Build Shelters

By Tasos Pappas
04.12.25 

"If Europe wants war, we are ready," declared Russian President Putin, spreading utter chaos. "As Putin is using provocative, warmongering rhetoric, we must take our measures", the European governments replied. But Putin answered the Europeans with their own words. Last week, many officials from various European countries started this verbal dance. Do we have a short memory? One said that perhaps we had passed our last peaceful summer, another predicted war with Russia by 2028, another spoke of a pre-war era, another announced that we are already at war with Russia, another urged citizens to prepare for the inevitable, another called on Europeans to reconcile with the idea that they might see their children in coffins, another asked societies not to complain if they saw social spending cut to save resources for armaments, another spoke of building shelters.

What all these people did, Putin did a few days later. What did they expect, then? For him to be silent? To succumb to pressure? To lay down arms? To apologize? To withdraw from Ukraine? To surrender the territories his army has occupied? To admit that he started a war and failed to achieve his goals? He, too, has to manage Russian society, which is discontent with the continuation of the war and expects results. The consequences paid by the Russian people are great. Thousands of casualties, destruction of infrastructure, serious economic problems from the sanctions imposed by the West, and mobilization. 

Sure, Putin rules Russia autocratically, opposition is not heard, those who dare to violate the rule of unanimity and mandatory consent are violently brought back into line, those who persist in not complying are exemplarily punished so that their unruly example is not spread, and criticism in the media is limited due to fear of repression. 

But even a closed system that operates on the principle of "one-man rule" is not invulnerable. It's not possible to continuously manage the situation with authoritarian methods. At some point, what he presents as right and non-negotiable wrinkles, pales, becomes difficult to convince, and the narrator is threatened with overthrow.

In Ukraine, however, and in European countries, things are different. Zelensky is surrounded by scandals, his associates and close friends are accused of corruption, his goal of his country joining the European Union is receding, his counterparts in Europe view him with suspicion and suspect him of being involved in the embezzlement of public (European and American) money, his army resists but is retreating, the cost of the war is enormous (dead, wounded, infrastructure, migration). Plus, he is pressured by Trump to sign an agreement that would provide for the dismemberment of Ukraine, the race for his succession has secretly begun, and he will be forced to self-exile (the good scenario for him) or will be brought to the defendant's seat.

The three most pro-war governments in Europe, those that support Zelensky by all means and try to save him from Trump's cynicism (England, France, Germany), have serious economic problems, inequalities are flaring up, the popularity of their leaders is at rock bottom, their electoral audiences have thinned out, their choice to pour huge sums into armaments has enraged the popular strata, far-right parties in all three countries are topping the polls, which is now a worrying normality, and have become the receptacles for social discontent. 

The attempt to shift public discussion from internal problems to external ones by creating an adversary is a classic tactic of systems in crisis. This is what the three governments are trying to do, but they stumble upon a stubborn reality.