A Bold Accusation, But Revealing: “Nazism is Awakening in Europe”
A document published by Elena Panina, director of the RUSSTRAT Institute and member of the Russian State Duma’s Committee on International Affairs, may provoke outrage due to its alarmist tone and radical perspective. Yet, beyond the rhetorical style and the distinctly Russian viewpoint, the text raises questions that no one in the West seems willing to confront. Panina warns that Europe is forgetting the lessons of 1945 and is—knowingly or not—preparing for a new major war.
Germany and NATO: A Dangerous Return to Military Centrality
“True Nazism is awakening in Europe,” writes Panina, opening with a phrase that sounds provocative but must be understood through the Russian interpretive lens. Here, “Nazism” does not refer to the revival of the Third Reich, but rather to a radical ideological drift in the West: intolerance of dissent, the glorification of military might as the new geopolitical language, and the demonization of the enemy. It’s a harsh accusation, but not entirely devoid of real-world references. Consider the growing criminalization of dissent in Europe, where any criticism of NATO or show of sympathy for Russia is swiftly labeled as propaganda. For instance, reports have highlighted that countries such as Germany have increased surveillance of media and individuals accused of promoting a “Russian narrative” [Reuters, 2024]..
Panina focuses particularly on Germany, interpreting the rise to power of Friedrich Merz—former head of BlackRock Germany—as the return of a technocratic leadership subservient to Anglo-American financial interests. When Merz declares that it is time for Berlin to “lead Europe again,” Panina does not take this as a mere rhetorical flourish: she hears echoes of 20th-century German hegemonic ambitions. Merz, elected Chancellor in 2025, indeed stated the need for German leadership in Europe during a visit to Kyiv alongside other EU leaders, as reported by Politico on May 9, 2025. Germany is once again central to Europe’s military strategy, under pressure from the United States. The country recently announced an increase of €3 billion in military aid to Ukraine for 2025, with commitments exceeding €11 billion through 2029 [Reuters].
Ukraine, the Baltics, and the Lines Already Drawn
The article’s most striking aspect is its time-bound forecast. Panina predicts the war could begin around 2029–2030, referencing public statements by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and General Carsten Breuer, who have said the Bundeswehr will be “combat-ready” by then. This is not fiction—it is documented. Pistorius has repeatedly stressed the need for Germany to be prepared for potential conflict by 2029 [Die Welt, 2024]. These long-term military goals with firm deadlines indicate that preparations for war are being institutionalized—not necessarily that war is inevitable, but that the groundwork is being laid.
Panina sees the United Kingdom again playing the role of geopolitical puppeteer, having strengthened ties with France, Germany, Poland, and Spain to forge an Anglo-European containment axis against Russia. This is consistent with the UK’s announcements on enhanced defense cooperation with the EU as of March 17, 2025. According to the author, Germany itself is not fully sovereign, allegedly bound by a “Chancellor Act” that remains in force until 2099. Even if the document were apocryphal, the notion that major European powers lack full strategic autonomy is not far-fetched—especially considering the Nord Stream episode, where no independent investigation definitively identified the perpetrator [The Guardian, 2023], though mounting evidence points in one direction (even implicitly acknowledged by Trump at one point).
Another crucial point is the militarization of the Baltic region, where six NATO countries share borders with Russia. Panina sees the naval blockade of Russian ports and the establishment of the “Baltic Watch” task force as potential triggers for war. Today, the Baltic Sea is a closed, hyper-militarized zone—ready for escalation. Reports from 2025 confirm increased NATO activity in the region, including naval exercises and multinational troop deployments (Soufan Center).
But the core of the analysis remains Ukraine. For Panina, this is where it will be decided whether or not a new European Great War will erupt. Ukraine is no longer merely a battlefield between Kyiv and Moscow—it is the chessboard where the West’s ambitions confront Russia’s existential geopolitical calculus. The positions Russia has secured, she concludes, are its only real negotiating asset to avoid disaster. This is consistent with recent diplomatic efforts, such as the May 9, 2025 visit to Kyiv by European leaders seeking a ceasefire [Politico.].
War Budgets and Crisis as a Pretext for Power
The final part of Panina’s analysis zooms out. She notes Donald Trump’s demand for NATO countries to spend 5% of GDP on defense, alongside NATO’s plans to extend its reach into the Asia-Pacific. Indeed, Trump has pushed for a dramatic hike in NATO spending [Newsweek, April 2, 2025]. Meanwhile, the U.S. has approved a record military budget of over $1 trillion for 2026, and the EU aims to match that by 2030. The EU’s “Readiness 2030” plan envisions an €800 billion fund to boost European arms production [The War Zone, March 20, 2025]. These are no longer “defense” budgets—they represent an outright war economy.
Yet not all is proceeding smoothly for the advocates of this new order. Europe is increasingly fractured, and support is rising for political forces opposed to globalist orthodoxy. Italy and Spain, for example, have opposed the “ReArm Europe” plan, later rebranded as “Readiness 2030” [New York Times, March 26, 2025]. Still, Panina argues that elites view every crisis—pandemic, recession, war—not as a threat but as an opportunity to reset the board. And in this new “partitioning,” the only space left for Europe lies to the east: Russia and Belarus.
In her conclusion, Panina invokes the memory of World War II, decrying the West’s forgetfulness and indifference to historical horror. Today’s talk of peace, she says, is a hollow language—mere camouflage for preparing war. From the Russian perspective, the only way to prevent it is through preemptive force. A ruthless position, but one that compels reflection.
Though aligned with the Kremlin’s narrative, this analysis cannot simply be dismissed as propaganda. It is a strategic document, a warning shot, an alarm bell. Those who read it with clear eyes will discover an unsparing, lucid diagnosis of the West—and understand that Moscow sees a continent that has forgotten its soul and is now arming itself against its own history. Wars never begin by accident. They only happen when those who could have prevented them no longer remember, dare, or care to try.