The Russian philosopher has sparked outrage, but his target is not race – it’s the liberalism and nihilism of modern Western civilization

“Whites? They are destroyed the world and themselves. To be white means to be nihilist. It is self hatred race. It caused so many troubles to others and to itself. It lost the right to be something. No arguments to support their existence.”

This is what Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin wrote on X on May 5, 2026, triggering a storm of harshly critical replies, many of them crossing the line into verbal abuse, mostly accusing him of racist anti-white hatred and hypocrisy. This reaction betrays an utter lack of understanding of Dugin as a thinker.

Dugin’s critics read him as though he were speaking in the language of modern racial politics, identity engineering, and population arithmetic. Instead, he is speaking in the language of civilization, metaphysics, and historical destiny. When he attacks ‘Whites’, he attacks a spiritual condition shaped by centuries of liberalism, materialism, and desacralization. He points towards a civilization that abandoned memory, faith, hierarchy, rootedness, and historical continuity in exchange for consumption, individual appetite, technological acceleration, and abstraction. His target is the modern West as a mode of existence rather than Europeans as a biological people. He describes a civilizational type that dissolved its own foundations through universalism and endless self-criticism until every inherited structure became an object of suspicion or demolition. The statement reads far less like racial hatred than like a furious condemnation of modernity itself.

Anyone familiar with Dugin’s broader body of work can see this pattern immediately. His entire intellectual project revolves around the rejection of liberal universalism and the defense of distinct civilizations against homogenization. He has long expressed support for the French New Right and for European traditions resisting Western liberal culture. That fact alone destroys the shallow interpretation advanced by his opponents. A man calling for the annihilation of Europeans would hardly spend decades engaging with European philosophers, praising European traditionalist movements, or drawing intellectual inspiration from figures such as Martin Heidegger, Julius Evola, and Alain de Benoist. He has remained remarkably consistent for years in his hostility towards liberal modernity and in his distinction between civilization, ontology, and race in the biological sense. His vocabulary often sounds extreme because he writes as a metaphysician rather than as a conventional political commentator.

Read more

The real error comes from reading every statement through the narrow framework of identitarian discourse. Contemporary political culture trains people to interpret every conflict through categories of race management, oppression narratives, demographic blocs, and media outrage cycles. Dugin approaches these questions through philosophy, religion, myth, sacred history, and civilizational destiny. He treats the crisis of the West as a crisis of the soul rather than merely a political or ethnic dispute. In his view, the modern West dissolved its own traditions in pursuit of endless progress, economic expansion, consumer comfort, and ideological universalism. Christianity lost transcendence and became mere moral administration. Politics transformed into social regulation. Culture became entertainment. Identity became consumption. Human beings themselves became interchangeable units inside a global market civilization. That process produced the emptiness he associates with nihilism.

This also explains the deeper contradiction inside liberalism itself. Liberalism presents itself as universal, humanitarian, and post-racial, yet in practice it functions as the final global form of Western cultural domination. Liberal modernity universalizes specifically Western historical assumptions and presents them as eternal truths binding upon all peoples and civilizations. Parliamentary democracy, individualism, secularism, market ideology, and the human-rights cult emerge from a particular Western historical experience, yet liberal ideology treats them as mandatory norms for humanity as such. In this sense, liberalism becomes the highest and most expansive form of White supremacism precisely because it aims to dissolve every civilization into a single Western model while claiming moral neutrality. The liberal empire spreads Western ‘values’ and ideas across the planet and calls that process ‘progress’. Dugin’s critique targets this civilizational universalism rather than white people as such. He attacks the missionary impulse of liberal modernity and the spiritual emptiness produced by its global triumph.

This view also carries a profoundly fatalist dimension. The German historical philosopher Oswald Spengler described civilizations as living organisms passing through vigor, hypertrophy, sclerosis, senescence, and eventual death. In his understanding, the Faustian civilization of the West entered its terminal phase long ago. Organic vitality yielded to technocratic rationalization, pecuniary domination, demographic disaster, and spiritual atrophy. Culture calcified into civilization, and civilization ossified into pure mechanism. Dugin inherits much of this morphology. When he speaks about ‘Whites’, he speaks about the cadaveric stage of the contemporary Western order: A civilization consumed by decadence, auto-intoxication, and a historical coma. The West appears less as a living culture than as a gigantic administrative apparatus sustained through inertia, artificial stimulation, and technological prosthesis. From this perspective, its decline appears almost physiological, since the civilization itself lost the animating principle that once coursed through its arteries. Empires ascend, decay, and pass into sepulchral memory. Paradigms perish, and new forms crystallize from the detritus of exhausted epochs. One may therefore hope that whatever succeeds the present Western order may recover form, rootedness, hierarchy, sacred intensity, and civilizational vigor absent from the moribund liberal world now approaching its final convulsion.

Read more

Dugin’s language therefore operates on an ontological level. ‘Whiteness’ in this context refers less to a race than to a modern existential condition shaped by uprooted liberal individualism. Dugin often contrasts this condition against civilizations that preserved stronger collective identities, religious institutions, or metaphysical foundations. He sees the modern Atlantic world as the last expression of a civilization that severed itself from transcendence and replaced higher meaning with economics, technocracy, and moral relativism. Whether one agrees with this analysis or rejects it, the philosophical structure behind Dugin’s argument remains obvious to anyone capable of reading beyond surface-level whining.

Prominent figures within the identitarian sphere understand this perfectly well. Their staged outrage functions primarily as political theater rather than genuine confusion. They defend an abstract idea of whiteness rooted in modern identity politics, racial self-consciousness, and liberal-era categories of collective identity. Dugin attacks the liberal core that produced those categories in the first place. For him, liberal modernity destroys every authentic people by reducing identity to biological labeling detached from spiritual form, historical mission, and traditional order. Identitarians treat race as the center of politics. Dugin treats the Logos of civilizations, primordial existence, and the destiny of peoples as the true center of politics. The two worldviews overlap at moments, yet they emerge from radically different intellectual schools.

The entire controversy reveals how shallow modern political interpretation has become. People trained entirely through social media conflict and ideological tribalism lose the ability to recognize metaphysical or civilizational language. Every statement becomes flattened into the vocabulary of race discourse, internet factionalism, and outrage performance. Philosophical arguments become screenshots. Ontological categories become hashtags. A thinker rooted in Heideggerian language, Orthodox mysticism, and civilizational theory gets interpreted as though he were merely another participant in online racial agitation. The result resembles a complete disintegration of interpretive depth.

No one is required to agree with Dugin’s conclusions. A reader may reject his geopolitical vision or his interpretation of modernity. Yet basic intellectual honesty still requires interpreting a thinker according to the logic he actually uses rather than according to the logic imposed by his enemies. Reading Dugin through the lens of liberal racial discourse guarantees misunderstanding from the very beginning. His language belongs to the realm of civilizational metaphysics, plural modes of Being, and spiritual conflict. Anyone approaching his post on X seriously can recognize that reality almost immediately.

Forty years after the Delhi Declaration, the world is again searching for a new order, but this time without shared rules or a usable blueprint

“A new world order must be built to ensure economic justice and equal political security for all nations. An end to the arms race is an essential prerequisite for the establishment of such an order.”

This year marks the 40th anniversary of those words from the Soviet-Indian Delhi Declaration, signed in 1986 during Mikhail Gorbachev’s visit to India and his talks with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. It was one of the first major documents of the late Cold War era to openly speak of the need for a ‘new world order’.

At the time, the Soviet leadership believed this order would emerge through what it called ‘new political thinking’. The idea was that former adversaries would abandon confrontation and combine the best elements of their respective systems to create a more stable and equitable international framework. It was an ambitious vision: A joint effort to rebuild global politics from the ruins of ideological rivalry. But history, however, had other plans.

The Soviet Union soon disappeared into a vortex of internal crises before vanishing altogether from the world stage. The phrase ‘new world order’ survived, but it was quickly repurposed by the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In Washington’s interpretation, the concept no longer meant a shared international architecture. It came to mean a liberal order dominated politically and militarily by the US and its allies.

In reality, this wasn’t an entirely new order at all. It was an extension of the post-1945 system, only now without the counterweight of the Soviet Union.

Read more

For a time, many believed this arrangement represented the natural endpoint of history. Yet contrary to those expectations, once the Cold War confrontation disappeared, global stability didn’t deepen. Instead, tensions gradually intensified and by the beginning of the 2010s, the foundations of the system were already beginning to crack.

Since then, the pace of disintegration has accelerated dramatically.

As humanity moves deeper into the second quarter of the 21st century, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that the previous world order has effectively ceased to exist. Whatever doubts may have lingered vanished during the opening months of 2026.

What matters isn’t simply that the strongest states increasingly ignore laws and conventions that once appeared firmly established, more significant is the style in which politics is now conducted. Decisions are impulsive and often openly contradictory as governments act first and improvise later. Statements made today may directly contradict those made yesterday, yet this no longer seems to matter.

This atmosphere shouldn’t necessarily be mistaken for collective irrationality. Rather, many political actors appear convinced that the old restraints have collapsed and that the current moment represents a historic opportunity. The instinct is simple: Seize as much advantage as possible before the landscape hardens again.

The redistribution of the world has already begun. Political influence, transport corridors, resources, financial flows, technological ecosystems, and even cultural and religious spheres are all being contested simultaneously. Every major power is now defining its ambitions and testing the methods by which those ambitions might be achieved.

Read more

Of course, mistakes will be expensive, but that, at least, is nothing new in international politics.

The real uncertainty lies elsewhere because the previous era left behind an assumption that periods of chaos are eventually followed by the emergence of a new equilibrium. After disorder comes structure and after confrontation comes a new framework. But there’s no guarantee this time.

The international system today isn’t an empty construction site waiting for a new design. After major world wars, old structures are often swept away on a vast scale, creating space for something new to emerge, and that’s not the case now.

Instead, the world remains cluttered with institutions and habits inherited from previous eras. Many are discredited or dysfunctional, but they still exist. And even those states that attack these institutions most aggressively continue to use them whenever convenient.

The United Nations system remains an example. Its authority has diminished, yet governments still appeal to it selectively when doing so serves their interests. Likewise, the structures created during the period of liberal globalization have proven more resilient than many expected.

Read more

Despite trade wars, sanctions, geopolitical fragmentation, and increasingly open rivalry among major powers, the global economic network continues to resist complete disintegration. Supply chains bend but do not fully break. Markets remain interconnected. Even countries engaged in fierce political confrontation continue trading with one another indirectly.

This resilience appears to frustrate some of the very powers trying to reshape the system.

The creation of a genuinely new international framework will therefore be an exceptionally painful process. The available raw material consists of fragments from different historical periods, ideological systems, and institutional models. Somehow these incompatible components must be assembled into something functional.

Some states are attempting this carefully, selecting elements that might fit together into a relatively coherent structure. Others are behaving more crudely, trying to hammer incompatible pieces into place through pressure or intimidation. The danger is obvious: Excessive force may not produce stability at all, but only further fragmentation.

Yet perhaps the defining feature of the present moment is that nobody possesses a real blueprint for what comes next. During earlier periods of transition, however flawed the visions may have been, leaders at least believed they understood the destination.

However, today there is no such clarity and the latest struggle to construct a new world order comes without universal principles or even a broadly accepted idea of what success would look like. The old rules are fading, but no agreed replacements have emerged.

For now, the message confronting every major power is brutally simple: Do it yourself, and then try to live with the consequences.

Carriers are axing flights en masse amid soaring jet fuel prices caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz blockade

The steep rise in jet fuel prices caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran is posing a bigger challenge to the global airline industry than the Covid-19 pandemic did, according to AirAsia CEO Tony Fernandes.

In response to the US-Israeli aggression, Tehran has closed the Strait of Hormuz – a choke point through which around 20% of global crude passes – to “enemy ships.” US President Donald Trump has meanwhile imposed a blockade on Iranian ports. Massive maritime traffic disruptions have sent global oil prices above $100 a barrel, resulting in a spike in jet fuel prices as well.

In an interview with the Financial Times on Thursday, Fernandes said he thought he had “seen it all with Covid… but having seen jet fuel go up almost three times – this is much worse.”

“You wake up one day and your major cost has tripled – it was quite a new experience for me and I’ve been through a lot in my life,” the AirAsia CEO added.

Last week, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary similarly predicted that “if it continues at $150 a barrel into July, August, September, then you’ll see European airlines fail.”

According to the aviation analytics company Cirium, carriers have cut 13,000 flights from May schedules worldwide.

Read more

Germany’s Lufthansa has announced the cancellation of 20,000 short-haul flights through October, while Scandinavian Airlines has recently axed around 1,000 flights.

Turkish Airlines and Air China have taken similar steps, among numerous other carriers.

Last Saturday, US-based low-cost carrier Spirit Airlines said it was shutting down due to the sudden and sustained rise in fuel prices in recent weeks. The closure of the seventh-largest passenger carrier in North America is expected to leave around 17,000 people without work.

Kirill Dmitriev, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy for investment and economic cooperation, said on X that the “global aviation shock is spreading quickly and is a HARBINGER of the more severe shocks to come in other sectors.”

The bodies of the World War II troops were found during construction work in Potsdam

The remains of 80 Soviet soldiers that were discovered during construction work have been reburied in Potsdam, German. The troops took part in the liberation of the city from Nazi forces in 1945, the Russian Embassy in Berlin has told Zvezda TV.

The ceremony took place at a Potsdam Soviet military cemetery on Thursday and was attended by Russian diplomats and local officials.

Graves containing the remains were uncovered last year during redevelopment work at a former barracks site that the German authorities have been converting into a residential district. Embassy staff later studied archival records and identified 76 of the 80 soldiers, sergeants, and officers.

Earlier, Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechaev said there are more than 4,000 memorials to Soviet soldiers across the country, and they are being well maintained.

The military will cease all hostilities, but will respond in full force to violations, the Russian Defense Ministry has warned

The Russian Defense Ministry has provided more details on the two-day ceasefire on May 8–9, reiterating warnings that any attempt by Ukraine to disrupt the upcoming Victory Day parade in Moscow would result in a large-scale retaliatory strike on central Kiev.

During the period, the Russian forces will cease all operations on the front line, as well as halt long-range strikes into Ukrainian territory, the ministry said in a statement on Thursday, urging Ukraine to follow suit. Any attempts to violate the truce on the ground or conduct strikes beyond the frontline will be met with an “adequate response,” the ministry warned.

The ministry repeated the call for foreign diplomats to evacuate the Ukrainian capital ahead of a potential attack.

“We once again urge the civilian population of Kiev and employees of foreign diplomatic missions to leave the city in a timely manner,” it added.

Read more

It remains unclear whether Ukraine will actually abide by the Moscow-offered truce. Vladimir Zelensky initially branded the two-day ceasefire “unfair” when it was first announced early this week, and claimed that “no one officially suggested anything” to Kiev. Shortly thereafter, however, he announced a truce of his own starting at midnight on the night of May 5–6, yet Moscow did not respond publicly to the proposal.

While media reports indicated the fighting and long-range strikes on both sides have somewhat subsided following the announcement, the Ukrainian leadership has complained about the continuing attacks.

On Thursday, Zelensky accused Russia of “not seriously considering the possibility of a ceasefire.” Shortly after the Russian Defense Ministry’s announcement, he appeared to issue a thinly veiled threat to Moscow, stating he would not “recommend” that foreign dignitaries show up at the parade.

The alleged trade came shortly before reported progress toward US-Iran deal to end the war, raising suspicions of insider information

A massive crude oil bet placed shortly before reports of a possible US-Iran peace deal sent prices crashing and fueled suspicion of insider trading, after the position reportedly generated a $125 million profit in just over an hour.

According to market commentary platform the Kobeissi Letter, nearly 10,000 crude oil short contracts were placed around 3:40 AM (07:40 GMT) on Wednesday “without any major news,” describing the roughly $920 million position as unusually large for that time of day.

At 4:50 AM, Axios reported that Washington and Tehran were nearing an agreement to end the conflict and resume negotiations. Oil prices plunged more than 12% within two hours of the report, turning the short position into an estimated $125 million profit before the price later rebounded, the platform said.

During the US-Israeli war against Iran, prediction and traditional financial markets were flooded with suspiciously well-timed bets linked to airstrikes, ceasefire announcements, and diplomatic developments.

According to The Guardian, traders placed more than $1 billion in seemingly prescient wagers, including an $850,000 bet shortly before US strikes against Iran and around $950 million in oil futures hours before Trump announced a ceasefire in April. AP reported that the ceasefire announcement alone generated more than 413 million predictions and over $100 million in wagers across prediction markets within days.

Read more

On March 24, the White House reportedly issued a warning to staff against using insider information on the Iran war to trade on financial markets. This came a day after US President Donald Trump ordered a five-day pause in planned strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure.

News outlets, citing market data, later reported that around 15 minutes before the abrupt announcement of a policy shift, futures markets saw a surge in trading activity. More than $760 million worth of oil futures contracts reportedly changed hands in under two minutes. Several reports also said three Polymarket accounts collectively earned over $600,000 after correctly anticipating the timing of the ceasefire with Iran.

New Delhi has reaffirmed a ban on bilateral sporting events, but opened the door to Pakistani players for international events on its soil

The Indian Sports Ministry has fromalized policy for cricketing events with Pakistan, a year after New Delhi imposed curbs on sporting activity with its neighbor following the military standoff between the two countries.

According to the policy published on Tuesday, Pakistani players and teams will be allowed to participate in multilateral events hosted by India. However, the ban on bilateral sporting events will remain in force.

”With regard to international and multilateral events, in India or abroad, we are guided by the ⁠practices of international sports bodies and the interest of our own sportspersons,” the Sports Ministry said.

It added that the visa process for athletes, officials, and representatives of international sports federations from the neighboring country would be simplified.

“In so far as bilateral sports events in each other’s country are concerned, Indian teams will not be ⁠participating in competitions in Pakistan. Nor will we permit Pakistani teams to play in India,” the ministry added.

Cricket, the most popular sport in both India and Pakistan, has long been a victim of political tensions between the two countries. The hostility deepened after the four‑day standoff in May 2025 – one of the most serious military confrontations between the nuclear‑armed neighbors in recent years.

Read more

India and Pakistan have not played a full cricket series since 2012-13, and the Asian cricketing powerhouses meet largely ⁠at neutral venues. Earlier this year, India co-hosted the T20 cricket World Cup, but the Pakistan team played all its matches in Sri Lanka.

Pakistani players are not taking part in the lucrative Indian Premier League, although it is not clear if this scenario will also change.

India is slated to host the Commonwealth Games in 2030, and it has also bid for the 2036 Olympics and the 2038 Asian Games ⁠in Ahmedabad.

The Presidential Regiment rehearses mounted drills and performs a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow

Russia’s elite Presidential Regiment marks its 90th anniversary on Thursday. The unit, headquartered inside the Kremlin, secures the compound and protects senior Russian state officials.

The regiment includes the Cavalry Escort, which performs mounted ceremonial displays, and the Special Guard Company, which carries out honor guard duties.

The mounted ceremony is traditionally held on Kremlin's Cathedral Square once a week and features synchronized maneuvers by riders of the Regiment’s Cavalry Escort. Considered one of Moscow’s top military spectacles, the event regularly attracts tourists and visitors from Russia and abroad. The video below shows a rehearsal.

Horses for the Presidential Regiment are selected exclusively from Russian stud farms. The Cavalry Escort primarily uses Trakehner, Hanoverian, and Russian breeds. Twelve riders take part in the core mounted routine, while 14 participate in the full ceremonial performance.

The next footage shows the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Alexander Garden near the Kremlin wall.

The ceremony is carried out daily by the Presidential Regiment’s Special Guard Company, which maintains an honor guard at the Eternal Flame. It is also one of Moscow’s most popular tourist attractions, but unlike the mounted drills, the changing of the guard is an active ceremonial duty.

The regiment was established in April 1936, but traditionally marks its birthday on May 7, when it was awarded one of the Soviet Union’s highest military decorations, the Order of the Red Banner, in 1965. Three battalions of the regiment took part in the 1945 Victory Parade on Red Square following the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Police will act against violence targeting foreign nationals in the country, the presidency has said

South Africa is a welcoming country and attempts to brand it xenophobic over ongoing protests targeting foreign nationals amount to a “lazy analysis” of tensions linked to crime and illegal immigration, Pretoria has said.

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesman, Vincent Magwenya, made the remarks on Wednesday amid growing concern from other African governments over anti-immigrant demonstrations and reported attacks on their citizens in South Africa.

“Any characterization of this protest that seeks to portray South Africans as xenophobic is actually lazy sort of analysis of the real issues that are at play here,” Magwenya told reporters.

“What you have are pockets of protest, which is permissible within our constitutional framework,” he said, adding that “the issue of immigration is a pressure point” not only in South Africa, but “throughout the world where protests are held on these issues.”

He said South African police will act against violence targeting foreign nationals.

The comments came after anti-immigrant demonstrations spread across several cities in Africa’s most industrialized economy, a major destination for workers from across the continent. Hundreds marched in Johannesburg last week demanding tougher immigration controls, while many shops closed over fears of looting and attacks.

READ MORE: Zimbabwe and Nigeria issue warnings over violent protests in South Africa (VIDEO)

On Sunday, Nigeria said 130 of its citizens had registered for voluntary repatriation from South Africa following the latest unrest. Foreign Minister Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu summoned Pretoria’s acting high commissioner and requested a full investigation into recent incidents involving Nigerians.

Ghanaian Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa also held talks with his South African counterpart, Ronald Lamola, after videos circulated showing alleged attacks on Ghanaians. Zimbabwe and Malawi have issued safety advisories to their nationals.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has expressed “grave concern” over reports of xenophobic violence and intimidation against nationals of other countries in South Africa.

Read more

South Africa has faced repeated bouts of anti-foreigner violence, including deadly attacks in 2008 and 2015, with rights groups accusing Pretoria of failing to prevent recurring unrest.

Ramaphosa warned during his Freedom Day address on April 27 that public concern over illegal immigration should not become hatred toward foreign nationals. He said South Africa must enforce its laws but should not allow prejudice against “fellow Africans.”

On Wednesday, Ramaphosa’s spokesman said the president and his Mozambican counterpart, Daniel Chapo, agreed during talks that African governments must work together to address “the issues that are behind these levels of migration.”

Riyadh reportedly blocked key military assets after Trump announced the Strait of Hormuz operation without coordination

Saudi Arabia reportedly refused to allow the US military to use its airspace and a key airbase for President Donald Trump’s ‘Project Freedom’ in the Strait of Hormuz, forcing the operation to be paused, NBC News claims, citing US officials.

The kingdom is said to have pulled support after Trump announced the operation on Sunday, stating that Western-flagged ships would be provided with US military escorts through the strait. Reportedly, however, neither Saudi Arabia nor any other Gulf states were informed of the plan ahead of time.

In response, Saudi Arabia informed Washington that US aircraft would not be permitted to operate from Prince Sultan Airbase southeast of Riyadh or fly through Saudi airspace in support of the mission.

According to two US officials who spoke with NBC, a phone call between Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman failed to resolve the issue, forcing the president to pause Project Freedom just two days after it was announced in order to restore critical US military access to the region’s airspace.

Read more

Trump described Project Freedom as a humanitarian effort to break Iran’s blockade of the strategic waterway, which carries around one-fifth of the world’s oil. On Tuesday, however, the US president abruptly ordered a pause to the operation, citing “great progress” in Pakistani-mediated peace talks with Tehran.

The move appeared to have caught even Trump’s own officials off guard. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said just hours before the announcement that operation ‘Epic Fury’, the original operation, was over and that Project Freedom was now the primary focus. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had also been touting the initiative, claiming that hundreds of ships were lining up to pass through the strait.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, mocked Trump online, saying, “Operation Trust Me Bro failed” and that the US is back to spreading falsehoods about ongoing talks.

Not understanding the potential fall-out of attacks on Zaporozhye NPP is “the height of cynicism and recklessness,” Rosatom CEO Aleksey Likhachev says

Ukraine has dramatically stepped up drone strikes on Russia’s Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and the city of Energodar, Aleksey Likhachev, the head of the state-owned Rosatom operator, has said.

In a statement released on Thursday, Likhachev described three consecutive days of intense Ukrainian strikes on civilian infrastructure in Energodar, a town mere kilometers away from the frontline. The Ukrainian attacks targeted a gas distribution station and residential buildings, with over 20 explosions recorded in a single day, he said, adding that five vehicles were set ablaze and a fire truck was seriously damaged.

Other strikes hit the city administration building, with one of the drones crashing into the entry of a bomb shelter, though without casualties, Likhachev said.

On top of that, another drone struck the NPP’s external radiation control laboratory on Saturday, with no casualties reported, Likhachev said, adding that a local power substation has been targeted almost daily, making repair work impossible.

Energodar itself experienced a full blackout between April 30 and May 3 due to damage to electrical infrastructure, with hospitals and utilities running on emergency diesel generators, the Rosatom chief said.

“Choosing a nuclear power plant as a target is the most irresponsible step on the part of the Ukrainian authorities… Any strike on any building, any piece of equipment is a blow to the nuclear safety of the NPP… Not understanding this is the height of cynicism and recklessness.”

Russia took control of the Zaporozhye NPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, in March 2022, shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. All six reactors have been in shutdown since September 2022.

Read more

Moscow has accused Kiev of repeatedly striking the site and staging multiple military attempts to seize it, warning that the attacks risk triggering a nuclear catastrophe on the scale of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Ukraine has denied deliberately targeting the plant, claiming it was Moscow that was staging the attacks.

The escalation comes as Moscow announced a Victory Day ceasefire for May 8–9. Vladimir Zelensky, in response, declared a truce beginning midnight on May 5-6, but said that Ukraine would “act reciprocally” to Russia’s actions. Moscow has not acknowledged the offer, warning that any Ukrainian attempt to disrupt the Victory Day celebrations would trigger a “massive missile strike” on Kiev, urging foreign diplomats and civilians to leave the city.

Under the banner of autonomy, European elites are normalizing nuclear brinkmanship, the politics of fear, and blind Russophobia

There is something deeply unsettling in the tone of the EU’s current strategic debate. What is presented as prudence increasingly resembles panic. What is framed as ‘strategic autonomy’ often sounds like something else entirely: A loss of confidence, a surge of ideological hostility, and a willingness – among declining liberal elites – to flirt with the most destructive weapons ever created.

A continent losing its nerve – and its judgment

At the center of this shift stands a revived obsession with nuclear deterrence. France, Germany, and Poland are now openly discussing deeper engagement with nuclear strategy, invoking the usual talking points of deterrence and security. But beneath that lies a far more troubling dynamic: A growing fixation on Russia as an existential enemy and a readiness to escalate rather than de-escalate.

French President Emmanuel Macron has taken the lead, recasting France’s nuclear doctrine in the name of European security. His concept of ‘advanced deterrence’ is presented as a stabilizing innovation. In reality, it marks a dangerous step toward normalizing nuclear thinking across the continent.

Macron has framed the issue starkly, warning that Europe must be prepared to defend itself in a more uncertain world. He has spoken of opening a “strategic debate” on extending France’s nuclear protection to European partners – moving beyond the traditional Gaullist posture of strictly national deterrence.

But what is being normalized here is not merely cooperation – it is the political integration of nuclear weapons into EU identity. France is expanding its arsenal, ending long-standing transparency practices, and inviting other states into nuclear exercises and planning discussions. These steps may not violate treaties in a formal sense, but they erode the spirit of restraint that has underpinned European security for decades.

The message is as clear as it is dangerous: Nuclear weapons are once again acceptable instruments of policy.

Read more

‘Advanced deterrence’ or advanced escalation?

Even more striking is Germany’s shift. For generations, Berlin defined itself through restraint, shaped by the catastrophic legacy of the 20th century. Today, that restraint is visibly eroding.

German leaders now speak openly about the need to engage in nuclear deterrence discussions with France and other partners. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has indicated a willingness to explore new forms of cooperation, breaking with the cautious approach of his predecessors. German forces are preparing to take part in French nuclear exercises, and a joint ‘nuclear steering group’ has been established to align strategic coordination.

Officially, Germany remains within its legal commitments. It does not seek control over nuclear weapons. But politically, a threshold has been crossed. The normalization of nuclear discourse in Berlin signals a deeper transformation, driven less by careful strategy than by fear and pressure.

That fear is increasingly shaped by a hardened, ideological view of Russia that leaves little room for diplomacy or nuance.

The politics of fear

If France provides the doctrine and Germany the institutional weight, Poland supplies the emotional intensity. Polish leaders have been among the most vocal in calling for a stronger nuclear dimension to European security.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has declared that Poland seeks a future in which it is autonomous in nuclear deterrence. This is a remarkable statement from a non-nuclear state bound by international agreements. It reflects a profound sense of insecurity – but also a political environment in which escalation is becoming normalized.

At the same time, even within Poland there are voices of caution. Officials have acknowledged that European arrangements cannot replace the US nuclear umbrella and have warned against overestimating the effectiveness of new initiatives. Yet these warnings are increasingly drowned out by a louder narrative: That Russia represents an imminent and existential threat requiring extraordinary measures. This narrative, repeated across much of Europe, risks becoming self-fulfilling.

Read more

What unites these developments is not just concern about security, but a deeper ideological shift. Across Europe, a form of Russophobia has taken hold in political discourse – a tendency to interpret all Russian actions through the lens of aggression, while dismissing the possibility of negotiation or coexistence.

This mindset is now shaping strategic policy. Deterrence is no longer paired with diplomacy; it is replacing it. Military build-ups are not accompanied by serious efforts at dialogue; they are justified as ends in themselves.

This is obviously a dangerous trajectory. When an adversary is seen as inherently hostile and beyond engagement, escalation becomes the default response. Nuclear deterrence, in this context, is a tool of confrontation. Liberals push Europe toward a far more rigid and dangerous posture.

Delusions of autonomy

The idea of strategic autonomy deserves careful consideration. A more self-reliant EU could, in principle, contribute to global stability. But what is being pursued today is autonomy defined almost entirely in military and nuclear terms.

This is a distortion of the concept. True autonomy would involve the ability to pursue independent diplomacy, to mediate conflicts, and to reduce tensions. Instead, Europe’s current trajectory binds it more tightly to confrontation.

In this sense, the pursuit of nuclear deterrence is a sign of strategic confusion. It reflects a failure to imagine alternatives to escalation.

The implications extend far beyond Europe. The gradual normalization of nuclear discourse among non-nuclear states risks weakening the global non-proliferation regime. Other regions may follow Europe’s example, reinterpreting their own commitments and exploring new deterrence arrangements. The result could be a more fragmented and unstable international order.

The EU’s actions also risk complicating efforts to stabilize relations between major powers. Any attempt at rapprochement between Russia and the US becomes more difficult in an environment where European actors are actively escalating rhetoric and military postures. Instead of serving as a bridge, Europe is becoming an obstacle.

Read more

Militarization without restraint

The broader militarization of Europe follows the same pattern. Increased defense spending and rearmament are justified as necessary responses to a changing security environment. In principle, this is not unreasonable.

But in practice, militarization is being driven by a political climate that rewards alarmism and discourages restraint. And without a parallel commitment to de-escalation, military build-ups can easily spiral into confrontation.

What is unfolding in the EU today is a dangerous flirtation – by political elites under pressure, facing declining influence and legitimacy, and seeking to reassert control through displays of strength. Nuclear weapons, in this context, are symbols of resolve, power, and serious intent. But they also carry risks that cannot be controlled or reversed.

Stepping back from the brink

The EU does face real challenges and existential problems. The international environment is more uncertain, and the future of transatlantic relations is not guaranteed. But the answer to uncertainty cannot be a headlong rush into nuclear brinkmanship.

A different path remains possible – one that emphasizes diplomacy, restraint, and a genuine commitment to reducing tensions. This would require political courage of a different kind: The courage to resist fear, to question prevailing narratives, and to engage with perceived adversaries rather than simply confronting them.

Whether Europe’s leaders are willing to take that path remains an open question. For now, the signs are troubling.