EU war hawks are changing their tune

Alex Krainer

In a hopeful sign that certain ominous tides in Europe could be shifting, over the last two or three weeks, a number of prominent European war hawks appear to have changed their tune on Russia. This happened in the immediate aftermath of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte saying that Europe should prepare for a big war, “on the scale experienced by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers.”

Britain’s Air Chief Marshal, General Sir Richard Knightongave a speech at the RUSI (Royal United Services Institute) think tank to promote the same agenda, warning Britain’s “sons and daughters” to prepare for war with Russia: “More families will know what SACRIFICE for our nation means.”

But over the following few days, the officialdom’s tone appears to have softened considerably. The new rhetoric seems to downgrade Russia from an evil eternal enemy to merely a competitor or rival, calling for future engagement with Russia rather than war against Russia. Perhaps the most notable example of this was the French President’s apparent change of heart. Until just a few months ago, Emmanuel Macron was talking about sending troops to Ukraine, leading a united European army and providing a nuclear shield against Russia.

Russia is not an enemy?

Most recently, Macron seems to have changed tack: he said that “Russia is not an enemy” of France and emphasized the need to “talk to Russia,” and work toward a new security architecture for Europe that includes Moscow. Macron emphasized even that a lasting peace in Europe is impossible without a future framework involving Russia.

Finnish President Alex Staub also seems to have backed away from warmongering talk and so has one of Germany’s most vociferous war hawks, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius. In a recent interview for Die Zeit, Pistorius stated that he does not believe there will be a full scale war between Russia and NATO, adding that, “In my view, Putin does not intend to wage a full-scale global war against NATO.”

This last statement marks a 180 degree turn for Pistorius who has been very vocal warning that as soon as he’s done with Ukraine, Putin would be invading Western Europe. What can possibly explain such a sharp and sudden change in rhetoric? I would wager that the cause wasn’t an unexpected rise in EU leaders’ IQs but external pressure, probably coming from the U.S. side.

The pressure is coming from the Trump administration

Over the last few weeks, we heard rumours about investigations into large-scale Ukraine aid embezzlement, much of which has been laundered through European banks and probably made its way to EU and NATO leaders’ favorite charities.

However, a more visible example of U.S. stance was articulated by U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in an X-post she issued ten days ago:

“Deep State warmongers and their Propaganda Media are again trying to undermine President Trump’s efforts to bring peace to Ukraine - and indeed Europe - by falsely claiming that the ‘U.S. intelligence community’ agrees to and supports EU/NATO viewpoint that Russia’s aim is to invade/conquer Europe (in order to gin up support for their pro-war policies). The truth is that ‘US intelligence’ assesses that Russia does not even have the capability to conquer and occupy Ukraine, what to speak of ‘invading and occupying’ Europe.”

Gabbard’s statement was a strong rebuke of EU leaders’ claims that Russia will attack Eruope, which has been their core rallying cry calling for rearmament and war preparations. If such a statement was issued publicly, we can imagine that similar and stronger messages are directed to EU and NATO leaders through diplomatic channels, indicating that the Trump administration is looking to de-escalate tensions on the continent.

But beyond de-escalating tensions, it seems that the U.S. administration has come to an agreement with their Russian counterparts that an overhaul of the entire security architecture on the European continent is due. If that’s the case, we might soon see the end of NATO alliance. This is now nearly 35 years overdue and NATO’s persisting quest for relevance brought Europe to the precipice of World War III.

The alliance’s dissolution will indubitably have far-reaching consequences that could be adverse for the European military-industrial complex, but could be good news for the rest of us. Let us hope that 2026 will see continued momentum toward these developments and away from military escalations. But the one thing we understood about modern supranational entities is that an external enemy is essential to keeping them together and maintaining social cohesion. If Russia gets downgraded to a mere rival, will the EU also disintegrate?

I believe it will, and the Trump government’s recent National Security Strategy explicitly declared that it intends to cultivate “resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.” Taking away their greatest enemy could be the most powerful way to boost that resistance and render all the assorted war hawks irrelevant.