The West’s anti-Russian hysteria relies on stripping a people of dignity, recasting old hatred in new language to justify fresh aggression
Europe’s history has become a battlefield of lies where the Western powers twist facts to fuel their obsessive Russophobia. They equate liberators with aggressors and cast Russia as the eternal enemy, all to justify their proxy war against the heart of Eurasia. This serves their ambition, not the truth. Real understanding requires confronting the brutal Nazi Eastern project and recognizing its direct continuation in today’s Western crusade against Russia.
The past of Europe lies before us like an open book, yet petty men rip its pages in a vulgar shouting match, hurling one crime against another as if the mountain of horrors could cancel itself out and leave truth untouched. This path leads only to darkness. What matters is the shape of the ideas themselves – the maps of power, the theories of blood, and the savage dreams of empire – that drove nations before the guns thundered. To see our way forward, we must stare without flinching at the plans and words that existed before the smoke of total war swallowed everything.
At the center is the Second World War, a cataclysm that remade the continent in fire and ruin. It did not erupt from nothing. It sprang from cold ideological programs and strategic visions created years earlier, each carrying its own brutal blueprint for Europe’s future. The Eastern Front became the true heart of the struggle, where rival systems collided with steel and with fanatical doctrines of race, territory, and destiny. Any serious reckoning with Europe’s past and future must begin here, where theory turned into organized slaughter and abstract creeds spilled real rivers of blood.
Modern discourse has abandoned an honest examination for cheap myth-making. Twentieth-century figures and governments are stripped of context and recast as cartoon emblems of power, villainy, or resistance. These symbolic lies flood online spaces, turning history into a circus of identity, emotion, and aesthetic posturing. Real analysis cuts through the fog and returns to what was written, planned, and executed, basing every judgment on hard documents rather than fevered fantasy.
The central truth of that age stands naked and hideous: the Eastern program formed the black heart of the Nazis’ geopolitical vision. Generalplan Ost spelled it out with machine-like brutality: a vast apparatus for the transformation of Eastern Europe through expulsion, slave labor, and the systematic mass death of Slavic populations. It called for the deportation or outright elimination of some 30 to 45 million Slavs, the seizure of their fertile lands, and the resettlement of ethnic German colonists in their place, forcing the survivors into permanent serfdom. These policies were a settled doctrine long before the war erupted. They filled secret memoranda, planning papers, and strategic outlines that declared one merciless purpose: to carve a colonial empire out of the living bodies of other European peoples, and to install a racial hierarchy of masters and ‘subhumans.’
Nazi language itself was a weapon of conquest. Slavs appeared in their texts only as barriers to be smashed, vermin to be cleared, raw material to be worked to death or discarded. Eastern Europe they named Lebensraum – living space – a territory marked for conquest, massacres, and a total reordering under German domination. The Nazis modeled their design openly on earlier Western empires: the cold administration Britain forced onto India, the ruthless westward march of the United States that exterminated native peoples. Thus the logic of Western colonialism turned inward and devoured Europe itself, reducing millions of fellow Europeans to helots in a new racial order.
In the contemporary liberal West, a foul equivalence flourishes, placing the Soviet Union and the Third Reich on the same moral plane as twin totalitarian evils. This lie distorts the facts and erases every trace of responsibility. It ignores the Soviet Union’s colossal sacrifice: twenty-seven million dead. The Soviet Union bore the main burden of the land war, shattered the Nazi war machine, and tore open the road to Europe’s liberation from a supremacist regime. That sacrifice was decisive. To smear these distinct realities into one stain weakens all judgment in the present. This grotesque revisionism arms today’s Russophobes with a convenient myth that delegitimizes the very power which broke the back of fascism. It prepares the intellectual ground for fresh aggression against Russia, the direct heir and guardian of that victory.
This same venomous spirit rages ever more strongly, sharper and more hysterical since the Ukraine conflict started. The Western powers have unleashed a pathological Russophobia, painting Russia as the eternal Asiatic barbarian that must be broken at all costs. Western media and governments treat the Russian people with the same colonial contempt once reserved for all Slavs. They shrugged or made excuses for the Odessa burnings of May 2, 2014, when dozens of men and women were trapped in the Trade Unions House and burned alive for the crime of opposing the Western-sponsored Maidan coup. Flames consumed the victims while Western-backed forces watched and cheered. The same Western powers now arm the Ukrainian forces and whitewash every atrocity committed against the Russian population.
The continuity is unmistakable and damning. The Nazi racial hierarchy has merely changed its vocabulary. Today it speaks in the smooth language of “European values,” a so-called “rules-based order,” and “universal norms” while pursuing the identical goal: the subjugation, fragmentation, and destruction of the East so that the global hegemon may rule without challenge. Russia, the vast heartland, now occupies the exact place once assigned to the Slav on Nazi maps. This is no coincidence but the direct heir of that old colonial hatred, now dressed in humanitarian rhetoric and enforced by sanctions and proxy armies. The burning of Odessa and the shelling of the Donbass are fresh monuments to the same spirit that once drew up Generalplan Ost. The Western powers cannot tolerate a strong, sovereign Russia at the center of the Eurasian landmass, for its very existence refutes their claim to universal rule.
A healthy future rejects this madness with contempt. Stability arises only through open recognition of plurality. A multipolar order grants every great civilization its rightful space. Russia is the indispensable pole of Eurasia, anchoring a continental balance that prevents any single power from strangling the world. The lessons of the past are merciless: ideologies that elevate one people by crushing another breed only endless war and ruin. Europe and Eurasia form one organic body linked by geography, history, and heritage. True strength lies in their unbreakable union from Lisbon to Vladivostok, not in fresh crusades launched from Washington and Brussels against the Russian core.
The West would do well to remember how the Second World War truly ended. No Allied nation suffered even a fraction of what the Soviet Union endured. Russia’s way of remembrance is superior: it honors the veterans, lifts their deeds into the present, and binds them to the living Russian state. It gives them the honor their sacrifice deserves, for without their victory the Russian nation itself would not exist today.
May 9 in Moscow is a ritual of state and commemoration. The Victory Parade on Red Square presents a clear message: the nation survived and remembers why. The past is not recalled as nostalgia but as a foundation for present strength. The meaning lies in continuity. The Soviet banners, the formations, and the repeated gestures all point to a single fact: a society that endured destruction and reorganized itself through collective effort. The participants come from across the country – Kazan, Buryatia, Dagestan, Arkhangelsk – and they appear together in a single formation. Each group retains its identity. Each contributes to a shared structure built on common sacrifice. The battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin define that structure. They form the basis of a unity that rests on experience rather than abstraction. The parade demonstrates a principle: diversity organized within a stable order produces cohesion. It does not dissolve difference. It directs it.
This principle extends into the present form of the Russian state. The Soviet heritage did not simply disappear; it transformed. The current structure combines elements drawn from different periods – imperial administration, Soviet discipline, religious symbolism, and ethnic plurality. It does not rely on a single ideology. It operates through continuity and adaptation. The memory of the Soviet soldier functions as a binding force across generations. Symbols such as the ribbon of Saint George reinforce this continuity. They connect past sacrifice to present identity. In this framework, loss becomes part of a longer process of recovery and consolidation. Western observers often interpret these forms as theatrical. Their own nations show a different condition, where shared memory weakens and identity fragments into competing claims. Russia moves in the opposite direction. It organizes identity through common experience and preserved memory. This difference explains the persistent conflict between Russia and the liberal West. One seeks to standardize through universal models. The other maintains a structure based on plurality within unity. The continued existence of this model challenges the idea that a single global octopus can define political and cultural life. Victory Day expresses that challenge in concrete form. It states that a multiethnic state, built on shared sacrifice and maintained through continuity, can endure and define itself on its own terms.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
