Is Europe a collection of nations with divergent interests and values or is it a coherent entity with common interests and values?  If European leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen and  Kaja Kallas are to be believed it is the latter.  But, if Europe does have common values, it is not easy to state what those values are—other than hatred of Russia.

Read more: What Is Europe?—Editorial

Of course, there is a historical precedent for Europe’s Russophobia.  Europe invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.  It might be objected that it was Nazi Germany that invaded, but Germany did not act in isolation.  It had absorbed Austria and was in alliance with Italy, Croatia. Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania and Finland. 

Apart from the neutral States and Serbia this leaves Britain and France. 

While Britain and France were not fascist before the War, they were not exactly hostile to it either.  Churchill openly praised Fascism in the 1930s.  It was widely believed among the British political class that fascism—whether in its German or Italian form—was a bulwark against Soviet Communism. 

British Foreign policy in the 1930s has been characterised as Appeasement.  But Britain encouraged Germany to break the terms of the Versailles Treaty, much to the horror of France. 

In 1938 it handed over the arms industry of Czechoslovakia to the third Reich. It was said that a map of Europe at that time showed Czechoslovakia as a dagger pointing at the heart of the Soviet Union. 

Britain also encouraged Poland to take an intransigent position in the latter’s dispute with Germany over the city of Danzig.

Appeasement is one way of describing this policy.  Another way of describing it would be that it was a British attempt to force Germany to move eastwards with the objective of provoking a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. 

This was not an unrealistic strategy.  Hitler was an admirer of the British Empire and thought of Russia as Germany’s India:  a field for exploitation. 

But the British had not reckoned on the pragmatism of both Stalin and Hitler.  Stalin did not want a war with Germany—especially if Germany was backed by Britain and France;  and Hitler did not wish to be encircled by hostile Powers.  Ideological considerations were put aside in the interests of preserving their respective states. 

The Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact was a complete disaster for Britain’s political strategy.  Downing Street had facilitated the arming of Germany, only to find that the latter had pivoted 180 degrees from East to West!

Neville Chamberlain resigned and Winston Churchill was brought back from the wilderness. 

It could be said that British strategy was eventually realised with the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.  But, by then, Britain had been at war for two years and had become dependent on the United States.  It had not been part of the original plan that Britain would be doing any fighting!  And it certainly was not envisaged that it would end up as an ally of the Soviet Union!!

The War ended in 1945 with the defeat of Europe.  Although Britain and France were formally on the side of the victors, they had become dependent on the United States. The real winners were the United States and the Soviet Union.  Europe became a dependency of the two Powers.

While Western Europe flourished in the decades following the War, it was dependent on the United States for military defence.  It was also constrained in the political choices it could make.  

A similar relationship applied to the countries of Eastern Europe with respect to the Soviet Union. 

The post-War settlement—in which Western and Eastern Europe were under the hegemony of the United States and the Soviet Union respectively—provided peace and stability for almost half a century. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990 led to an end to that stability.  And the related collapse of Yugoslavia led to war.

Eastern Europe was liberated from the Soviet Union and brought under the tutelage of the United States. 

And then in 2022 War broke out in Ukraine.  Of course, the War in Ukraine had begun at least as early as 2014, but in 2022 there was direct Russian military involvement. 

The Americans treated Russia as a defeated power from 1990 onwards.  The Communist system was dismantled by the Kremlin, and the country was plundered by American capital, resulting in a dramatic fall in living standards. 

America promised that NATO would not move Eastwards following the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact—the alliance of East European States around Moscow—but those promises were continually broken.  

However by 2000 Russia was beginning to revive following the accession to power of Vladimir Putin.  It could not roll back the accomplished fact of NATO expansion, but it did set a red line regarding the future:  Ukraine and Georgia must not join NATO.  America put the matter to the test and has found that Russia was not bluffing. 

The War in Ukraine has resulted in a crushing defeat for the United States.  The fact of the defeat has been obvious since the failure of Ukraine’s counter-offensive in 2023.  No amount of distractions—such as Ukraine’s terrorist operations or its incursion into Kursk—can dispel the facts on the ground. 

The War is a war of attrition in which the industrial capacity of the participants is crucial.  Decades of outsourcing have completely undermined America’s industrial base, and have meant it is incapable of conducting such a war. 

Russia doesn’t, of course, describe the situation in Ukraine as war, but as a “Special Military Operation”.  Its victory over the combined forces of NATO has been achieved without fully mobilising all its material and human resources for war. 

America’s Military defeat inevitably will lead to an internal crisis.  At present, President Trump is trying to walk away from the debacle without making the decline in American Power obvious.

Incredibly, the Europeans—spurred on by Downing Street—are urging him to continue the War against Russia, even though it is obvious that peace with Russia is in Europe’s interests. 

The distinguished French intellectual, Emmanuel Todd, explains this by saying that Europe experience the War vicariously.  All the key decisions are made by the Americans—and therefore the consequences are felt more acutely by them. Washington has been forced to accept the reality of defeat in a way that the Europeans have not. 

There is a famous joke about a chess player who in the first ten moves of his game followed classic textbook lines.  He then made a fatal mistake:  he began to think for himself. 

With the decline in American Power and the prospect of it withdrawing from the continent, Europe is in the position of having to think for itself.  This is not something that it is used to doing!

In the absence of thought, it appears that Europe has reverted to the Russophobia of the 1930s—even though Russia is no longer Communist.  The only exceptions to this venom are Slovakia and Hungary. 

In addition, Serbia has remained loyal to Russia—although its Prime Minister appears to want to make an each-way bet because of a lingering aspiration to join the EU!

The neutral states—including Ireland—have abandoned their neutrality. 

Its Russophobia has blinded Europe to its true interests. 

Germany has already allowed the Biden administration to destroy the Nordstream Pipelines (in September 2022)—an act of vandalism which has had a devastating effect on German industry by raising energy costs.

Now, at a time when America is imposing tariffs on Europe— instead of looking to develop alternative markets—Europe’s leaders seem to support the idea of imposing secondary sanctions against countries, such as China, which support Russia. 

At the same time, despite the straitened circumstances that many European economies find themselves in, it is proposed that defence spending should increase to 5% of GDP. 

There are political consequences to these failed policies.  The decline in support for traditional European political parties is evidence that their leaders are completely out of touch with the people.  The rise in support for nationalist parties shows there is disillusionment with the European project (whatever that might be now).

What else could be expected?  If Europe continues to be led by incompetents, what alternative is there but to protect the interests of the nation state?