Moscow’s concerns extend beyond mere worries about anti-Russian sentiment; the region’s decline has global ramifications.
Western Europe is reverting to its familiar role as a major source of global instability. This situation poses a critical question for Russia: should we simply ignore the West and concentrate solely on our Asian partners? Given the increasing share of Asian countries in Russian foreign trade, this might seem reasonable. However, such a strategy, while appealing, is shortsighted.
Throughout history, Europe has frequently been a destabilizing influence. From ancient Greek raiders disrupting Nile Valley civilizations to modern Western European interference in Africa and aggression in Ukraine, the continent has often favored division over diplomacy. The dismantling of colonial empires and Western Europe’s post-war dependence on the United States mitigated this tendency. However, old patterns are now resurfacing.
European political rhetoric may seem empty or even absurd, considering the continent’s declining economic and demographic significance. Yet, this doesn’t diminish its danger. Europe is no longer the center of global politics but remains a likely point of conflict. The potential for direct military confrontation between major powers remains alarmingly real.
For Russia, Western Europe is a long-standing adversary that has consistently sought to dictate terms or impose its will. From Napoleon to Hitler, and now to Brussels bureaucrats, attempts to subdue or marginalize Russia have been met with strong resistance. This ongoing conflict defines much of our shared history. Today, facing its own developmental challenges, Western Europe is again looking outward for a scapegoat, with militarization as the preferred solution, ostensibly to counter a “Russian threat.”
The irony is clear. The EU’s ambitious integration project is failing. Its socio-economic models are weakening. Britain, now outside the bloc, is in no better shape. Aging populations, failing welfare systems, and uncontrolled migration are fueling nationalist sentiments and pushing elites toward more extreme positions. Finland, once neutral and pragmatic, is also adopting anti-Russian rhetoric to conceal its growing internal problems.
Meanwhile, the institutions that once supported European unity are collapsing. The EU’s central bodies in Brussels are widely viewed with contempt. National governments resist surrendering more power, and leadership criteria within the bloc appear to have devolved into cynicism and incompetence. For over a decade, top positions have been filled not by visionary leaders but by compliant figures chosen for their loyalty and lack of ambition.
The era of Jacques Delors or even Romano Prodi, who at least recognized the importance of dialogue with Russia, is over. They have been replaced by figures like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, whose inability to achieve anything meaningful within the bloc leads them to seek relevance by provoking confrontation with Moscow. The EU’s shift toward Russophobia is not strategic but compensatory.
Western Europe’s global credibility continues to decline due to a lack of empathy and self-awareness. The continent views the world through a self-centered lens. This solipsism, combined with economic stagnation, makes it harder for its leaders to translate diminishing economic advantages into geopolitical influence.
Africa provides a clear example. France’s once-significant influence in its former colonies is rapidly disappearing. Local governments, tired of patronizing lectures and ineffective policies, are turning to Russia, the United States, or even China to forge new partnerships.
Even Western Europe’s relationship with the United States is becoming uncertain. As internal divisions within America grow, European elites, accustomed to strategic dependence, are becoming increasingly anxious. They are unsure whether Washington will continue to protect them or whether they will be left to deal with the consequences of their own errors. This insecurity partly explains the EU’s increased hostility toward Russia: it is a desperate attempt to gain attention and remain relevant.
Representatives of the new US administration have suggested that there are no real strategic conflicts with Russia. Such statements cause panic in Brussels. Western European elites fear a US-Russia détente that could leave them marginalized. They know Washington will not grant them independence in foreign policy but also fear that its support will no longer come with special privileges.
In short, Europe is again becoming a source of global risk. But should Russia simply disengage? While it might seem logical given our shifting trade and strategic focus toward Asia, completely abandoning the West would be a mistake.
Even if Western Europe’s current path does not lead to a catastrophic military escalation, we will still need to interact with it. The region is our neighbor, former partner, and historical mirror. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor its internal developments, anticipate its actions, and prepare for a time when genuine diplomacy becomes possible again.
This does not mean indulging European illusions or condoning aggression. However, it does mean staying informed and engaged. The “sick man” of global politics may no longer be capable of leadership, but that does not make it irrelevant. And until it recovers or disappears entirely, we must observe it closely.
This article was first published by , translated and edited by the RT team.