EU think tank, like the US during the Cold War, wants to “unpower Russia”. But it would be a grave mistake to assume Russia has learned nothing
On August 6, the independent media platform Apolut published his article titled A Dangerous Slumber and a Wake-Up Call. In his article, Gräser comments on a document released by the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), which advocates for Europe’s confrontation with Russia, and warns Western politicians against hasty decisions aimed at military escalation with Russia.
Tilo Gräser is a well-known German journalist. He has worked as a correspondent for RIA Novosti Germany, Sputnik News, and other media outlets, as well as a press secretary. His main focus areas are politics, sociology, and history.
Rossa Primavera News Agency presents the translation of Tilo Gräser’s article in full.
The US State Department “has reached the conclusion that all we can do is to ‘contain’ Russia until Russia changes, ceases to be our rival, and becomes our partner.” This sounds as if it were written after the current US President Donald Trump expressed his clear dissatisfaction with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, who apparently has no intention of ending the war in Ukraine. It could be a statement that fits with Trump’s ultimatum to Putin, which suggests a reversal of his previously expressed rather sympathetic attitude toward Russia.
But this statement originates from 1947, when Walter Lippmann wrote it in his essay The Cold War – A Study in U.S. Foreign Policy. He is considered the most widely read and influential political writer of the 20th century in the United States, as well as one of the most influential propagandists of neoliberalism and guided democracy. He coined the term “Cold War” and introduced it into common usage.
In his 1947 essay, Lippmann criticized the “containment policy” against the Soviet Union, initiated and successfully pursued by political advisor and diplomat George F. Kennan. The ambition of the leading forces in US politics at the time to first contain and weaken the Soviet Union, which was equated with Russia, and then bring it back into the fold of capitalism, i.e., subordinate it to their own profit interests, was not so openly declared. Instead, it was justified by the alleged Russian or communist threat from the East, against which the US and the US-led West had to defend themselves as a “bastion of freedom.”
Today, we hear the same rhetoric about “defending freedom”, which is loud, shrill, and just as deceitful. The fundamental interests behind it remain hidden, especially from the own populations, much like they were nearly 80 years ago when the Cold War began under US President Harry Truman. Some historians argue that this policy started even earlier, dating back to 1917, when the revolution in Russia proclaimed the end of capitalism.
Now, it is claimed that Russia has once again become an enemy threatening the freedom of the West, preparing to breach its borders westward. This is asserted despite all facts and realities, contrary to reason and diplomacy. The latter only hinders the new Western, including German, military ambitions in the East, and most of those currently ruling in EU member states dismiss diplomacy as useless.
But what Lippmann wrote in 1947 still holds true today:
“The history of diplomacy is the history of relations between rival powers, which did not enjoy political intimacy, and did not respond to appeals to common purposes. Nevertheless, there have been settlements… For a diplomat to think that rival and unfriendly powers cannot be brought to a settlement is to forget what diplomacy is about.”
It may also be possible that this task of diplomacy is no longer taught to those who have taken charge of foreign policy in Germany and the EU, and they are now, contrary to all historical experience, steering it on a war footing toward Russia. The corresponding break was finally accomplished in this country with Annalena Baerbock (The Greens) as foreign minister, who dreamed of “ruining” Russia. This is now being continued by Johann Wadephul of the CDU.
Continuing Down the Path of Confrontation
At first, it seemed like a predictably subservient alignment with US policy, which for decades has disregarded both its own national and European interests. However, since Trump’s second inauguration, this stance appears to have taken on a life of its own, even though, that before his return to the White House, Trump had shown ambitions to restore relations with Russia. Since then, leading EU states like Germany and France, along with the UK, have been striving at all costs and by any means to maintain the course of confrontation with Russia.
In doing so, EU countries seem to have successfully thwarted Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine. They achieved this by keeping Kiev’s leadership in a “war mentality”, as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson did in April 2022, when an early end to the war still seemed possible, urging it to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” This is accomplished through promises of support, continuous arms deliveries, multi-billion-dollar payments, and more.
As a result, Kiev obstructs any potential negotiated resolution to the ongoing war regardless of what Russia proposes, ensuring the war continues. The reason for Trump’s failure as a “peace president” in Ukraine lies here, not with “the evil Putin.” And the neocons in the US deep state have played a major role in this with the help of their vassals in Europe, whether Emmanuel Macron in Paris, Keir Starmer in London, or Friedrich Merz in Berlin.
So it is unsurprising, albeit seeming somewhat megalomaniacal, that the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) in Paris actually calls for the EU to actively “unpower” Russia in a strategy paper published in May this year. It is entitled “Unpowering Russia: How the EU can counter and undermine the Kremlin.” And even less surprising is how this is justified: Russia’s “Russia’s capacity to erode European unity and challenge its core interests” must be destroyed and “Russia’s capacity to cause harm” must be stopped.
The online foreign policy magazine German Foreign Policy (GFP) recently drew attention to the paper, which calls for a “long and drawn-out confrontation” with Russia. Although it dates back to May, it appears to have received little attention from the German media so far. The online magazine summarizes the content of the 88-page brochure, which expresses the desire for “Europe” to be in a position to “’contain’ Russia until Russia changes, ceases to be our rival, and becomes our partner.”
Pressuring Russia
Accordingly, in addition to analyzing Russia’s “hybrid warfare,” the EUISS paper focuses primarily on Russia’s position in five strategically important regions of the world: China, the Asia-Pacific region, the southern Mediterranean, Southeast Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa. The document’s ten authors, four of whom, judging by their surnames, have Eastern European roots, call for Russia to be pushed back in these areas. Among other things, they dream of putting pressure on China, Russia’s most important strategic cooperation partner, because it responds to such pressure, which the EU could exploit.
Regarding the Asia-Pacific, the authors recommend targeting and undermining Russia’s anti-sanctions oil export strategy through India and Malaysia. In addition, the EU should attempt to meet the region’s energy needs through renewable energy sources, for which the necessary expertise is available. For the southern Mediterranean region, the paper notes that Russia has been weakened by the regime change in Syria and that its presence in the region is at risk. According to the paper, the EU should also take advantage of this and ensure that Russian forces are expelled from Syria and Libya.
Another region where Russia must be unpowered is Southeast Europe, where, according to the EUISS paper, it wants to prevent further NATO expansion. This completely contradicts Western interests, which have never seriously taken Russian security needs into account. At the same time, any regional politician who does not aspire to EU membership is to be punished. Those who do aspire to join should be rewarded, while the stubborn politicians, who also spread pro-Russian “narratives,” should be subject to sanctions.
The EU’s strategic thinkers also pay attention to Africa, as they believe they have discovered that Russia is presenting itself there as an “anti-colonial power” and a “genuine friend,” in contrast to the neo-colonial West. The EU does not want to let this stand, which is why its “think tank” proposes to counter Russia’s influence primarily with counter-propaganda. According to the GFP, this should include exposing “Russia’s unfulfilled promises,” “Wagner’s human rights abuses,” and the alleged “mistreatment of migrants” by Russian mercenaries.
“This could be achieved by supporting “independent journalism” through “fact-checking and positive storytelling.” In doing so, one could build on the fact that in sub-Saharan Africa, skeptical attitudes are “no longer reserved for former colonial rulers,” but are also directed against countries such as China and Russia; the EU could exploit this with targeted communication strategies.”
A Guide for War Against Russia
With such “bold shift in the EU’s strategic posture,” the EUISS authors actually believe that Russia can be actively “unpowered.” Only in this way can “Europe” overcome a “long and drawn-out confrontation” by exploiting Russia’s weaknesses. The EU’s “thinkers” believe that the conclusion is clear:
“Europe is not powerless, but it has not yet converted its multiple strengths into decisive action. To unpower Russia, the EU must think and act in terms of power – and have the courage to use it.”
If the paper from an institution that claims to be “intellectually independent” were merely an expression of opinion, it could perhaps be ignored. But the EUISS is under the auspices of Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, who is hostile to Russia and would like not only to weaken Russia but also to dismember it, as she stated in May 2024. “If there were more small states, it wouldn’t be so bad, so if the big power became much smaller,” said the then Estonian head of government in a discussion round in Tallinn.
Forces such as Kallas apparently dream of being able to bring down Russia, which is still large, just as they once did with the even larger Soviet Union. The EUISS paper is reminiscent, in a toned-down form, of the 2019 strategy document by the US think tank Rand Corporation, which set out the goal of “Extending Russia – competing from advantageous ground.” Thomas Röper analyzed it on his online portal Anti-Spiegel and noted in 2021 that much of what was proposed in it had also been implemented. He wrote:
“It is a guide for a war by the US against Russia in every conceivable field, except for an actual ‘hot’ war.”
The latter is only prevented by the fact that Russia is a nuclear power that even the US fears. However, this does not prevent them from waging war against Russia by all means below the nuclear threshold, including a bloody proxy war to the last Ukrainian.
Back to the EU’s strategic “thinkers”: Although it has long since proven itself to be a “geopolitical dwarf,” as the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, among others, concluded in 2022, which was confirmed by the customs “deal” with Trump, its leaders believe they can flex their muscles. This is certainly correctly assessed in Moscow, but it contributes nothing to peace and reconciliation, nor to the end of the war in Ukraine. Instead, it is causing increasing discontent on the Russian side, as evidenced by the 2024 brochure “From Deterrence to Intimidation” by political scientists and military strategists Dmitry Trenin, Sergey Karaganov, and Sergey Avakyantz.
A Clear Wake-Up Call from Moscow
It has recently been published in German under the title “Von der passiven zur aktiven Abschreckung” (From Passive to Active Deterrence) by Potsdam-based publisher Welttrends-Verlag. The authors, who are considered influential advisors to the Russian government, are simply fed up with Western confrontation and call for it to be stopped with clear deterrence, including nuclear deterrence. At the same time, they hope that this will bring the West back to its senses. They also note:
“The transition from a failed partnership to a new confrontation and then to an open confrontation does not allow for a return to the original format of the ‘Cold War’.”
With regard to the European elites, the authors note that they are “even more marked than the US elites by ‘strategic parasitism’ – an acclimatization to peace and a lack of fear of war.” They have lost the ability to think strategically, and because they “find themselves in a complex crisis and are losing their legitimacy,” they have completely “gone beyond all limits.” Trenin, Karaganov, and Avakyantz also note:
“The ruling circles of Europe are already busy with political, moral, and military-economic preparations for a major war with Russia.”
They warn of the consequences and suggest that the Russian leadership deter “an aggressor plotting an invasion” by making it clear that “such an invasion would have unacceptable or even catastrophic consequences for the aggressor,” including “crossing the nuclear threshold by launching nuclear strikes on targets on the territory of NATO countries” as a “last resort.” Instead of nuclear deterrence or restraint, they argue for “nuclear intimidation” and, in the media, “sobering up” the likely adversary. They call for the fear of nuclear war to be rekindled: the “nuclear taboo” that emerged after the Cold War has caused the fear of nuclear escalation to fade. It must be revived in order to prevent armed conflicts between nuclear powers.
The clear words of the three Russian security and military experts are sobering. They make it clear what is at stake if the West, and now especially Western European politicians, continue on their confrontational and belligerent course toward Russia. They even alarm the German publishers to such an extent that they describe “Russia’s hardening security policy, as expressed in this document” as “a misguided development that we emphatically reject.” Unfortunately, the publishers’ preliminary remarks do not mention the cause to which the Russian authors are responding.
The brochure on Russia’s new security and geopolitics is recommended not only to all interested parties and peace activists, but also to all those who continue to dream the old Cold War dreams of the US of containing Russia, weakening it, and then making it a “partner.” With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the following decade, they seemed to achieve their goal for a short time. But they are probably mistaken if they believe that Russia has learned nothing from this. If Western, and especially Western European, politics does not finally get back to dealing with reality, it runs the risk of its “dreams” turning into nightmares – which would endanger the lives of millions of people on the European continent, not only in Germany. There is only one remedy for this: wake up!
This is a translation of the article by Tilo Gräser published for the first time on apolut web-site. The translation in Russian can be found at the Rossa Primavera News Agency website
