Introducing the Warmongers: Sources of the EU's Military Enthusiasm
The bloc has allowed its most aggressive members to shape its policies toward Russia—and now they want to launch a preemptive attack on Moscow. We are at a juncture where the US appears to be more rational and less aggressive regarding Russia...
TroibNews 
The bloc has allowed its most aggressive members to shape its policies toward Russia—and now they want to launch a preemptive attack on Moscow.
We are at a juncture where the US appears to be more rational and less aggressive regarding Russia than its somewhat rebellious European allies. Washington is currently striving to end the ongoing proxy war against Russia through Ukraine and seeks to foster a larger détente with Moscow. Meanwhile, the NATO-EU European elites seem determined to perpetuate the conflict, basing their nations' futures on a perpetual confrontation with Russia.
The misguided European "elites" are bound to fail, albeit in different ways. Their grasp on reality is skewed by illusions, their military and intellectual resources are far too limited, and their objectives seem illogical. The concern for the rest of us is the significant destruction they may wreak as they plummet down the path of history. While the majority display a degree of irrationality—except for notable exceptions like Slovakia and Hungary—there are crucial differences across the continent: the further east you go, the wilder their ideas become. This could be dubbed the West-East NATO-EU Insanity Gradient.
A recent example from Western mainstream media illustrates this point with unsettling clarity. The lead was buried so deep that most readers likely missed it: “I put it to a major eastern European politician that western European states care little about wars in eastern Europe. He replied, ‘We know. That’s why some of our countries are asking, ‘Why don’t we attack Russia now, instead of sitting waiting for it to attack us?’” This was reported by Simon Kuper in the Financial Times, titled “Return of the Two Europes.”
Which “major eastern European politician” made this statement? Was it the Estonian Prime Minister Kaja “Let’s Break Up Russia” Kallas or Poland’s Donald “I want some nukes, too” Tusk? Regardless of the identity, it is clear that this individual, clearly not from Ukraine but from within NATO and the EU, indicated thoughts of initiating a preemptive conflict with Russia.
This idea is not based on any reasonable concept of self-defense—except among the moderately sane—but rather stems from their own frantic delusions. This notion is alarming, particularly since it involves relatively under-resourced nations contemplating the onset of World War III against a major power that possesses a skilled, battle-ready military and nearly 5,000 nuclear weapons. This is indeed a significant scoop.
However, it hasn’t attracted attention as it should have, likely because Kuper, a former sportswriter turned intellectual observer who seems close to some figures in the NATO-EU sphere, chose to conclude his piece on this alarming sentiment instead of making it the focal point from the beginning. Intriguingly, much of his article appears to suggest that we should view this idea as somewhat rational, if not appealing, primarily because it emanates from the NATO-EU East.
Kuper believes we should consider the views of Milan Kundera. Yes, Kundera. Because this writer has proposed an idea that resonates with the spirit of 1983—a time marked by America's Ronald Reagan at his most fervent and the Soviets’ Yury Andropov at his most paranoid. It was a year when we came alarmingly close to igniting a nuclear conflict. This notion has been enshrined on the European Parliament’s website as if it were a relic of the past.
Kuper is clearly influenced by Kundera’s claim that what was considered Soviet Eastern Europe was really a part of Western Europe—just better, highlighted by cultural elements like Kafka, rainy streets, and the specter of “YALTA!”
“YALTA!”—always to be articulated with a tone of grievance and resentment, preferably with a Polish accent—signifies that this treasured segment of Europe had been “kidnapped” by the overpowering Russian bear and betrayed by the Western bloc. The PMGs, intellectuals, and emerging grant-seekers of this not-quite-Eastern-Europe have seized upon this historical victimhood narrative.
In fact, this “displaced West” in the clutch of Russia was perceived so sentimentally that it was designated a new identity: Central Europe.
Westerners who embraced Kundera, Havel, and Garton-Ash recognized that: 1) Central Europe is sorrowful for being situated between Germany and Russia. 2) Central Europe embodies a nicer form of Slavic identity—distinct from the “terrifying” Russians, who have historically defended against invaders. 3) Central Europe rightly belongs in NATO and the EU—unlike Russia—because it is genuinely Western Europe, not Eastern Europe.
As time passed, what was “Central Europe,” having always been an extension of the West, converged with NATO and the EU. This may sound implausible, but the Financial Times suggests that accession to NATO meant joining the “transatlantic West.”
Now the dilemma: that West’s leadership in Washington has fallen into the hands of a peculiar reformer with radical ideas about achieving peace with Russia, thereby threatening the integrity of the Alliance. This is reminiscent of the late Gorbachev's dismantling of the Cold War structures from Moscow in 1989. This unexpected heir of “Perestroika” is none other than Donald Trump.
Kuper posits, with a deep sense of historical context, that the two Europes are now separating again, blaming Trump for this shift. He seems unaware of his own resemblance to nostalgic figures in post-Soviet Russia who similarly attribute the collapse of the Soviet empire to a single individual. Great individuals reportedly shape history, at least when small minds require a scapegoat.
The reality, however, is that these two Europes, East and West, have never truly unified, nor has NATO changed that fact. The European NATO-EU bloc has permitted members from the East to influence, even monopolize, its Russia strategy. The misjudged decisions, such as allowing this to happen, are numerous, but the essential takeaway is that this trend must cease: there is no reason for the entirety of NATO-EU Europe to embrace a conflict with Russia simply due to the delusions held by figures like Madame Kallas.
Critics of NATO's expansion and the EU's enlargement are warranted in recognizing that this has been a mistake. For those believing that the erratic leaders in NATO-EU East cannot inflict too much damage because Article 5 concerns “defense,” remember: NATO has engaged in offensive actions before, as evidenced in Afghanistan and Libya. Furthermore, we cannot ignore that a justification can always be concocted or manufactured. If the West were to initiate a direct confrontation with Russia—having already operated through proxies—the media will undoubtedly contort the narrative to claim “they started it.” Meanwhile, the EU plans to aggressively militarize; should it succeed, another reckless leader, perhaps from Estonia, could drag us into chaos for the glorification of Kundera and the spirit of 1983.
Thomas Evans contributed to this article for TROIB News
We are at a juncture where the US appears to be more rational and less aggressive regarding Russia than its somewhat rebellious European allies. Washington is currently striving to end the ongoing proxy war against Russia through Ukraine and seeks to foster a larger détente with Moscow. Meanwhile, the NATO-EU European elites seem determined to perpetuate the conflict, basing their nations' futures on a perpetual confrontation with Russia.
The misguided European "elites" are bound to fail, albeit in different ways. Their grasp on reality is skewed by illusions, their military and intellectual resources are far too limited, and their objectives seem illogical. The concern for the rest of us is the significant destruction they may wreak as they plummet down the path of history. While the majority display a degree of irrationality—except for notable exceptions like Slovakia and Hungary—there are crucial differences across the continent: the further east you go, the wilder their ideas become. This could be dubbed the West-East NATO-EU Insanity Gradient.
A recent example from Western mainstream media illustrates this point with unsettling clarity. The lead was buried so deep that most readers likely missed it: “I put it to a major eastern European politician that western European states care little about wars in eastern Europe. He replied, ‘We know. That’s why some of our countries are asking, ‘Why don’t we attack Russia now, instead of sitting waiting for it to attack us?’” This was reported by Simon Kuper in the Financial Times, titled “Return of the Two Europes.”
Which “major eastern European politician” made this statement? Was it the Estonian Prime Minister Kaja “Let’s Break Up Russia” Kallas or Poland’s Donald “I want some nukes, too” Tusk? Regardless of the identity, it is clear that this individual, clearly not from Ukraine but from within NATO and the EU, indicated thoughts of initiating a preemptive conflict with Russia.
This idea is not based on any reasonable concept of self-defense—except among the moderately sane—but rather stems from their own frantic delusions. This notion is alarming, particularly since it involves relatively under-resourced nations contemplating the onset of World War III against a major power that possesses a skilled, battle-ready military and nearly 5,000 nuclear weapons. This is indeed a significant scoop.
However, it hasn’t attracted attention as it should have, likely because Kuper, a former sportswriter turned intellectual observer who seems close to some figures in the NATO-EU sphere, chose to conclude his piece on this alarming sentiment instead of making it the focal point from the beginning. Intriguingly, much of his article appears to suggest that we should view this idea as somewhat rational, if not appealing, primarily because it emanates from the NATO-EU East.
Kuper believes we should consider the views of Milan Kundera. Yes, Kundera. Because this writer has proposed an idea that resonates with the spirit of 1983—a time marked by America's Ronald Reagan at his most fervent and the Soviets’ Yury Andropov at his most paranoid. It was a year when we came alarmingly close to igniting a nuclear conflict. This notion has been enshrined on the European Parliament’s website as if it were a relic of the past.
Kuper is clearly influenced by Kundera’s claim that what was considered Soviet Eastern Europe was really a part of Western Europe—just better, highlighted by cultural elements like Kafka, rainy streets, and the specter of “YALTA!”
“YALTA!”—always to be articulated with a tone of grievance and resentment, preferably with a Polish accent—signifies that this treasured segment of Europe had been “kidnapped” by the overpowering Russian bear and betrayed by the Western bloc. The PMGs, intellectuals, and emerging grant-seekers of this not-quite-Eastern-Europe have seized upon this historical victimhood narrative.
In fact, this “displaced West” in the clutch of Russia was perceived so sentimentally that it was designated a new identity: Central Europe.
Westerners who embraced Kundera, Havel, and Garton-Ash recognized that: 1) Central Europe is sorrowful for being situated between Germany and Russia. 2) Central Europe embodies a nicer form of Slavic identity—distinct from the “terrifying” Russians, who have historically defended against invaders. 3) Central Europe rightly belongs in NATO and the EU—unlike Russia—because it is genuinely Western Europe, not Eastern Europe.
As time passed, what was “Central Europe,” having always been an extension of the West, converged with NATO and the EU. This may sound implausible, but the Financial Times suggests that accession to NATO meant joining the “transatlantic West.”
Now the dilemma: that West’s leadership in Washington has fallen into the hands of a peculiar reformer with radical ideas about achieving peace with Russia, thereby threatening the integrity of the Alliance. This is reminiscent of the late Gorbachev's dismantling of the Cold War structures from Moscow in 1989. This unexpected heir of “Perestroika” is none other than Donald Trump.
Kuper posits, with a deep sense of historical context, that the two Europes are now separating again, blaming Trump for this shift. He seems unaware of his own resemblance to nostalgic figures in post-Soviet Russia who similarly attribute the collapse of the Soviet empire to a single individual. Great individuals reportedly shape history, at least when small minds require a scapegoat.
The reality, however, is that these two Europes, East and West, have never truly unified, nor has NATO changed that fact. The European NATO-EU bloc has permitted members from the East to influence, even monopolize, its Russia strategy. The misjudged decisions, such as allowing this to happen, are numerous, but the essential takeaway is that this trend must cease: there is no reason for the entirety of NATO-EU Europe to embrace a conflict with Russia simply due to the delusions held by figures like Madame Kallas.
Critics of NATO's expansion and the EU's enlargement are warranted in recognizing that this has been a mistake. For those believing that the erratic leaders in NATO-EU East cannot inflict too much damage because Article 5 concerns “defense,” remember: NATO has engaged in offensive actions before, as evidenced in Afghanistan and Libya. Furthermore, we cannot ignore that a justification can always be concocted or manufactured. If the West were to initiate a direct confrontation with Russia—having already operated through proxies—the media will undoubtedly contort the narrative to claim “they started it.” Meanwhile, the EU plans to aggressively militarize; should it succeed, another reckless leader, perhaps from Estonia, could drag us into chaos for the glorification of Kundera and the spirit of 1983.
Thomas Evans contributed to this article for TROIB News
