which is where Korybko & Co. step in – it’s German revanchism, not the fact that the US is simply using a new layer of proxies to pursue the same policy objectives viz. Russia that have been in force for the past quarter century. I guess.
As a USAian, I find myself relating to karlof1 (Moon of Alabama) here:
I first entered the bandwagon in late 2018, having learned the truth behind the USA’s presence in Europe – it was never there for defense – and stood by Russia as long as it opposed US hegemony on the Eurasian landmass, especially the European peninsula.
That was, until…
Dmitri Medvedev’s Telegram post on 27 December 2024, in which he channeled Condoleezza Rice and wanted to punish Europe and ignore the US, gave me PTSD for days and should’ve been an omen for what was to come. Were it not for Mexico*, you wouldn’t see me alive, let alone writing here, as I would’ve offed myself from a feeling of betrayal.
(* to elaborate, I used to want to go to Russia before the COVID pandemic, but lost interest in favor of Mexico months before the SMO began. Thanks to the words of AMLO and later Claudia Sheinbaum, I have greater confidence in Mexico so long as the USA’s mideeds don’t seem to be as sugar-coated.)
And for decades, the weapons and ISR will come from the US (if it gets rare earths at some time in the future (NOT)) or there will be no war – Europe cannot build weapons without US subsystems and components.
They also don’t seem to see that the EU + UK + Scandinavia may indeed attack Russia at the USA’s behest and also due to their bigotry.
These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Half of Scandinavia is in EU and half is in EEA, so saying EU + Scandinavia is somewhat redundant. And honestly, Scandinavians are willing to fight Russia only to the last Finn (as they are not Scandinavians).
Put together the Scandinavian armed forces have twice the manpower of the Ukrainian Territorial Recruitment Centers (the infamous “bussifiers”) and half of that of the Murmansk garrison. They exist only for parades and NATO defensive missions all over the globe, totally dependent on US logistics and firepower.
It is difficult to imagine the US deliberately inviting itself into a war which would rapidly become existential. However friendly régimes may be to the US in this very minute, the moment it gets hairy after the first few warning strikes, it will find that it has many enemies in the 12 countries to it’s South, some of which will be suffering the effects of climate change more than their counterparts in the North. The resulting population flows would truly be an outcome worth studying.
Thanks for addressing the structural weakness in Korybko´s setup.
This is one of the causes why Korybko often misses in major points.
As hatred of Russsia is concerned. I am not so sure about our system at large.
I have been using that argument myself more often than not.
However one needs to specify what part of the West/EU does and what does not “hate”. And if so, in what way does that “hate” differ to WW2.
I would suggest that often it is not hate but more the opposite, a displaced feeling of superiority which often is accompanied by pity. Which then feeds into the delusion that RU is weak.
Where my very own criticism of the German peace movement would come in, who build on the same premise but with opposite conclusion for how to act now.
Hate I guess is mostly targetted at Putin and “his cronies” and the “oligarchs”.
German (elites) and non-elites both against Russia are smart enough to be able to distinguish between an oppressed people and its evil dictatorship.
Otherwise the narrative of Russian democracy suppressed wouldn´t work out, would it.
Since it then would imply that the dictator represents the majority of the people and that would mean “democracy” and the whole lie would collapse.
If the feeling of pity does relate to some racist notions about Russians/Slavs is a separate matter. But again elites are not identical with “the people” or “the press”.
NATO´s infamous Florence Gaub and her statement that Russians are a different breed, used to violence, or former US spook James Clapper´s quote that Russians are genetically coded to oppress others – are one extreme.
But not to underestimate are the files and ranks of German academia and journos especially who are young, progressive and have spent time not only in Eastern Europe but Russia as well, speak the language and are among the most insane advocates of war.
Those actually are the worst in my view. They regard Russia as a country with huge potential which is being abused by its elite and they will come forward with all kinds of polls, anecdotes and personal experience to prove that the Russian people are subjects to evil leaders.
In its false analysis latter group is closely related with the naive leftwing UKR/Western critics of the US.
They identify a Russian imperialism which they equal with US imperialism (Varoufakis e.g.) and in some cases bridge it to German WW2 imperialism – which brings us to the most insane: leftists who think Putin is Hitler.
No warmongering Pentagon official who knows Russia but does it all for the money would ever sign up for such a BS narrative.
But these crazies hold major sway over the intellectual war against Russia via their think-tank-kind-of influence on Berlin and Brussels and they are rooted deep inside the educated classes.
Decades ago, I remember reading a writers’ prescient observation that as The Wall came down in the East, it went up in the West.
One of my pet peeves is when people talk about Europe as if it was a monolith – it’s not. There’s the Catholic Europe that is almost incomprehensible to the Protestant Europe. Then there’s the Orthodox Europe and in the middle they all get mixed together.
And I’m not really referring to the religious aspect, it’s just a shorthand for cultural distinction that covers much more than religious sectarianism. From Norway to Caspian Sea (and north of that) Europeans have summer cottages, forage berries from the woods, have saunas and take shoes off inside their home. From Ireland to Greece (and south of that) Europeans live public lives, show emotions, dine late and can’t be on time even if kills them.
I’ve personally experienced how cisalpina and transalpina is still a big divider among Europeans. I personally would feel much more at home in Vladivostok than in Marseille (an assumption, never been to either one).
I know a lot of people who think Parisian cafeterias are at the heart of the European culture, even if they themselves actually abide by the much older Austrian Kaffeehouse culture thinking it’s Parisian. Europeans are a mess, and partly because they don’t even know themselves and are trying to be something they are not.
Done ranting. Apologies.
I think the counterpoint to this is that at present, politically, a majority of EU slash NATO members are acting more or less in unison. Notwithstanding the historical divisions – economic, political, cultural – right now most of them are making weapons for Ukraine, most of them are providing money to Ukraine, most of them are using identical anti-Russian propaganda and are implementing identical “military pseudo-Keynesianism” policies, etc.
So from that standpoint, it’s pretty easy to say “the Europeans”, when obviously that’s a bit of a generalization.
I would also say that right now the real divisions are not so religious or cultural, but, err…you have the former Soviet satellites and republics, that are the most militant; the Scandinavians, that are second on that list; the “old EU” of France-Germany; the “south”, from Spain to Greece; and then, I guess, everyone else…….
Hungary and Slovakia are former satellites that are the most militant in opposing the NATO/EU aggression.
It’s actually mostly those former satellites and republics that were dictatorships between the wars and turned most neoliberal after the Cold War that are most militant, because they don’t want to deal with their own sad history and failures of their “civil society” and “liberal democracy” experiments.
Instead of dealing with the internal problems which made them kill each other in troves, they prefer to blame Russia/Soviet Union for those. Not ever realizing that it was Truman’s deception and breach of all agreements regarding the post-war Europe that made them Soviet Union’s satellites in the first place. That and the Korean War.
Well, Hungary was basically a right-wing dictatorship between the wars, too. And Poland seems to have been doing relatively well economically in recent years, from what I can tell. I don’t know what the decisive mechanism here is.
This USA yahoo thought Paris–so self consciously out to impress–overrated and much preferred the quainter precincts of London before they started adding Ferris Wheels and weird buildings.
But on my two wheeler I loved the French countryside.
Of course that was years ago before the USA culturally colonized the whole shebang. What can we say but….sorry!
The only thing all of those disparate cultural groups have in common is that their misleadership classes are composed entirely of rabid Atlanticists.
There will be a reckoning …
Polar Socialist
> And I’m not really referring to the religious aspect, it’s just a shorthand for cultural distinction …
It gets a bit blurry in the Slavic / Orthodox East, but in West-Central Europe there is a clear line separating the Romance language speakers of the southwest from the Germanic language speakers of the northeast. And, funnily enough, that same line also happens to divide wine-drinkers from beer-drinkers. Generally speaking.
I find it astonishing that during the Cold War one could easily book a flight or train from any European capital to Moscow or Leningrad but today I can’t even watch RT, less travel there. We were looking into a Volga cruise for next year and the complications of going are bizarre. My doctor, who’s Russian, has to go through Türkiye or Serbia to visit his family. All of this makes no sense, especially when an IDF grunt, fresh from the Gaza or Lebanon killing fields, can fly in for a party holiday on the Riviera or Costa Brava. This incoherence will eventually bite hard on the EU neoliberal elite. Sooner the better.
Incredible but true: if you are a conscientous objector from Russia you will have a hard time even getting into Europe let alone getting asylum there. It is utterly and totally crazy and disgusting. Basically the Chihuahuas and Poland determine EU policy towards Russia. Utter blind hatred.
Germans can do hatred very well without Poland and Co. Nomenklaturian and especially academian hatred is insane here. I stumble across lectures etc. everyday which leave me speechless. Especially by scholars who are specialized on Eastern Europe and “peace” studies. It´s a mass psychosis.
The hatred of Russia is based on bias, and bias is unfounded belief. This is why it’s frustrating to see, but it’s also the same kind of bias which drives misogyny, or racism, or anti-gay or anti-trans sentiment. For example, driving a lot of these biases are those calling different groups “degenerates”, which is not a real or actual thing. The same framing allows us to dehumanize others to the point where it’s acceptable to torture, rape or kill them. What we’re witnessing is the EU fanning of the flames of hate.
But often what allows hate to flourish is a perception that the target group is weak, vulnerable. So it has been with keeping women or blacks or gays suppressed. We traditionally tend to hate perceived vulnerable groups, groups perceived as unable to fight back, the vulnerability is what makes it easy to hate as there is little consequence in doing so.
The history of power is the history of power over others, and the weaker overcoming the stronger. And Russia and China right now are the weaker overcoming the stronger powers, America and the EU are in decline as powers. Powers which rest on violence toward and subjugation of others must inevitably fail and fall.
And especially if there are consequences to hating, which is the case here. Once the group doing the hating is become the vulnerable party, the very basis for their own bias or hatred is now challenged, and the unfounded belief is proven mistaken, it becomes harder and harder to believe that women are weaker, blacks inferior, gays degenerate, etc., and now there’s no way to reasonably believe the Russians and Chinese are degenerates or inferior or lesser than or inhuman.
So perhaps there’s hope yet?
“The hatred of Russia is based on bias, and bias is unfounded belief.”
In Finland, I can assure you, the bias and its accompanying hatred are far from unfounded. There are few left now who remember 1939-45 and the nightmarish aftermath, but all Boomers here imbibed Russophobia with their mother’s milk. It is deeply ingrained in the culture, expressed by a highly derogatory old saying: Ryssä on ryssä, vaikka voissa paistais (A Russian is a Russian, even if fried in butter.) That is why it was so easy to flip the whole society into hysteria after Feb. 2022, with the subsequent embrace of NATO, US military bases (possibly or, if not yet, eventually stationing ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons), etc., etc. With clowns (Stubb) and stooges (Orpo, Purra) running the show, the near future does not look promising.
The amount of anti-Russian propaganda and disinformation we EU inhabitants are being fed daily is mind-boggling. It creates massive hysteria and hatred in some inhabitants that sometimes is well within thw psychopathological zone.
And I say “inhabitants” instead of citizens because our rights and are being stripped away little by little. So are our economic, social, and health wellbeing. In the name of protecting us from that hostile other, who our betters are busy provoking in an escalating manner.
It won’t end well for anyone.
I have always found it curious how the Cold War caused elites in the “West” to turn their backs on the history that our own parents lived through. I suspect that current Russian elites, still of a generation educated under a communist internationalism that had been victorious in the Great Patriotic War, simply can’t wrap their heads around this.
“Europe” as its current elite has chosen to define it is in reality a very recent creation after centuries of internal warfare that culminated in brutal fascist occupations that continued in Spain, Portugal, and Greece into the 1970’s. “Germany” itself was divided by a militarized border until 1990, but many European bureaucrats are already too young to have vivid memories of having to cross the “death zone” and the DDR in order to visit Berlin. Integration of the “Ossi’s” was in many ways as difficult in Germany as the failed integration of the American Black middle class was after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How many Germans still blame the Russian occupation for whatever economic or caste differences they might experience today?
Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are less populous than many American counties. Their elites choose to remember Stalinist occupation and repression but breezily forget that their centuries-long collaboration with Germany culminated in enthusiastic participation by many of their people in the Nazi holocaust. Including Kaliningrad, Tallinn, and Riga millions of Russians were re-settled along the Baltic since 1946 and remain there. Half of “Poland” today occupies land that was until 1946 the German provinces of East Brandenburg, Pomerania, and Upper and Lower Silesia, whose place names and expelled residents are still relevant in contemporary “Germany.” How many subconscious resentments are still carried?
I fear that the global Depression that has been triggered by Trump and the Revisionist Zionists is going to create economic scarcity in Europe that will simply push its governments further into the thrall of revanchist Russophobes like Ursula von der Leyen Kaja Kallas.
“The objective where they might kinda-sorta succeed is in erecting an Iron Curtain 2.0. But how is that not a colossal act of self-harm,”
It suits America because it denies the european market to Russia. Ergo europe’s politicians serve America.
Funny but the only Iron Curtain I know of is a mile from my house on the Mexican border.
In the Russian movie “The White Tiger” (note the year, 2012), the last scene is the best. The movie can be see freely in youtube. Yes, it has a putinist (if you want call him that) director, but what is explained and the way it is explained is worth to be seen. Yes, many people is deliberately forgotten (gypsies, cultural minorities not very much appreciated by bourgeoise), but the current conflict was perfectly understood in Moscow 14 years ago, at least. In fact, I think it was always understood.
https://x.com/jacksonhinkle/status/2060745549607788938
One reply says: