by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] Viktor Orbán's defeat in Hungary's parliamentary elections has disillusioned many who still hoped for a miracle in the form of a quick peace between Russia and Europe. Not because Orbán facilitated the negotiation process, but because his departure tempts the European Union to overconfidence.
That it can consolidate, that the trend toward the rise to power in European countries of forces alternative to the Atlanticist agenda is reversible—and not necessarily through the cancellation of elections, as in Romania. And that the Eurocentric idea is alive and well and looks more attractive than even an alliance with the Americans. Europe wants to reassure itself that it can still win a war of attrition against Russia.
Moreover, Europeans may soon experience new surges of confidence. For example, Donald Trump's actual defeat in Iran and the predicted defeat in the midterm congressional elections will give them hope that transatlantic relations can still be restored to their former form. Or, at the very least, that the US president will stop pressuring and humiliating Europe.
| This does assume that Iran will defeat America and the Democrats will win in November, of course. |
This means that Europe, on whose soil no one is dying, will be prepared to continue its war of attrition against Russia. And not just continue it, but hope for victory.
The West is accustomed to resolving all conflicts by force—or the threat of its use.
Even under Biden, the US arbitrarily divided the world into "democracies and autocracies," declaring a trade and information war on the latter. Then a record number of sanctions were imposed against Russia.
It is not only the United States, which is now waging war in Iran, kidnapping the president of Venezuela, and organizing a blockade of Cuba, that is relying on forceful methods, but also Europe, which speaks the language of sanctions, pressure, and interference in internal affairs.
"The European mainstream assumes that Europe <…> is the planet's leading economy, with a population of half a billion people, second only to Russia in terms of direct military power and nuclear potential," Alexander Nosovich, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, told Regnum News Agency. According to him, Europe is convinced that all its failures in the Russian direction are due solely to its own lack of mobilization and cohesion—and therefore must now pull itself together.
This is precisely why the EU is being militarized. EU member states are increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP (or, in other words, increasing it exponentially), meaning they intend to spend hundreds of billions of euros on weapons.
| And other things. In Spain, as I recall, they are including spending on green energy as part of their defence increase. |
Germany, for example, is prepared to reinstate conscription, has launched the process of reviving its national military-industrial complex, even lifting the so-called "debt brake" to achieve this goal, and intends to attract significant amounts of borrowed funds for military spending.
| Germany just announced that military age males can no longer be out of the country for more than three months without permission, which will be interesting. |
| Poland has seriously invested in their military since they took back control of their country from the Soviet Union. |
Its creation is planned for completion towards the end of the decade, but for now, the EU intends to wage war against our country through Ukraine, regularly injecting it with funds at both the European and national levels. For example, Belgium and Spain have promised to allocate a billion euros each to the Kyiv regime in 2026.
At the same time, a crackdown is underway on all those who disagree with the "unified party line" and who deny the need to further escalate relations with Russia through the adoption of new sanctions and military provocations in the Baltic Sea.
Meanwhile, Europeans seem oblivious to Moscow's clear statement: a blockade of Kaliningrad will be considered a direct attack on Russia, with all the consequences and consequences that entail. And Russia—and Europeans manage to forget this—has the most modern nuclear arsenal in the world, as well as a new nuclear doctrine that expands the grounds for a first nuclear strike.
Why then is Europe behaving this way? Is this the madness of the brave? No, rather the madness of the doomed. An attempt to hide its own weakness through aggressive behavior.
Russia's advantages, according to Europe's calculations, should be offset by the United States, a country with the world's largest military budget and a powerful army, which, they believe, everyone should be terrified of.
For some reason, Europe isn't bothered by the fact that all the American defense technologies and weapons supplied to Ukraine have failed to break the Russian army. And that Russian soldiers are scrapping both American Abrams and European Leopard tanks in the fields, while Russian weapons, which often cost much less, prove more effective than the much-hyped, expensive American systems.
Russian drones are currently among the best in the world, and its assault infantry has vast combat experience. Meanwhile, Western countries are unaccustomed to fighting on the ground. It's no surprise that the United States, having spent hundreds of billions of dollars supporting the Kyiv regime, is scaling back its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict and is unwilling to burn the remaining equipment and ammunition it needs in the Middle East.
The West's notions of its own superiority are, to put it mildly, exaggerated, even when viewed through the prism of numbers and their dynamics.
"Europe itself is depleting. Its share of global GDP and demographics is significantly decreasing with each passing decade," Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, a senior research fellow at the IMEMO RAS, explains to Regnum.
"And European leaders see this. Ursula von der Leyen's predecessor as President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, already spoke of the EU's strategic shrinkage. It has become clear that if things continue as they are, there will be nothing left of Europe," the expert notes.
The optimal solution for Europe at that time was to increase economic and political cooperation with Russia, maintain the competitiveness of its own economy through Russian energy resources, and protect its sovereignty—including from the Americans—by relying on a special relationship with Moscow.
Instead, the European Union chose the path of expansion, which consisted of "devouring" the post-Soviet periphery with the desire to control Russian resources. This is precisely why Germany—Russia's closest partner in the 2000s and early 2010s—immediately after the events in Ukraine led the anti-Russian camp and a new "march to the East." Its success is already perceived as an existential challenge. "Strategically, Europe without Russian resources is doomed in the 21st century," says Alexander Nosovich.
Not to mention that the ultimate failure of the anti-Russian strategy will make Europe a guest in its own house. "Europe already sees that Moscow is negotiating a European security system directly with Washington and not inviting Brussels to the table. And to prevent the Russians and Americans from agreeing on a Europe without Europe, the EU must ensure Russia's defeat," says Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky.
Theoretically, Europe still has the opportunity to change its mind and gain Russian resources—and even a coveted seat at the table. Even now, Moscow is not closing the door to the negotiating process. It merely demands a constructive approach from Europeans—or, simply put, a willingness to negotiate on an equal basis.
But Europe, having collectively entered the conflict, must also collectively—that is, by a unified decision—exit it. But such a solution does not exist—and is unlikely to emerge. This is partly due to the reckless belief of some countries in the possibility of defeating Russia.
However, Europe forgets that a war of attrition is won not only by the army and resources, of which Russia has plenty, but also by a society that knows what it is fighting for and understands the need to continue fighting.
What is European society fighting for now? For Ukraine? A foreign country, known to the average European only by the Ukrainian license plates on luxury cars, articles about rampant corruption, and "outsiders" behaving like boors? Or are they fighting for their own countries, which Russia is supposedly preparing to attack?
But no one has touched the Baltics, through which Ukrainian drones fly toward Ust-Luga. Moreover, European propaganda contradicts itself here: if Russia were truly as weak as the EU claims, Moscow wouldn't have the strength to attack anyone.
Or perhaps Europe is fighting for its own prosperity? Russia is not to blame for the sharp rise in utility bills, the bankruptcy of industrial enterprises, and the decline in living standards. Nor is it Russia's fault for European authorities declaring Russian gas "hostile" and abandoning its use.
It turns out that European society is fighting for the interests of others against its own. Meanwhile, Russian society, conversely, is fighting for its own. For the right to ignore arrogant statements like, "The EU is a blooming garden, and the rest of you are a wild jungle." For the Russian people, who are currently living under the occupation of Ukrainian terrorists with the help of European sponsors. For their well-being, threatened by Western sanctions. For their way of life, which Europe, without any right, is trying to declare "wrong" and remake to suit its own wishes.
Finally, for its history, which Europeans are trying to slander and distort. Russia knows what it is fighting for and what it is making sacrifices for. And it is prepared for further confrontation with the collective West, despite the fact that this confrontation arose and continues solely at its initiative.