The nuclear threat in Europa

The nuclear threat in Europe
Peter Kopa, Prague, October 21, 2025

Preliminary comments: reasons for hope

The world is a wheat field where the weeds of evil always threaten to suffocate it. This evil has a name, as have so many disasters in history, from Nero to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who, based on lies or ideologies, have given evil various concrete forms. Today it is the turn of secret societies and economic elites who have set up a platform for action called the Davos Agenda 2030.

This is not the first time that the Christian West has found itself on the brink of disaster. Suffice it to recall the attempt to destroy the Church in the Roman Empire, the harassment by Attila, by the Turks—at Lepanto and before Vienna, by Communism and Nazism. There is no other explanation for this than divine protection, which will save us now as well. The great return to faith in the leading countries is a foretaste of the great final victory. The next article will provide information to help understand that it is the United States that, since the fall of the communist Soviet Union, has been provoking Russia with its political and military expansionism, in violation of the treaties signed with the Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxMHa4kiC9c&ab_channel=VideoParliamentIreland.

Below, I summarize and comment on an article by Eric Guyer, a renowned European authority on international politics, which recently appeared in Zurich in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung.

Genesis of the nuclear risk in Europe

The current security situation in Europe is so fragile that the ultimate consequences cannot be ruled out. For the first time, the conflict in Ukraine is spreading to NATO territory, showing that the comfortable division between a combat zone and the rest of Europe at peace is a deception.

The EU is reacting to Russian provocations with drones and warships in its typical style: it is discussing the problem because, as a globalist agency, it ultimately seeks the destruction of Russia, as a bastion of a Christian worldview. Incidentally, I read yesterday that these drones were launched by the British, perhaps to gauge reactions to this false alarm. The governments of Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic oppose the war. In contrast, the governments of the UK, Germany, Denmark, and France are instigating attacks on the Russians, without having the necessary weapons.

And the people of all these countries are loudly opposing the war and aid to Ukraine, with millions and millions taking to the streets, which the mainstream media is silent about.

We are witnessing a failure of democracy, because some leaders have made election promises that they then forgot in order to support actions that betray their citizens. Putin has two objectives. He wants to degrade Ukraine to a vassal state and destroy NATO because for many years it has failed to fulfill its commitment not to extend its influence beyond the borders of the Warsaw Pact.

Putin knows he cannot win a long conventional war against a united NATO, so he is trying to divide it politically. In addition to the United States, as its founder and by far its most important member, it is expected that in the end it will not abandon its European allies.

Positioning of Europeans and Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uggNx0YzFGA

Germany is, in absolute terms, Kiev’s biggest supporter in the EU. But in terms of gross domestic product, no other country spends as much money on helping Ukraine as Denmark and Poland, which have long been systematically warning about the Russian threat, and no one is arming itself as much as the latter country. At the same time, it is the most important logistics hub for Western supplies.

So Russia’s signal is unambiguous: the more you help Ukraine, the more you endanger yourselves. In eastern Germany, where the anti-war AfD party dominates, this message plays to its strengths.

Trump oscillates between statements of support for NATO and unexpected, scathing comments. Although Europeans are outraged by the president’s inconsistency, their own stance is equally ambivalent. And Putin wants to take advantage of this ambiguity within the alliance. The conditions have never been better for this.

Would Germany go to war if Moscow occupied a small strip of territory in the Baltic and threatened to use nuclear weapons? If the alternative is to give in or nuclear war, it is not only the Germans who would have many reasons to be sensible.

Favorable situation for Russia

Unlike Europe, the Kremlin can rely on its army to act decisively and accept the greatest sacrifices. Therefore, Russia has control and initiative—the so-called dominance of escalation—and can decide how far to go and when, as is now the case in Ukraine.

Putin sees his lifelong dream of destroying NATO and thus expelling the United States from Europe within reach, so he would not limit himself to an adventure in the Baltic. Here it must be borne in mind that Germany, although the leading power in Europe, is at the same time very vulnerable. Its air defense is practically non-existent. It has no medium-range missiles for a counterattack, let alone nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

In the event of a missile attack on Hamburg, Berlin would have nothing to oppose Russian nuclear power. If Moscow demanded the neutralization of the Federal Republic, it would have to give in.

All this sounds very unrealistic. However, if someone had predicted five years ago that a drone at Munich airport would cause such a stir in the EU, they would have been dismissed as crazy. The same fate would have befallen anyone who had claimed that, after the annexation of Crimea, Putin would invade the whole of Ukraine.

Switzerland, for example, has completely lost sight of the maximum risk it faces. It believes itself to be protected by its neutrality and trusts that there will be no war anyway. Contrary to the trend in Europe, Switzerland is hardly arming itself. The Swiss love of the “Sonderweg” (respectable special case) is as obsessive as it is risky.

Is there reason for alarmism?

The nuclear powers France and Great Britain are better protected against nuclear blackmail, but they are not invulnerable. If the Russian North Sea fleet were to carry out a conventional attack on the nuclear submarine bases in Faslane, Scotland, the British government would face the same dilemma as Germany: surrender or risk nuclear war.

Britain has cut back its armed forces, as has continental Europe, for years. Without anti-aircraft systems, aircraft, or frigates, and therefore lacking the means for a proportionate high-tech response, nuclear weapons would be the only alternative. No one should rule out the possibility that a cornered British prime minister might give the order to strike back.

If we analyze the potential for escalation step by step, nuclear war is no longer as impossible as we think. This is not alarmism, but a sober calculation and reflection on the real situation.

Europe has learned nothing from its past. It finds itself at the same crossroads as in the 1950s. At that time, the protective power, the United States, had drastically reduced its armaments, while Europeans were focused on postwar reconstruction. Even then, the West would not have been able to defend itself against a Soviet attack with conventional weapons.

This doctrine, known as “massive retaliation,” lacked credibility, since the NATO alliance, as today, would not have immediately opened the gates of nuclear hell. It was not until 1967 that the alliance moved to a “flexible response” to respond gradually to the threat. Nuclear weapons became only a last resort. The basis for this was conventional rearmament, thanks in large part to the creation of the German army in 1955.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western Europe mistakenly and deliberately dismantled its armed forces. But Russia has regained strength and the fear of massive retaliation is back. It used to be said, “Better red than dead.” Against false alternatives and fatalism, the only thing that helps is prudence.

Putin is pursuing political goals, so it is enough for him to make Russia appear militarily superior. That already gives him sufficient potential to pose a threat. The war in Ukraine will end at some point, but the Russian threat will not disappear. Thinking now about the unthinkable and arming ourselves conventionally is the best guarantee against any blackmail and any escalation to nuclear Armageddon, which would be the end for everyone.