France predicts ‘major war in Europe' by 2030
Despite Moscow's denials that it plans to attack Europe, the document names Russia as the main threat, alongside Iran, China, terrorism, separatism, and cyber and organized crime.
'We are entering a new era... in which there is a particularly high risk of a major high-intensity war in Europe… by 2030,' the review warns, adding that France and its European allies would be targeted. The report references the 'Russian threat', 'Russian aggression', and related terms over 50 times, including in the foreword by President Emmanuel Macron.
'Russia in particular poses the most direct threat… to the interests of France, those of its partners and allies, and the very stability of the European continent and the Euro-Atlantic area,' the document claims, accusing Moscow of cyber attacks, election meddling, and assassinations. It even paints Moscow's efforts to expand ties with Africa, Latin America, and Asia as confirming its 'confrontational approach.'
The review warns that Russia could act against Moldova, the Balkans, or Eastern European NATO members. It also names Iran and China as strategic threats: Iran is accused of destabilizing the Middle East, while China is portrayed as seeking global dominance.
France must reinforce its military and shift its economy to 'war preparedness,' the review concludes, calling for new investments both in the country and across the EU to deter aggression.
The publication of the review comes amid wider EU militarization. Brussels recently adopted the €800 billion ReArm Europe initiative, and last month, European NATO members agreed to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, both citing the alleged 'Russian threat'.
Russia has dismissed claims that it plans to attack the West. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said the West uses Russia as a 'monster' to justify its growing military budgets.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western leaders last week of forgetting history and pushing Europe toward a direct clash with Russia. He added that Russia will factor EU militarization into its own strategic planning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
43 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Trump's ultimatum isn't an ultimatum – and Moscow knows it
US President Donald Trump has finally issued his much-anticipated 'important statement' on Russia. For days, speculation swirled, particularly among pro-Ukrainian circles, that the long-awaited U-turn was coming. Trump, they hoped, would finally get tough – perhaps inspired by the increasingly hawkish rhetoric of Senator Lindsey Graham (who, incidentally, is designated a terrorist and extremist in Russia). Even sceptics began to believe that Trump was gearing up to show Moscow 'Kuzka's mother,' a famous idiomatic expression of aggression used by Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War But in classic Trump fashion, expectations were dashed. The supposedly 'extremely tough ultimatum' turned out to be something else entirely. Trump threatened tariff sanctions against Russia and its trading partners – but scrapped Graham's extreme proposal of 500% duties. Instead, he floated the idea of 100% tariffs that would only take effect after 50 days, if he chooses to enforce them, and if Russia fails to strike a deal. Trump also announced new arms deliveries to Ukraine. But these aren't gifts – they'll be sold, not given, and passed through European intermediaries. Supposedly, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems. Yet we soon learned the first of these deliveries won't arrive for at least two months – again, 50 days. And even now, basic questions remain unanswered. What exactly did Trump mean by '17 Patriots'? Seventeen batteries? Launchers? Missiles? If he meant 17 batteries, that's simply not plausible. The US itself only operates around 30 active batteries. Germany and Israel combined don't have anywhere near that many available systems. Such a figure would significantly boost Ukraine's air defences – but it's almost certainly exaggerated. Seventeen missiles? That would be laughable – but not unthinkable. Washington recently sent just 10 Patriot missiles in a 'military aid' package so modest it wouldn't suffice for a single battle. Seventeen launchers? That seems more realistic. A typical battery consists of six to eight launchers, so this would amount to two or three batteries – more than what Germany and Norway have promised to purchase for Ukraine. Yet even the Pentagon can't confirm the details. And one suspects Trump himself may be fuzzy on the specifics. His role, after all, is to make the pronouncements; others are left to clean up the mess. The so-called '14 July ultimatum' has already become a textbook example of Trump's diplomatic approach. In fact, a new phrase has emerged in American political slang: 'Trump Always Chickens Out' or TACO. The acronym speaks for itself. It refers to the president's habit in trade and security talks of making grandiose threats, only to backtrack or delay implementation. This appears to be another case in point. The negotiations are at an impasse. Trump still craves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he's reluctant to become too entangled in the Ukrainian conflict. So he's reached for the oldest trick in his playbook: the non-ultimatum ultimatum. This allows him to sound tough while giving Moscow space – and perhaps even time – to act. It also offers cover with his MAGA base, many of whom are frustrated by distractions like Iran or the Epstein scandal and aren't eager to see America dragged further into Ukraine. The genius of it, from Trump's perspective, is that it promises everything and nothing at once. No clear strategy. No detailed demands. Just an open-ended threat backed by ambiguous timelines. It's pressure without posture. Leverage without leadership. What's striking is that the White House didn't even ask Russia to de-escalate. There were no appeals to halt the almost daily strikes on Ukraine or curb battlefield activity. In effect, Russia has been handed a 50-day window – intentionally or not – to do as it sees fit. A quiet concession to the Kremlin? Perhaps. A careless side effect? Possibly. Either way, Moscow gains. America, too, comes out ahead – at least financially. Under the new arrangement, Western Europe picks up the tab for Ukraine's defence, while US companies get paid to offload ageing equipment. Trump's famed 'art of the deal' may amount to little more than selling junk with a smile. But if so, he's done it masterfully. Still, as a political manoeuvre, the outcome is more uncertain. Trump may believe he's found the sweet spot between hawks and doves, between NATO allies and nationalist critics. But trying to be all things to all people rarely ends well. Appeasement disguised as firmness satisfies no one for long. And while Trump plays for time, Russia holds the initiative. That's the real story article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russian demographer says fewer school years could deliver more babies
A senior Russian demographer has proposed cutting the number of years children must attend school in order to promote earlier parenthood and reverse a national trend towards lower fertility, TASS reports. Sergey Rybalchenko, head of the Public Chamber's Demography Commission, has argued that bold steps are necessary to prevent Russia's population from shrinking. In recent years, the country has seen negative natural population growth, falling from 149 million in 1993 to 146 million in 2025 despite an influx of immigrants and the unification of the country with Crimea in 2014 and four former Ukrainian regions in 2022. The country's population is poised to decrease to 138.8 million people in 2046, according to the base-case scenario developed by the federal statistics agency Rosstat. 'A shorter education period would enable young people to reach adulthood and plan to have children for two years earlier,' Rybalchenko told TASS, explaining the initiative. Getting married and having children at a higher age is linked to a longer period of social maturation, the demographer pointed out. Young people only start to think about children by the age of 27, as they spend 17 years getting an education and dedicate an additional three years to social adaptation after finishing university, he explained. It is possible to cut the number of years spent in school from 11 to 10, so that students can dedicate five years to getting a higher education without sacrificing quality, the expert noted. Students completing 10 grades have demonstrated equivalent knowledge to those completing 11 grades, he said. Russian MP Vitaly Milonov, who is known for his staunch support of 'traditional Russian values' and his vocal opposition to the 'child-free' ideology, said that the idea was underdeveloped. Russians, like many in East Asia, Europe and North America, have begun to postpone parenthood. The average age at which women first had children was 26.2 years in Russia in 2023, according to Health Minister Mikhail Murashko, compared to 23 in 1995. To address the demographic challenge, the government has increased financial incentives for families with children, taken steps to promote traditional family values, and in 2024 outlawed the promotion of the 'child-free' ideology. Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously emphasized the importance of creating favorable economic and social conditions to encourage people to have larger families and increase the birth rate.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump arms Ukraine. Russia doesn't care
On Monday, July 14, US President Donald Trump announced that he had decided to supply Patriot missile systems to Kiev, with the first deliveries expected in the coming days. The key element of this move lies not just in the type of weapons, but in the logistics behind them. While the deliveries will be formally carried out by Washington, the funding will come from NATO allies. The first batteries will be transferred from Germany, which will later be compensated by new shipments from the United States. In essence, a new mechanism is taking shape: American weapons, paid for with European money. But what does this actually mean in practical terms? Is this a major escalation, a political gesture, or simply a reshuffling of existing commitments? And more importantly, how will this affect the battlefield itself? According to Trump, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems – a statement that immediately raises questions. Most importantly, it's unclear exactly what the administration considers a 'system.' If he meant 17 launchers, that would translate into just three or four full batteries, since each battery includes a radar, command post, and between four and eight launchers. This would not represent a dramatic escalation, but rather allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to replenish and rotate previously supplied batteries. A more ambitious interpretation would assume that Trump meant 17 full batteries. That would be the single largest delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine to date – several times more than what the country currently fields. While the US has the industrial capacity and inventory to provide this quantity, such a generous transfer would be uncharacteristic of Trump's approach. His goal is to make a visible impact, not to set records. The more plausible scenario is that this is a European-funded replacement for earlier systems that have been damaged or expended. In parallel with the Patriot announcement, details began to emerge about long-range missiles. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration is considering removing all restrictions on Ukraine's use of ATACMS missiles to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. It's worth clarifying that Ukraine already possesses such missiles. Since 2023, its forces have deployed ATACMS variants with a range of up to 190 km, and since spring of 2024, longer-range versions capable of reaching 300 km. The change lies not in the hardware itself, but in the potential shift in how it can be used. Up until now, Washington has forbidden Kiev from using these weapons to strike internationally recognized Russian territory. According to American press reports, those limits may now be dropped. While this move would entail risks, it doesn't represent a strategic game-changer. Russia's layered air defense network, including the S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, was designed with threats like ATACMS in mind. While a 100% interception rate is unrealistic, operational experience shows a high level of effectiveness. The threat is real, but hardly decisive. As weapons deliveries ramp up, discussion has turned to heavier strike assets. Military Watch Magazine reported that its sources say the Trump administration is exploring the possibility of transferring US air-launched cruise missiles – specifically JASSM models – to Ukraine, primarily for use with F-16 fighters already in Kiev's possession. The JASSM is a stealthy cruise missile designed to strike heavily defended targets. Early variants have a range of up to 340 km, while the extended-range JASSM-ER versions are capable of flying 740–1000 km. With a 450 kg warhead and low observability, these missiles pose a serious threat – particularly if used against major administrative and industrial centers. In theory, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and other cities could fall within range. Reports also suggest that the administration may be reviewing the possibility of providing Tomahawk cruise missiles – most likely through the mobile Typhon launch systems, which Ukraine formally requested back in 2024. These subsonic, terrain-hugging missiles have a range of up to 2,000 km and have proven effective in US strikes against targets in Iran and Syria in recent years. Notably, Ukraine isn't the only country showing interest in such systems. Germany has also expressed a desire to acquire Typhon complexes as part of its long-term deterrence strategy. While the theoretical transfer of Tomahawks to Kiev cannot be ruled out, as with the JASSM, such a move would mark a significant policy shift. It would be, by any standard, a revolutionary step – and it is doubtful that President Trump is genuinely inclined to take it. For now, all indications are that discussions remain preliminary and behind closed doors. Should these proposals move forward, Russia's military will respond by adjusting its air defense posture. Denser deployments of surface-to-air systems around industrial centers, capitals, and the front line will be required. Air-based assets may be added to the mix. The threat is being monitored, but it will not go unanswered. Russia not only possesses a sophisticated anti-missile defense network but also extensive combat experience intercepting a wide range of Western weapons. Engagements with Storm Shadow, SCALP EG, and ATACMS missiles have already shown that even complex threats can be effectively countered. While no system offers full immunity, and some missiles may slip through, the idea of 'wonder weapons' shifting the tide of the conflict is a myth. The success of the special military operation does not depend on technological supremacy alone. It is rooted in the integrated use of diverse forces, sustained strategic initiative, and resilience under pressure. No cruise missile – however advanced – can break that foundation.
