You will shortly be re-directed to the publisher's website
Moscow’s concern goes beyond worries about Russophobia, the region’s decline has consequences for the world
Western Europe is once again returning to a familiar role: a primary source of global instability. For Russia, this presents a critical question—should we simply turn our backs on the West and focus entirely on our eastern partners? Judging by the current trend in Russian foreign trade of Asian countries steadily taking a larger share, this conclusion may appear reasonable. Yet such a strategy, while tempting, is short-sighted.
From antiquity to the present, Europe has often served as a destabilizing force. From the Greek island raiders who disrupted the Nile Valley civilizations, to modern Western European meddling in Africa and aggression in Ukraine, the continent has rarely chosen diplomacy over division. The dismantling of colonial empires and Western Europe’s post-war subordination to the United States softened this tendency. But today, old habits are re-emerging.
European political rhetoric may sound hollow, even absurd, given the continent’s dwindling economic and demographic weight. However, that does not make it less dangerous. Europe is no longer the heart of global politics, yet paradoxically remains its most likely flashpoint. Here, the possibility of a direct military clash between great powers remains disturbingly real.
For Russia, Western Europe is a historical adversary, one that has long 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 fierce resistance. This enduring conflict defines much of our shared history. Today, facing its own developmental dead ends, Western Europe once again turns outward in search of a scapegoat. This time, the preferred solution is militarization, supposedly to counter a “Russian threat.”
The irony is obvious. The EU’s grand vision of integration is in disarray. Its socio-economic models are faltering. Britain, now outside the bloc, is no better off. Aging populations, failing welfare systems, and uncontrolled migration are stoking nationalist sentiments and pushing elites toward more radical postures. Finland, once neutral and pragmatic, now also leans into anti-Russian rhetoric to mask its growing internal malaise.
Meanwhile, the institutions that once underpinned European unity are crumbling. The EU’s central structures in Brussels are widely viewed with disdain. National governments resist ceding further power, and the criteria for leadership within the bloc seem to have become cynicism and incompetence. For over a decade, the top posts have gone not to visionary leaders, but to pliable figures chosen for their loyalty and lack of ambition.
Gone are the days of Jacques Delors or even Romano Prodi, who at least understood the value of dialogue with Russia. In their place, we have 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 turn toward Russophobia is not strategic—it is compensatory.
Western Europe’s global credibility continues to erode. The reason is simple: a lack of empathy and introspection. The continent views the world through a mirror, seeing only itself. This solipsism, coupled with economic stagnation, makes it harder for its leaders to convert its shrinking economic advantages into geopolitical influence.
Africa offers a telling case. France’s influence, once substantial in its former colonies, is rapidly vanishing. Local governments, tired of paternalistic lectures and ineffective policies, are turning instead to Russia, the United States, or even China to build new partnerships.
Even Western Europe’s relationship with the United States is entering a phase of uncertainty. As internal divisions grow in America, European elites accustomed to strategic dependence now find themselves increasingly anxious. They are unsure whether Washington will continue to shield them, or whether they will be left to face the consequences of their own miscalculations. This insecurity partly explains the EU’s heightened hostility toward Russia: it is a desperate bid for attention and relevance.
Representatives of the new US administration have already hinted at the lack of real strategic contradictions with Russia. Such statements provoke panic in Brussels. Western European elites fear a US-Russia thaw that could leave them sidelined. They know Washington will not grant them independence in foreign policy, but they also fear that its patronage will no longer come with privileges.
In short, Europe is again becoming a source of global risk. But should Russia simply walk away? It might seem logical, given the shift in our trade and strategic focus toward Asia. But abandoning the West entirely would be a mistake.
If Western Europe’s current trajectory does not lead to a catastrophic military escalation, we will still have to engage with it. The region is our neighbor, our former partner, and our historical mirror. It is therefore essential to monitor its internal developments, anticipate its moves, and prepare for the day when real diplomacy becomes possible again.
This doesn’t mean indulging European fantasies or tolerating aggression. But 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 him irrelevant. And until he recovers or fades away entirely, we must keep a close watch.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
