Main Edition
US
FR
March 31, 2024 - 8:00am
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has stated that Europe is now in a “pre-war” state. “I know it sounds devastating,” the Prime Minister said, “especially for the younger generation, but we have to get used to the fact that a new era has begun.” This comes only three weeks after French President Emmanuel Macron floated the idea of deploying French troops to Ukraine.
There is no need to sugarcoat what these European leaders are saying: young people in Europe need to get ready to mobilise. Nor is there any need to sugarcoat how they come across: they are completely out of touch with reality.
This is shown clearly in the polling: only 17% of people would voluntarily fight, and another 14% would only fight if they had to. The rest would push against conscription. Clearly, Europe’s youth are not willing to put on their boots and march East to die under artillery fire in a trench.
We have all heard the historical folklore of how old men sent young men to die in the trenches of the First World War. Now we see the same impulse among some leaders in Europe. But they differ from their ageing predecessors in that they cannot actually send their sons to sacrifice themselves. It is all talk and they look deeply unserious.
Why are these leaders behaving so irresponsibly and hysterically? Simply put, they signed onto the war in Ukraine thinking it would be an easy win. They were told that the Russian army was weak and could easily be beaten if they poured arms and money into the country. They duly did so and the Russian army survived.
Now there are rumours of a massive Russian offensive this spring. Ukrainian President Zelensky has stated that without additional support they may not be able to hold off the attack. This introduces the prospect that the frontlines might collapse and allow the Russians to advance as far as they would like in the country.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMisleading argument to argue that the West thought that the Russian army is/ was weak. In any case, the West was so scared. Thought Russia would sack Ukraine in days…
Indeed. Is there a single reputable article the author could produce to support that contention? No writer with any self-respect would continue after such a misjudgement (and that’s being kind).
As to the main point: of course very few would “want to fight”. If their cossetted way of life was under direct and immediate threat, as in Ukraine, that’d be a rather different matter. Do i believe that’s likely to happen? No. But making at least a preliminary preparation is the least political leaders should consider – if only to send the right message to any potential aggressor.
Again, does the writer even consider this? No. It’s a pretty rubbish article, all things considered.
Mr Pilkington would be better off facing up to the reality – and suggesting what he wants us to do. So far he is suggesting to let Russia take what it wants and gloat at the plight of Europe’s politicians. But when he says “They made their bed, let them sleep in it.” he is forgetting that the rest of Europe’s population has to sleep in the same bed. Is Mr Pilkington living in the US and looking forward gleefully to see Europe submitting to Russia? If so, understandable but profoundly uninteresting. If he actually has anything to say to Europeans, he should start with the question of what it would take to appease a hungry Putin, and how that scenario compares with trying to resist him.
This is shown clearly in the polling: only 17% of people would voluntarily fight, and another 14% would only fight if they had to. The rest would push against conscription. Clearly, Europe’s youth are not willing to put on their boots and march East to die under artillery fire in a trench.
Extremely superficial judgment from an author who claims to be an expert. If similar statistics were carried out by country, we would see a slightly different picture
The European youth will not align with the grim fantasies of Mr Tusk. Nor will Russia invade Europe.
Thank you! Now I know more about what Europe is. Moldova, Georgia, Baltic States. They are definitely not Europe.
This would mean Europe would have to provide for its own security, which would cost money that the continent currently does not have.
This is the best! No comment
Twice in the last century two World Wars were generated out of the ethnic stew that is Eastern Europe. Serbs living in Austria-Hungary resulted in Germans living in Poland and Czechoslovakia and the result was global conflict. An Austrian Archduke takes a bullet in Sarajevo and six months later young Canadians (my home) from Medicine Hat and Swift Current here on the prairies are dying face down in the mud trenches of Northern France. Now there is the possibility that it could happen again because of Russians living in the Donbas and Crimea. Sorry, never again. Figure out your own ethnic issues and keep your Domino Theory from the Sixties in South East Asia to yourselves.
We’re out.
Your first mistake is that you believe that the source of the problems is the ethnic mixture in Eastern Europe.
The second mistake is that giving Eastern Europe to Putin will give you peace of mind.
Both errors demonstrate a remarkably poor knowledge of European history in the 19th and 20th centuries. Now I understand why conservatives are so angry about the state of modern education
You point out the mistakes but don’t set out what you consider to be the actual position.
If not ethnic mixture being the problem, what is? Why else did Czechia and Slovakia separate?
You assume Putin “wants” Eastern Europe but provide no evidence of that. So far Russia has been re-active to an expanding US Empire…NATO, not pro-active in increasing Russian “dominions”.
In my view Emmanuel Todd’s latest analysis is right.
Michael, you are under-informed, but I have no time to reeducate you. In brief…
Russia was unable to accept Ukraine independence since 1991. Don’t ask me to provide you links, as I said, I have no time.
.
Before 2022 aggression started, one of the Russian Foreign Ministry officials of a fairly high rank stated that NATO should move to its borders before 1991, but it was not NATO who asked Poland or Baltic countries to join, it was Baltic countries who asked NATO to include them. Weeks ago I saw in one of your media the map of Europe with countries and percent of GDP they spend for defense. Countries with percent above 2 were Britain, maybe France and all countries which have border with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus. These countries remember their history. You do not.
Now switch on your brain, please.
.
A characteristic feature of Putin’s policies is that he openly declares his intentions or actions at moments when he knows that his words will not be taken seriously. I remember how at the first FSB holiday during his presidency, he congratulated those present on the successful conduct of a special operation to elect him president. The audience laughed. Have you heard anything about the bombings of houses in Moscow?
.
PS. I’m from Mariupol. I lived in Moscow. I’m afraid I’ve already said this, but let me repeat that I’m confident I know more about the current conflict and its reasons than all the UnHerd readers combined. Therefore, I am frankly annoyed by people who repeat in different variations the cheap ideas of the aging dictator, who, in an interview with Carlson, literally repeats Hitler’s explanations about why Germany started war with Poland.
Regrettably I do actually thimk assertions should be backed by evidence and references.
There is a large body of evidence that NATO expanded eastwards having pledged not to. The only logical conclusion is that it was directed against Russia. Missiles were stationed in Poland “to protect against Iran”…for heavens sake it could scarcely be more transparently hostile…entirely reminiscent of “24 hours to save the UK”…or was it 48…from Iraq.
Similarly there is evidence that the overthrow of an elected Ukrainian President was a CIA coup. Again this was quite clearly directed against Russia.
The Minsk Agreements have been confirmed by both France and Germany as having been concluded in bad faith in order to arm Ukraine…and not comply with the Donbas having self government.
Part of the UK defence spending is Trident. Not only has it failed…twice…it cannot be used without US consent. It is an expensive “boondoggle” of no use except to those who sell it. The UK should have gone in with the French nuclear programme…which is truly independent.
As for Putin’s election, I have no doubt that there was major electoral rigging. I also have no doubt Putin would have won anyway; Russians have the highest standard of living they have ever had. They really don’t want to go back to a Yeltsin time.
The Western sanctions have utterly failed. The rest of the world simply doesn’t care about the USA’s attempt to dismantle Russia.
And I see no reason for the UK to get involved in yet another war which will impoverish it, and its people for no benefit whatsoever. Twice was once too many, and more likely twice.
Thanks…but no thanks.
Wrong answer…
Russia poses the same threat as the USSR, and even worse. You don’t know that Ukrainians, before the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s invasion of Donbass, were against joining NATO at a level of 70% or higher. Maidan and the expulsion of Yanukovych were a completely internal affair of Ukraine.
One more point – there is fascism in Russia now, do not have any illusions, there is no need to justify a country that itself has chosen this path. This choice has nothing to do with NATO. If not opposing fascism is the choice of America and Europe, I cannot influence it. After all, a well-fed and safe life is better than seeking adventure.
The last thing. I’m sick of the self-flagellation of the West, be it progressives or completely sane people like you. In this I see the outright narcissism of people who believe that everything in the world happens as a result of their actions, right or wrong, it doesn’t matter.
Believe me, not everything on the planet Earth happens according to the will of America or the EU.
.
PS. To search links, quotes, to translate from Russian or Ukrainian, to scan documents during 33 years period – all that takes time I don’t have. Besides, no one will pay me for this, and I’m not used to working for free.
I’ll respond to the second comment below a little later. I liked it much more.
Now that our respective comments have apparently received the consent, if not approval, of Big Brother, I have read your latest.
I think I should make my position clear. I am concerned with, and about, the peace and prosperity of the UK. The UK is not a world or even regional policeman. It cannot punish, or even influence world or regional “wrongdoers”. Britain historically tried that during the past 110 years; everytime it failed to help the wronged but the British people were impoverished…to no benefit whatsoever.
I do not believe Russia poses any threat whatsoever to the UK. No doubt Putin is not a benign person; I wish he was. But the fact that he is not doesn’t threaten the UK. Indeed the UK, and the West in general has excellent relations with many very unpleasant national “leaders” and the internal arrangements, f**cist or otherwise, of those nations are not the concern of the West, unless those leaders do not comply with the West’s requirements, when there is an almighty fuss about human rights. Until that point the West is more than happy. It is utter hypocrisy but that is the nature of national interests.
NATO expanded eastwards despite having pledged not to. Many wise people of experience advised against this…Kennan, Kissinger, Mearsheimer…they were entirely right.
However the West followed the Wolfowitz/Brzezinski playbook and did expand. The obvious target was Russia as set out in those doctrines.
Russia tolerated the expansion until it became inevitable that Ukraine would join NATO; the intent was to deprive Russia of access to the Black Sea and a warm water port. Russia could no more tolerate that than the USA could tolerate Soviet nukes on Cuba. Military action ensued in both cases.
The expulsion of Yanukovych was far from merely internal; it was a classic CIA coup. And yes who is in my neighbour’s house is not my business…until the neighbour invites in someone who is openly hostile to me and armed to the teeth. At that point it is very much my business…and I will do something about it.
I feel great sympathy for the Ukrainian people and wish their leaders had not been so foolish as to trust the West. They have been led down the primrose path to destruction.
Finally you say you are not used to working for free, which I fully agree with. However you seem to expect the British people to support and pay for Ukraine’s actions…for free. Also I very much doubt Ukraine’s leaders adopted their course of action…for free. The same doubt applies in respect of Mr. Johnson.
I was living in Kyiv during the Maidan protests, was there (ie walking around the area) virtually every day, saw the way it developed, knew many people active on Maidan including a lady who died (blunt trauma to head), I speak some Russian but am British. I won’t deal with any other points except the one about Maidan being ‘a classic CIA coup’. This is complete claptrap, modern (Western) people so often feel they need to spout off on things they don’t know a lot about, humility seeming an old-fashioned virtue. As El Uro points out, not everything emanates from and is controlled by powerful scheming forces, in fact a lot is unpredictable and chaotic. On Maidan there were not even any protest leaders (those who tried to become so, like Tymoshenko, were generally unpopular). It is likely or even certain that Russia got involved towards the end (eg extracting Yanukovich) but the West didn’t, apart from diplomats, US politicians like John Kerry, saying things.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
When the Moslem Brotherhood won the Egyptian elections the result was quickly reversed by a coup encouraged by the USA.
The same was tried in Turkey but Erdogan was rather too clever to fall for that one.
What has happened in Ukraine is precisely as per the Wolfowitz doctrine; it is unlikely to be a coincidence.
And John Kerry isn’t a professional diplomat; he’s an extremely wealthy politician, who presumably had some interest in encouraging the coup. I doubt it was the welfare of the Ukrainian people, or indeed the American people.
Incidentally the head of the CiA flew to Kiev one week after the coup. I doubt he was sightseeing.
The UK has no business whatsoever becoming embroiled in the Ukraine situation; it has no national interests at stake and can achieve no benefit, only detriment.
Concerning the addition to your post, it is unfortunate and understandable that you are annoyed by the views of others.
However the British people are being asked to support, and pay for, various actions in support of Ukraine and against Russia. They are perfectly entitled to express their views and debate the matter…no matter who it annoys or offends. The bill will be paid by them, when the money could be used more effectively for their benefit.
Regarding Czechoslovakia – the Czech Republic was part of the Austrian Empire, Slovakia part of the Hungarian Empire, within the Austro-Hungarian Double Monarchy.
Each of the formerly KuK republics that made up Yugoslavia before 1918 had different constitutional statuses.
The nineties started with the unravelling of Europe’s Post-WW-II structures. We’re now seeing the unravelling of the Post-WW-I structures.
Yes I understand the history of the Dual Monarchy…and yes you are absolutely right about the post WW1 settlement now unravelling,… including in Ireland.
How it all “pans out” seems opaque, to say the least. My best bet is that the USA gradually becomes isolationist.
Why would Russia with an economy 1/20th the size of the European NATO states be a threat to them? And if it is, it is a problem for those states who has the ability to solve it?. But for decades the feckless Europeans farmed out their manufacturing to China, their energy needs to Russia and their defence to the Americans.
Meanwhile with a limited knowledge of history some there claim Putin is Hitler reincarnate because they once watched a documentary on the Munich Conference and the policy of appeasement and recklessly apply it to circumstances that are totally different in scope and scale.
A little knowledge (of history) can be as dangerous as no knowledge (of history). Putin has been telling the West that NATO membership for Ukraine was a bright red line for Russia. But the West and particularly the Americans continued to push. In November of 2021 they signed the U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership in Washington, a move most observers saw as a further green light for Ukraine membership. A month later in December, the Russians wrote the Biden admin.requesting that membership be ruled out. In Jan. 22 they got the reply, “absolutely not”. We all know what happened a month later.
NATO memberhip for Ukraine would mean military exercises within a few hundred miles from Moscow. How long do you think the Americans would tolerate such circumstances near Washington? About thirty seconds would be the correct answer.
Overall, this is exactly the kind of commentary about evil NATO and innocent Russia that I expected. It was to protect Russia from such a terrible scenario that Russian soldiers looted well-kept Ukrainian homes and defecated on living room carpets and cribs in children’s rooms.
That was Ukranian turnip heads in the Donbass,attacking.Russian speaking Ukranians by order of thief Zelensky
@Alex – you’re right up to a point, but as far as ‘we’ getting to sort out our problems, it might help it ‘you’ stopped stirring the pot,
Now the Victoria Nuland has ‘retired’ seal her and her family up in a bunker. Dismantle Brookings, RAND and all the other MIC gravy-trains. Defund NED. Bin the Rhodes & Fulbrights. Elect someone with the backbone to really drain your swamp and FFS jail some war criminals.
I know our rancid British Establishment is a deep in this horror as yours is, but we could do without the lectures from the centre of the Empire thanks.
This is a personal opinion based on a single UK poll, hardly representative for Europe. For instance, the Germans agree with the reintroduction of military service, even the more skeptical youth https://www.ipsos.com/de-de/deutliche-mehrheit-fur-wiedereinfuhrung-der-wehrpflicht
60% of 18 to 39 year old Germans consider that the military service should be reintroduced for men, and 39% want it for both sexes.
I wonder why UnHerd gives this ill-informed and biased author a platform.
Back in the 80s I had some German friends who surprised me with their positive memories of their own service. It turned out that there were music brigades, track and field brigates, large units of computer nerds, etc. Some of them never even learned to handle a rifle. So there is a big difference between “do you favor national service?” and “will you fight?”.
Also, most of the poll respondents were too old for “service” to concern them personally anymore. But to “fight” can suddenly get terribly personal, even if you’re 40 years old. Just look at Ukraine.
Me? I’m still trying to figure out why I’m supposed to hate the Russians.
Because it is hard to swallow that good Germans breed bad Germans.
There ought to be mandatory military service for everyone- even illegal aliens! – if only to teach the young table manners and how to make their own beds.
“Nor will Russia invade Europe.”
It already has. Ukraine is in Europe.
You’d be a fool to assume Putin wouldn’t at some time continue into the Baltic States and Moldova given the opportunity. But then Pilkington evidently is, based on this and his many earlier equally clueless articles.
It is the naive useful idiots like Pilkington who are not facing reality.
Thanks to Putin the West (and their technocrat backers) is finding it more difficult to play both ends against the middle on globalism vs nationalism. They push globalism when it suits them on wealth redistribution masked by a climate ’emergency’. They blame resistance to whatever grand schemes they cook up on populist nationalism.
The problem is that war is a nationalist enterprise that will require young men to volunteer. In many cases these will be the same young men that have been indoctrinated to assume the mantle of guilt for their toxic masculinity and systemic racism. “Your country needs You!” isn’t very effective as a call to arms today when you need the people that you were busy shaming yesterday. Macron was foolish enough to suggest boots on the ground (an idea supported by exactly no one). Would volunteers be subjected to DEI standards? “I’m sorry we can’t take you, volunteers of colour are currently underrepresented”
Perhaps the bigger political question is will the EU finally make a decision on their own defensive capabilities. There are constant complaints about American bully boy interference and economic pressure yet the EU, which never shies away from issuing edicts from non-binary unicorns to cow farts, can’t organize a continental military structure that would have made Putin think twice?
“Why Die for Donetsk?”
Grow a pair. It ain’t over till the fat lady sings….
In the two “Great Wars” young men went proudly to war “for God and Country”. How should we expect a generation convinced by their education that there is no God and that the very concept of borders is malign to shed their blood? The quaint concept of communal duty is an anachronism long ago dismantled by radical individualism and postmodernism. And for what should they fight and die? To preserve institutions of governments and societies that no longer serve them; that no longer defend their opportunities to prosper; that mostly hold the soldiering class in contempt? Or is it to ensure the prerogatives of the true beneficiaries: the Davos-set elites who cling to power like Gollum to his ring?
“for what should they fight and die? ”
Maybe if we told them it was to preserve the rights of black, trans youth in the Donbas ….
Was there a trans day of visibility in Russia this year ?
But wouldn’t the date of the Eastern Orthodox trans day of visibility be different?
Something to do with the moon and the Gregorian calendar
Or am I getting my religions mixed up?
I have views that would have been regarded as centrist or even moderately left-wing ten years ago. Nowadays, expressing these same views in work would leave me open to victimization – cancel culture, effectively. Why would I enlist in case of a war? To put my life on the line for fellow citizens who would – if given half a chance – ostracize me and publicly shame me? No thanks.
“Nor will Russia invade Europe.”
The entire article hangs on this undefended assertion. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree, but I’d have thought it’d at least make the conclusion a little more circumspect.
Its almost as if the wealthy and powerful dont care about us ordinary people
Amazing how comments just disappear..obviously they’re not in line with the authorised narrative..
There’s so much censorship going on – even at the Wall Street Journal and New York Post. Although the Progressives / Democrats say they are out to ‘Save Democracy’ seems like they’ve at the very least sat on public voices and free speech.
Russia has 2 advantages. It’s a nuclear power and it can drive peasant conscripts into battle with whips. Most European nations depend on the unreliable American nuclear umbrella and the people will not submit to the whip. America learned that trying to send elite youth into war makes them turn into woke democrats. You need intense propaganda to get people to enlist and the west does not have control of the media.
Working class people all know their forebears wasted their time in previous wars. What thanks did they get?
According to a BBC report, it was Polish youth and women who ensured Tusk got elected. They voted for this BS.
Who’ll be exactly fighting? Young Muslim immigrants on welfare? Nationalism is dead( except in Poland for better or worse)
There are several levels of disjunct here – reverting back to conscription would politically stabilise the European states; having a professional military means your military is small, focussed on expensive gadgets, and out of voters’ minds. With conscription, everyone is involved, and politicians have less freedom to bloviate about military matters, as they are now so fond of doing.
Secondly, a defensive military, without the need for all the logistical “tail” that is required to project power, is much cheaper than a military set up for adventures far away.
While NATO was still defensive, nearly all its armies were conscripted; NATO’s armies had to switch to professional to give politicians the freedom to use their militaries to meddle far afield.
Now that is a very interesting viewpoint. I hadn’t actually considered the point previously but I believe you’re absolutely right.
Another politician who’s willing to sacrifice the lives of his fellow citizens, just who the hell do Tusk and Macron think they are? What gives them the right? We need to learn the lessons of history. The war in Ukraine needs to end ASAP the world does not need idiot grandstanding, warmongering politicians – shame on you.
War and conscription are old mans hobbies, because they know that they themselves won’t have to go and fight. Like feminists.
Clearly the author has never lived under totalitarian dominion for any part of his life. How lucky he and we all are in the west. The Eastern Europeans have a very different mindset and I suspect those Germans left alive that can relate, would disagree as well. I hope this guy is right though.