Europe could have been one of the shining centres of gravity in a new world order. A continent with its own voice, its own interests, its own future.
Europe has everything it needs to stand on its own feet. Industry, technology, capital, a thousand years of history. Everything except a political class that can imagine life outside the American umbrella.
And next door sits Russia. Also Europe. The largest country on earth. A neighbour we share a continent with, whether we like it or not.
No need for friendship. No marriage. Just two neighbours with enough common interests to make cooperation worth their while.
For a brief moment in history, that seemed entirely possible.
We wasted it. Here is how.
WHAT HAPPENED — The Chronology
1975 | Helsinki Accords.
The foundations of a common European security framework.
1989 | Gorbachev.
His vision of a Common European Home.
1990 | Charter of Paris for a New Europe.
A new framework for European cooperation.
1995 | OSCE.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe is created.
1999 | NATO Expansion.
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join NATO. Europe begins moving away from the idea of a common security framework.
2000 | Putin / NATO.
Putin raises the possibility of Russia joining NATO.
Yeltsin had previously raised the same possibility.
2005 | Common Spaces Agreement.
Russia believed it had reached an understanding with Europe on harmonising integration across their common neighbourhood. Europe walked away almost immediately.
2008 | Medvedev.
Proposes a common European security architecture.
2010 | Putin.
Proposes a common economic space stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, integrating Russia
and Europe through trade and economic cooperation.
2013 | EU / Ukraine.
The EU pushes its Association Agreement with Ukraine. Russian proposals for trilateral negotiations are rejected by the European Commission. Ukraine becomes a battleground between competing economic and geopolitical interests.
2014 | USA / Maidan.
A leaked call between Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt exposes Washington’s direct involvement in discussions on Ukraine’s future political leadership. The famous words: Fuck the EU.
2014 – 2015 | Minsk Agreements.
Germany and France broker agreements to end the fighting in eastern Ukraine. They are never fully implemented. Angela Merkel later acknowledges that Minsk gave Ukraine time to strengthen itself. Which was the plan from the beginning.
2019 | USA / INF Treaty.
Washington withdraws from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, with NATO’s support. Another pillar of European arms control disappears.
2021 – 2022 | Russia’s Security Proposals.
Moscow proposes new security guarantees, including limits on NATO expansion. Washington and NATO reject closing NATO’s door, while offering talks on arms control and risk reduction.
2022 | UK / Istanbul Peace Talks.
Boris Johnson visits Kyiv during Russia–Ukraine negotiations. Britain argues against trusting Putin and promises continued military support.
2022 | Nord Stream.
The pipelines connecting Russia and Germany are blown up. German prosecutors now accuse Ukrainian military personnel of carrying out the sabotage on Ukrainian state orders. The question remains: with or without US and UK approval?
Time and again, Russia put forward proposals for a common European framework. Time and again, the door was slammed in its face.
Instead, Europe persisted in turning Russia into an enemy, presenting this as serving European interests.
The result may well be the unravelling of Europe herself.
WHY IT HAPPENED — The Geopolitical Logic
There is another way of looking at this history. Not through the speeches of European politicians, but through the strategic thinking of those who have spent more than a century studying how to control the Eurasian continent.
The issue is not whether Russia is Europe’s natural enemy. It is what a Europe aligned with Russia would mean for American hegemony.
1904 | Mackinder.
Control of the Eurasian Heartland provides the foundation for continental power capable of challenging maritime supremacy.
1942 | Spykman.
Control of the Eurasian Rimland prevents any single power from dominating the continent.
1997 | Brzezinski.
Eurasia is the grand chessboard. Preventing the emergence of a rival coalition remains central to American global primacy.
Three strategists. Almost a century apart. The geography remained remarkably consistent. And somewhere in the middle of that geography sit Germany (the industrial heart of the West) and Russia.
One has industry, technology and capital. The other has energy, natural resources and geographical depth.Put them together and you have the potential for a formidable economic and strategic partnership. Not an empire. Not necessarily a political union. Simply two complementary powers doing business on a continental scale. A relationship capable of reducing Europe’s dependence on American energy, military protection and geopolitical leadership.
An uncomfortable prospect for a hegemon. Because American global primacy rests, in part, on preventing the emergence of a rival continental power across Eurasia.
NATO provides the institutional framework through which Washington maintains its central role in European security. The EU establishment, meanwhile, is populated by an Atlanticist political and bureaucratic elite whose institutions and strategic priorities are deeply embedded in the American-led order. A system in which the Americans provide the security umbrella and the Europeans operate beneath it is called partnership.
Confrontation with Russia reinforces that arrangement. It gives NATO a permanent purpose, accelerates military spending and keeps European governments dependent on American security guarantees. Within this geopolitical logic, Russia as a permanent adversary serves a very useful function. Europe remains divided. NATO remains indispensable. Washington remains at the centre.No elaborate conspiracy is required to explain the mechanism. A hegemon protects its position. Institutions defend their relevance. Political careers are built inside the structures that already exist. And the machinery keeps running.
Keep Russia out. Germany down. America in.
Europe, meanwhile, has the industry, technology, capital, resources and vast continental market needed to become an independent centre of power. What it lacks is strategic independence.
A lasting relationship between Germany and Russia could have altered the balance of power across Eurasia. Europe might have become a centre of gravity in its own right, rather than a continent whose security is organised around Washington. Instead, it has grown increasingly dependent on the very power that guarantees its security.
The continent that once imagined a Common European Home now finds itself divided, militarised and economically weakened by confrontation. And those who speak most loudly in the name of Europe, the globalist cult, continue to present this dependence as European unity.
A remarkable achievement.
We have spent decades building institutions to secure Europe’s future, only to arrive at a point where that future is increasingly determined by the strategic interests of others. The question is no longer who protects Europe from Russia. It is who gets paid for Europe never making peace with its neighbour.
Europe holds the American umbrella. America makes the rain.