... postwar order sought to integrate Germany within the collective, facilitate its internal transformation, intertwine its interests with those of its neighbors, and subject it to close oversight, thereby preventing any deviation from the prescribed path. NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay,
summarized
the alliance’s mission as “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” This policy of Europe has achieved positive results, with no wars or military conflicts occurring ...
... more likely that Gorbachev truly believed in a new world order based on trust between former adversaries. And here we return to the second type of complaint, regarding how the European security system, emerging from German unification, was handled.
NATO as the Main Condition
For Germany’s Western allies, its status in NATO acquired fundamental importance. The U.S. was naturally concerned with maintaining its strategic presence in Europe, since German unification formally ended the entire postwar ...
... directly confronts Western countries, remains alarming
The situation in the Baltic region, where Russia directly confronts Western countries, remains alarming, although current events there do not arouse the same interest as did Swedish and Finnish NATO accession.
In recent years and still to this day, the most conflictual possible scenarios have typically played out in the region. But the situation there does not entirely resemble that of the Balkans in the 1990s.
Firstly,
in the Balkans, Russia ...
... racism, and many other detestable “isms,” including recently the liberal totalitarianism that is based on transhumanism, LGBTism, denial of history, and essentially anti-humanism.
First, about the prospects for our relations with Europe (the EU and NATO), then about what is to be done.
Our relations with Europe are the worst they have been in history. The level of Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiment is unprecedented not only among European elites but also among a growing share of the masses, ...
... rebranding of the Liberal International Order (LIO) that originated and developed in two periods of US preponderance: the post-World War II era and the post-Cold War era. Grounded in international institutions including the UN, the IMF, and chiefly NATO, it claimed to promote prosperity, global peace and economic cooperation; however, it has perpetually reflected US strategic and economic interests. However, the period of US unipolarity is now but history as it cannot unilaterally establish international ...
... situation in the Baltic Sea region, where Russia directly confronts Western countries, remains alarming, although the events taking place there now do not outwardly cause such heightened interest as, for example, the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO, writes Professor Konstantin Khudoley, Head of the Department of European Studies at the Faculty of International Relations at St. Petersburg State University.
In recent years, when several development options arose in the international relations ...
... borders, and cooperation for mutual benefit. In many ways, it offered a vision of ideal interstate relations. Who could object to such goals?
Yet these principles were not born in a vacuum. They were underpinned by a stable balance of power between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War, for all its dangers, provided a kind of structure. It was a continuation of the Second World War by other means – and its rules, however harsh, were understood and largely respected.
That system no longer exists....
The possibility of a return to extreme-era dynamics cannot be dismissed
The Ukraine conflict may well pave the way for a larger scale Russia-NATO confrontation. While hard to fathom and with everything suggesting that the scenario remains quite unlikely, it relies on nuclear deterrence as its main pillar. But just how effective can it be in averting a conflict?
US President Donald Trump’s ...
... exception.
Which is why it’s safe to assume that the German government is fully aware the so-called Kensington Treaty – signed with the UK on July 17, 2025 – is not a serious agreement. There are several reasons for this. First, both countries are NATO members, and only the United States enjoys the freedom to bend bloc rules. Second, neither Britain nor Germany possesses the military resources or political will to rebuild a meaningful defense posture. And third, there’s no one for them to fight ...
... China, it was 2017. For Iran, 2023. Since then, war – in its modern, diffuse form – has intensified. This is not a new Cold War. Since 2022, the West’s campaign against Russia has grown more decisive. The risk of direct nuclear confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine conflict is rising. Donald Trump’s return to the White House created a temporary window in which such a clash could be avoided, but by mid-2025, hawks in the US and Western Europe had pushed us dangerously close again.
This war ...
