
Western Europe has lost the plot – but still plays with fire
Modern Western Europe is quickly becoming a real-world demonstration of Hegel's famous dictum – that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. In the past, the missteps of its leaders could be seen as awkward but forgivable moments against the backdrop of a still-coherent West. Today, farce is becoming the default operating mode for the region's political elite.
Whether the antics come from small states like Estonia or from former heavyweights like Germany, France, and Britain, the effect is the same: Europe, or more precisely the European Union and its close NATO-aligned partners in the West, is no longer behaving like a serious geopolitical actor. What was once merely weakness has become a lifestyle – a self-parodying style of politics defined by empty declarations, theatrical gestures, and media spectacle.
The reasons are not difficult to identify. Western Europe has lost its strategic compass. What we're witnessing now, unfolding near Russia's borders, is a crisis of direction with no clear destination. Recent developments, in fact, would have seemed unimaginable even a few years ago.
In the space of just a few weeks, the leaders of the EU's most prominent countries issued ultimatums to Russia – with no thought as to what they might do if Moscow ignored them. Unsurprisingly, the efforts of the four most vocal backers of Ukraine – Britain, Germany, France, and Poland – collapsed into rhetorical theater with no follow-through.
Estonia, never one to miss a moment for posturing, saw a group of its sailors attempt to seize a foreign ship en route to St. Petersburg. The move, swiftly rebuffed by the Russian military, triggered a political scandal back in Tallinn – though perhaps not the kind they'd hoped for.
In Paris, President Emmanuel Macron continues to rely on dramatic pronouncements to remain in the spotlight. In Berlin, newly appointed Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that Ukrainian forces were permitted to strike Russian cities with Western missiles – only to be contradicted hours later by his own finance minister. As for the long-touted 'peacekeeper deployment plan' pushed by Paris and London, European media finally admitted what had been obvious for months: the plan is dead, lacking support from Washington.
Some of this, admittedly, stems from a media environment that has grown dangerously overheated. Western news outlets now thrive on alarmism, churning out a steady stream of war talk and pushing politicians to match the rhetoric. Since the launch of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, media across the Atlantic and in Brussels have played the role of propagandist, not watchdog.
But the problem runs deeper than headlines. Europe's political class has drifted into a world of abstraction, where politics has become an intellectual game – untethered from real capabilities or consequences. In some cases, the farce is provincial, as with Estonia's attempted maritime stunt. In others, it is cloaked in academic posturing, such as the wordy performances Macron delivers with the help of philosophically literate aides.
In all cases, one truth emerges: the European Union and its near partners are no longer serious actors in world affairs. They are still loud, still self-important, but no longer decisive. Their actions do not shift the global balance. The only real questions now are how long this detachment from reality can persist, and what the next stage of decline will look like.
This is not a matter of personalities or party lines. Whether globalist liberals or national conservatives take charge in Europe, the result is increasingly similar. Right-wing governments that replace the establishment often prove just as erratic and symbolic in their behavior.
What makes this transformation even more surreal is that Europe still has the ability to turn its politics into a spectacle. Many of its politicians – or at least their speechwriters – are highly educated. Macron's speeches, rich in historical and philosophical references, are products of minds trained at the best institutions. Once, such intelligence was used to shape policy and outplay rivals like Russia. Now, it produces only clever phrasing for empty statements.
Macron, of course, helped set the tone when he declared NATO 'brain dead' back in 2019 – a remark that was amusing at the time. But after the laughter faded, Western Europe began churning out similarly dramatic slogans, each more detached than the last. The British followed suit. Now the Germans are joining the script.
More troubling than the words, though, is the lack of accountability for them. European leaders say much and do little – and when they do act, it is often misguided. Worse, they seem genuinely unaware of how their provocations are perceived outside their own echo chamber. What looks absurd in Moscow, Beijing, or even some quarters of Washington, is seen in Brussels or Berlin as noble posturing. These leaders are living in a different dimension, but the rest of us still have to engage with their declarations, however disconnected from reality.
And while it is tempting to dismiss this as just another European drama, the risks are real. Britain and France still possess nuclear capabilities. The EU's economy, while faltering, retains global influence. Even the smallest states – like Estonia – can trigger crises that draw in larger powers. The Baltic naval stunt may have been primitive theater, but under the wrong conditions, even small acts of political play-acting can spiral into genuine danger.
No one seriously believes the United States is prepared to defend its European satellites at the cost of war with Russia. But given the destructive power of both Russian and American arsenals, even the faintest chance of escalation must be treated seriously – even if Western Europe itself has lost the ability to understand the consequences of its actions.
Ironically, Poland – once one of the most loudly anti-Russian voices in Europe – now appears almost restrained compared to the behavior of France, Germany, or Britain. In recent years, Warsaw has moved toward a more conservative, if still adversarial, stance – offering a rare glimpse of something resembling balance.
In the last century, Western Europe unleashed two of the most devastating wars in human history. Today, it plays at war once again – but with less awareness, less responsibility, and far less capacity. The danger lies not in its strength, but in its delusions. This is not Liechtenstein brandishing a sabre. These are nations with real armies, real missiles, and an increasingly fragile grasp on reality.
If there is to be stability in Europe's future, it must start with accepting the truth of the present. The continent is no longer the center of world politics. The logical next step is to strip Western Europe of the destructive capabilities it no longer knows how to wield. Demilitarization is not humiliation. It is realism – and the only way to bring Europe's role back in line with its actual relevance.This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
19 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky takes apparent dig at Trump for calling Putin
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that there is no value in trying to reach a peace deal with Moscow if powerful countries do not put pressure on Russia, in an apparent reference to US President Donald Trump's recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, the Russian and American leaders held a 75-minute call to discuss the Ukraine conflict. Trump described the conversation as 'good,' but noted that it would not lead to 'immediate peace' after Putin had told him 'very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on [Russian] airfields.' Ukrainian drones struck several Russian airbases across five regions on Sunday, ranging from Murmansk in the Arctic to Irkutsk in Siberia. Kiev claimed to have destroyed or damaged some 40 aircraft, including long-range bombers. Moscow has denied both the numbers and the extent of the damage. Writing on X on Wednesday, several hours after Trump disclosed the content of his conversation with Putin, Zelensky claimed that 'many have spoken with Russia at various levels. But none of these talks have brought a reliable peace, or even stopped the war.' The Ukrainian leader criticized 'those who still hesitate to increase pressure' on Russia and suggested that if 'the powerful do not stop Putin, it means they share responsibility with him,' apparently referring to Trump and the fact that he has yet to impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Zelensky's post comes after the New York Times reported, citing sources, that Trump regularly describes the Ukrainian leader as a 'bad guy' who is pushing the world closer to a nuclear conflict. Advisers told the outlet that while Trump has grown 'exasperated' with both Moscow and Kiev, he 'reserves special animosity' for Zelensky. Meanwhile, Russian officials have repeatedly expressed their appreciation for Trump's efforts to end the conflict and have reiterated Moscow's openness to negotiations. However, Russia has insisted that a final peace deal with Kiev would have to take into account the realities on the ground and address the root causes of the conflict, such as Kiev's efforts to join NATO, the spread of neo-Nazism within the country, and the infringement of the rights of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population.


Russia Today
34 minutes ago
- Russia Today
NATO more powerful than Romans and Napoleon – bloc chief (VIDEO)
NATO is the 'most powerful alliance' in global history, Secretary General Mark Rutte has claimed, comparing the US-led bloc to the Roman Empire and Napoleon's army. Rutte urged member states to ramp up military spending to make NATO even 'more lethal' and better prepared to counter the alleged threat from Russia, which Moscow has long denied and ridiculed. 'NATO is the most powerful defense alliance in world history. It's even more powerful than the Roman Empire, and more powerful than Napoleon's empire,' Rutte stated at a press conference ahead of the NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. 'But the defense alliance needs maintenance and needs investment.' He laid out priorities to strengthen NATO's military, insisting they are essential to deter potential future aggression. 'We must make NATO a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance… We need more resources, forces, and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat,' he added. Rutte claimed that Russia could attack NATO within several years and said the bloc would not be prepared to defend itself unless it moves beyond its long-held 2% of GDP defense spending benchmark. NATO Chief Mark Rutte says the NATO 'defensive alliance' is more powerful than both the Roman Empire and Napoleon's Empire.1. NATO is essentially the US, and a collection of vassal states that submit to Washington's hegemony 2. The Chief of NATO compares the organisation he… Rutte said he would present member states with a new 'defense investment plan' at the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague. Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it poses a threat to NATO, calling them 'nonsense' and accusing the West of stoking fear to justify more military spending. Moscow has also warned that the West's rearmament efforts risk escalating into a broader conflict in Europe. Russian officials have also drawn their own historical comparisons. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of trying to inflict a 'strategic defeat' on Russia 'just like in the times of Napoleon and Hitler' through its proxy war in Ukraine. He said the only way to avoid a wider conflict is for the West to abandon its militaristic path. Rutte's imperial comparisons have sparked criticism on social media. Media analyst Michael William Lebron, known as Lionel, wrote: 'NATO's chief boasting they're 'more powerful than the Roman or Napoleonic Empires' sounds less like diplomacy and more like 1939 Berlin. This isn't defense – it's imperial arrogance... Dangerous rhetoric.' John Laughland, a historian and specialist in international affairs, pointed out on X that 'The Roman and Napoleonic empires were not alliances, they were states. Or is NATO now an empire?' 'NATO 'Chief' sounds like Uncle Adolf back in 1939,' Irish journalist Chay Bowes added. British journalist Afshin Rattansi also weighed in, saying it's no wonder non-NATO states view the bloc as 'a hyper-militarist threat' after it 'destroyed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so many others.' Rattansi called Rutte 'a puppet' of Washington and warned that NATO 'is a dangerous, hyper-militarist organization that is far from defensive.'


Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Russia reports new railway sabotage near Ukraine
An explosive device has damaged a railway track in Russia's Voronezh Region on Thursday morning, according to the Federal Security Service (FSB). The incident follows what Moscow said were two Ukrainian 'terrorist attacks' on railroad infrastructure earlier this week in the border Bryansk and Kursk Regions that killed seven people and injured more than 100. Earlier in the day, Voronezh Region Governor Aleksandr Gusev reported disruptions to rail traffic in the area, which he said prompted several trains to halt. He explained that the driver of one of the trains 'noticed minor damage to the track,' adding 'there were no injuries.' In a statement, the FSB said the railway was damaged by an explosion which occurred 'directly in front of an approaching train.' It added that 'the professional actions of the train driver and crew, who noticed the track damage and carried out emergency braking,' prevented any severe consequences. The FSB stopped short of assigning the blame for the incident, saying that an investigation is underway. It added, though, that there are 'sufficient grounds' to open a criminal case under terrorism-related charges. The incident comes as Ukraine has significantly ramped up its attacks on Russian territory, including drone raids and sabotage attempts. Following the recent deadly train sabotage in the two Russian border regions, President Vladimir Putin called Kiev's actions 'undoubtedly a terrorist act.' He described the sabotage an 'intentional strike on the [Russian] civilian population,' suggesting that they were aimed at derailing the direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul. Putin subsequently cast doubt on whether it would make sense for Russia to continue the talks, wondering, 'Who conducts negotiations with those who rely on terror – with terrorists?'