Will war break out between Europe and Russia within a thousand days? | policy

In his article “War with Russia in a Thousand Days?”, writer Mathieu Bouc-Coté discusses warnings issued by European intelligence services that predict the possibility of an open conflict between Europe and Russia within 3 years.

The writer believes, in an article in Le Figaro newspaper, that this scenario cannot be completely ruled out, citing the precedent of 2022 when no one believed that Russia would invade Ukraine, yet the invasion actually happened.

Bouc-Kote asserts that Russia remains an aggressive imperial power that does not tolerate the independence of its neighbors, and that the accession of Eastern European countries to NATO was essentially an attempt to protect itself from Russian influence, stressing that they are right in that.

In this regard, he warns that this conflict, which is still confined to a specific region, may extend tomorrow to the Baltic countries, which means that it will spread into “a clash without a buffer zone between the Russian Empire and the Western Empire,” as he puts it.

But at the same time, Bouc-Kote criticizes the European elites who exploit the Russian threat to strengthen their federal project within the European Union, believing that fear of Putin (referring to the Russian president) can unite Europe politically.

The writer believes that the rhetoric of the coming war within “a thousand days” serves above all internal political interests, as it is used by what he calls the “nomenklatura” (the ruling class in the European political milieu) to re-legitimize its authority and restore the language of identity and borders, but only when it comes to Ukraine’s borders.

The writer criticizes what he sees as a contradiction reflected in these elites’ tolerance of uncontrolled immigration within Europe, and the social unrest it causes, and their intense enthusiasm for defending Ukraine’s distant sovereignty.

Bouc-Côté also questions whether the threats facing European democracy are as much internal as they are external, warning that exaggerating the Russian threat could be used to justify the suppression of internal dissent and the branding of political opponents as agents of Moscow. He points out the risk that the results of future elections in some European countries will be canceled or questioned under the pretext of “Russian interference” if they contradict the aspirations of the ruling elites.

The writer concludes by emphasizing the need to look seriously at the real Russian threat, but at the same time beware of exploiting this threat by those who seek to remain in power “at all costs.” The balance between awareness of the external danger and rejection of political manipulation of it is the rational position that the European “extremist center” lacks today.