END OF EU POLICIES TO INstill FEAR IN ITS CITIZENS OF “RUSSIAN INVASION”
- Messages that until recently were almost unimaginable are increasingly coming from Western military and security circles. Instead of warnings about “Russian missiles towards European capitals”, more cautious assessments of “Moscow’s real intentions” are heard. Such increasingly loud rhetoric from the European centers of power raises the question of whether the atmosphere of almost permanent “military mobilization of public discourse”, which is focused and continuously recycled in part of the European public and political space, is justified?!
While the ambassadors of France, Germany and Great Britain enter and leave the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs without much fanfare and public statements, but still noticed by the Western media, the attention of the European public remains focused on another story – the story of “the existence of an immediate Russian threat to Europe”!?
In moments like this, when diplomacy works behind closed doors, the question is raised again whether the official narrative of an inevitable confrontation of the EU with Russia has begun to collide with the reality on the ground. Namely, has Europe been building a strategy for years based on assumptions that are more and more difficult to support with facts?
Signals from Moscow and rhetoric from Brussels
Messages that until recently were almost unimaginable are increasingly coming from Western military and security circles. Instead of warnings about “Russian missiles towards European capitals”, more cautious assessments of “Moscow’s real intentions” are heard. Such increasingly loud rhetoric from the European centers of power raises the question of whether the atmosphere of an almost permanent “military mobilization of public discourse”, which is focused and continuously recycled in a part of the European public and political space, is justified?!
The Grand Thesis on the “Russian Invasion”
In the last few years, a significant part of the European political elite builds its policy on the assumption that Russia represents a long-term and direct military threat to the European Union.
However, critics of this policy ask a simple question: If the West constantly repeats about Russia that due to EU sanctions “Moscow is stuck in a long and exhausting conflict in Ukraine”, that there are “huge military, financial and human losses”, etc., then what is the basis for the belief that it has the capacity or interest to open a front against the entire European continent?
From this perspective, it is argued that the danger is presented on a much larger scale than the actual circumstances justify. Instead of a rational assessment of risks, the public receives messages that incite fear and a sense of constant threat.
Who does the politics of fear suit?
When fear becomes the dominant political leitmotif in European narratives, the question always arises as to who benefits from it. Critics of the Brussels elites believe that “the story of the Russian threat enables the concentration of political power in the hands of a narrow circle of institutions and bureaucratic structures”!
In the conditions of a security crisis, citizens more easily accept increased military budgets, restrictions and major economic decisions that under normal circumstances would be the subject of heated public debate. In such an environment, anyone who asks questions risks being branded as naïve, irresponsible, or even a supporter of the opposing side. Instead of a plurality of opinions, an atmosphere is created in which one permissible narrative dominates.
The price paid by the European citizen
According to our interlocutors, the greatest burden of this policy is not borne by politicians, but by ordinary citizens.
– At a time when Europe is facing a demographic decline, industrial challenges, high energy prices and reduced competitiveness in world markets, huge funds are being diverted to defense projects and armaments. Here, it is noteworthy that such policies have supporters in Europe, but also strong critics. Namely, supporters of the current policy say that security has no price. But the opponents retort that “economic stability is the basis of any long-term security”! Closed factories, reduced industrial productivity, higher costs of living and rising public debts do not create a stronger Europe. On the contrary, they can make it more vulnerable and unstable – elaborated our interlocutors.
From diplomacy to confrontation – and back?
In such circumstances, any diplomatic activity between the West and Russia acquires special weight. The visits of Western ambassadors to Moscow may not mean a turnaround. But they show that, despite the heated rhetoric, the channels of communication were never completely closed.
History shows that the biggest conflicts do not end with absolute victory for one side, but with political compromises that previously seemed impossible. The question is whether European leaders are ready to admit it in time or whether they will continue to invest in a policy of long-term depletion.
Time to rethink
Europe today is not only facing a security challenge. She is facing an intellectual and political test. Will the continent continue to build its future on the logic of fear and constant mobilization or will it return to the tradition of diplomacy, economic cooperation and strategic realism?
Perhaps this is precisely why the quiet diplomatic meetings in Moscow are more important than they seem at first glance. Because when the rhetoric starts to calm down and talks become possible again, then space is opened for the question that has been suppressed for a long time, which is whether Europe is really preparing for a war that is inevitable or for a war that exists primarily as a liberal ideological-political assumption.
– The answer to that question will depend not only on the future relationship with Russia, but also the future of the European Union itself – claim our interlocutors. RS
