Russia has never been invaded by anyone, so let's try it a third time

More precisely, the media (with one exception) preferred to ignore it. They had good reason to do so. They do it almost every time Kallas moves her lips. Out of respect for her.

We have become accustomed to European elites being able to utter and promote any kind of stupidity, and today we no longer see it as anything other than folklore, without which you cannot actually become a creature of the "European elite" family.

Indeed, if you say anything sane, such as that we have two sexes, that the climate agenda is nonsense based on hoaxes, or that mass illegal migration is not a good idea, you are likely to become a 'dangerous fascist extremist'. And you don't want that as a creature predisposed to and desirous of salons.

Mental feeble-mindedness among Western elites, then, fails to surprise us today, and rarely can anyone be lifted up by a statement in the category of Kallas's current pronouncement anymore.

But to be boiled like a frog in cream like this, and to regard imbecility as a normal state of affairs that does not really need to be commented on anymore, is not always a good idea. After all, if the head of European diplomacy is ignorant of the historical event called the Second World War, it overcomes even the worst fears about the mental state of the people who are running the show around here.

The moves to break Russia

Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941, is still considered one of the greatest military campaigns in human history. It was led by the allied armies of at least five European countries (Slovakia also contributed). And it was not just about the "last hundred years", which was Kallas' framework.

In fact, Napoleon also committed his Barbarossa on Russia in 1812. Bonaparte "united Europe", which with an army of 600,000 marched on Moscow. This army, too, was the largest the world had ever seen. In both cases, this giant military force had one goal - to wipe Russia as a political entity off the face of the earth.

Thus, the two greatest imperialist wars in modern history were perpetrated by an alliance of European countries in an attempt to break Russia. The main invasion thrust went through Ukraine and Belarus.

Russia is not protected from attack by Europe by any natural barrier (rivers, mountain ranges). There are bare steppes. Military lore says that if you are not protected by a natural obstacle, you need a huge buffer territory as a defensive perimeter instead. That's what Ukraine has always been for the Russians.

That's why NATO's effort to occupy Ukraine and use it to weaken Moscow was a hostile move for the Russians, and was later seen as a declaration of war (2014, when the Ukrainian army, built up with the help of Western allies, invaded the Donbas).

Those two previous attempts by Europe to wipe Russia off the map with a giant invasion are no forgotten history in Moscow today.

Although our propaganda has been claiming for three years that Russia is crumbling from within and that discontent with Putin is growing, the reality is that all of Russia today is behind Putin. His power is consolidated. Hundreds of thousands of young Russian volunteers are today fighting what they see as an existential war.

This is how they really think in Russia. And since they are winning that war, we should wonder why that is so.

Conflict to be resolved by force

One of the reasons for the Western decision that the conflict in Ukraine must be resolved only by force was the assumption that the Russians themselves would break Putin's grip. They have achieved the exact opposite.

The European cries of the impossibility of peace negotiations, the banning of agreements and the necessity of a 'strategic defeat of Russia on the battlefield' have brought a bonus for Europe that was to be expected. They have consolidated Putin's power and the whole of Russia in the belief that they are fighting an existential struggle against a fatal enemy who wants to destroy them.

That is why they will bleed rather than back down from their demands - a neutral Ukraine and a defensible perimeter for Russia (Donbas) and Crimea (Zaporozhye).

There is, in fact, one other aspect that may legitimately worry the Russians. The European Union is seen as a third attempt to unite Europe. Napoleon and Hitler tried it before.

Fortunately, it did not turn out well - although with Bonaparte things looked promising for a while, especially with the Civil Code and the export of the human rights aspect of the French Revolution. Eventually, however, Bonaparte became a dictator, and that is why history judges him controversial.

Europe as a peace project was thwarted

Behold how the carriers of progress come to an end. George Orwell wrote about it, and today the story is being written again by Europe's elites. It may be difficult to dust off those ancient memories today, but let us remember that the European Union was once a peace project and once held out the hope of a progressive and civilised European unification.

Today, it is nothing but death and dictatorship on the inside and a run for war with a nuclear power on the outside.

But how did these two previous attempts to "unite Europe" fail?

They cut their teeth on Russia. Until Napoleon and Hitler got the bright idea to attack Russia, their power in Europe was consolidated and unthreatened.

The brutal military campaign into the Russian steppes was a key turning point for both of them, which ultimately ended their promising political careers (their ambition to conquer the world).

The third attempt to strategically defeat Russia

So today we have a third attempt by a united Europe, which is delirious about the inevitability of Russia's strategic defeat on the battlefield and is building multi-billion-dollar weapons programmes. This is happening even after Donald Trump is trying to pull America out of this impasse, realising that this was a strategic mistake by the Biden establishment and his entire era. And an encapsulated European elite resistant to reality has now taken up the baton.

Let's take history into account and think about how the words "strategic defeat" or "division of Russia" affect Russians.

History is the magister vitae, and the greatest lesson of history is that progressive elites never learn from history. If the opportunity arises to repeat some colossal mistake of the past, there is a pretty good chance that they will not be swayed.

At the moment, European establishment propaganda is deliberately cultivating in society a fanatical hatred of Russia, combined with the certainty that it is a fascist country that will attack Europe sooner or later, and that we must therefore prepare for war (in short, that we should learn from history and not repeat Munich 1938).

The British secret services say that Europe will be ready for war with Russia in 2030. Until then, Russia must be 'contained'. That task has been left to the devastated Ukraine, at least until that 'last Ukrainian' is on his feet and holding a machine gun in solidarity, donated by the West.

So the West is counting on the conflict with Russia escalating into a direct clash within five years. That has to come, because we don't want a repeat of Munich, do we?

But there is a catch. The Russians will fight, the Europeans will not. Russia is a nuclear power. It is easy to see how this could turn out.

History is said to repeat itself. And Karl Marx said the other day that history even repeats itself twice. The first time as a drama and the second time as a farce.

But how will the European campaign against Russia turn out for the third time?

So far it looks like a dramatic, tragic farce.