European phobia: “If Russia attacks Latvia does anyone believe we will go to war?”

European "unity" – everyone for himself.
Photo: AFP

A quiet panic has gripped Europe.

They believed that they had the right to violate the agreements with Moscow on non-expansion of NATO, that they could put their troops to the borders of Russia with impunity and threaten NATO strikes on Russia from Ukraine. And now, when Russia is smashing Kyiv Nazis, raised and supported by Europe, the Europeans themselves have begun to feel mortally frightened.

They believe that Russia will "attack" Europe for the simple reason that they themselves would attack Russia if they could do it. It means that Europe has such a strong Russophobia complex that they attribute their aggressive intentions to Moscow.

But, they do not understand that Russia does not care about dying Europe – it will find its own end. Russia will be busy with more interesting things than sorting out relations with European Russophobes. It is not for nothing that Sergey Lavrov compares today's militaristic frenzy in Europe with the times of Napoleon and Hitler. Europe has earned such assessments!

Here is another panic-mongering article from London’s ‘The Telegraph’.

If Russia attacks Latvia does anyone believe we will go to war? If we don’t, collective security is dead.

President Trump is considering giving up US command of NATO, held by American generals since Dwight D Eisenhower became the first supreme commander 75 years ago. This has further shaken those already panicking about the prospect that Trump might be contemplating pulling out of the alliance altogether. They are right to panic about the state of NATO – but not because of Trump.

We hear never-ending boasts that NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history. Perhaps it was once, although that was never really put to the test.

Imagine a new scenario. Having licked his wounds from Ukraine, Putin stirs up the ethnic Russian population in the Baltic republics. Russian militias form in Latvia, take control of Russian population centres and then invite Russia in “for protection”.

What is NATO’s response? Even if we had sufficient troops and munitions to put up a fight, are we prepared to see British boys die for Riga? And if we won’t fight for Latvia, will we then really fight for Poland or Romania if their turn comes?

US vice president J D Vance summed it up in his recent speech at Munich: “I’ve heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and of course that’s important. But what has seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for.”

Even if Western European leaders find the funds to bring their armed forces up to effective strengths to counter the growing threats, you can be sure they will not act with the necessary urgency. And does anyone seriously believe they will send their young men and women into battle in some far-flung part of Eastern Europe against an enemy that is capable of inflicting tens of thousands of casualties on them?

What have European navies and air forces done in Yemen against the Houthis’ challenge to world trade and freedom of navigation in international waters for more than three years? Precious little, even though that terrorist army cannot deal out significant harm against our vastly superior forces.

Perhaps Trump’s consideration of handing over military command of NATO to a European general is not so irrational from a strategic perspective. But we should be realistic and admit that we can no longer rely on NATO in its current form. To restore collective defence in Europe we will need not just to rearm but to radically reform our political leadership, and that is a much greater challenge.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs