The Kremlin’s “dogma” is flexible. Since the end of World War II, the USSR viewed the United States as its greatest ideological adversary. Under Putin’s leadership, it was believed that the war in Ukraine was in fact a war between the U.S. and Russia, with Europeans merely acting as American vassals. With Trump, the narrative shifted. Now, Europe is accused of being “fascist,” while Russia and the United States are cast as allies for “peace.” Françoise Thom offers a meticulous analysis of this new Russian doctrine, based on a document recently published by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).
The SVR’s Press Office has just released a programmatic document that deserves our full attention, as it aims to lay the historical and ideological foundation for the Russo-American alliance taking shape since Donald Trump’s return to power. That foundation is the destruction of democratic Europe. One notes a major shift in the Kremlin’s rhetoric about the European Union: no longer is Europe portrayed merely as the decadent liberal land of gays and lesbians, but as a Europe that is genetically fascist. This change began in fall 2024, when Sergei Karaganov, an expert close to the Kremlin1, launched a violent diatribe against Europe as ”the source of all the world’s ills… Europe is the worst thing humanity has produced in at least the past 500 years. I mean neocolonialism, racism, genocide, Nazism, etc. It must be eliminated… Historical Europe must be thrown into the dustbin of history so it can no longer poison humanity’s life.” Karaganov added: “Europe must be called what it truly is, to make the threat of nuclear weapons against it more credible and justifiable.” As soon as January 2025, Karaganov had formulated one of Russia’s immediate goals: ”It is urgent to temporarily remove Europe from solving global issues.” This shift shows the Kremlin’s realization that Russia’s Europe problem would not be solved merely by the American withdrawal from NATO. Much to their surprise, Russian leaders discovered that European countries are not the U.S. lapdogs their propaganda had portrayed since 1947. Instead, they have their own will and can resist Russian imperial pushes independently.
The SVR document is primarily aimed at the United States, as we will see. It may seem surprising that Moscow abandoned the theme of a “woke Europe,” which resonates far more with Trump supporters, in favor of the notion of an inherently ”fascist” Europe, as described by the SVR’s uniformed historians. This reversal is easily explained, though it is far from reassuring for us Europeans. In the eyes of the Putin regime, the formerly decadent Europe – obsessed with minorities and flooded with LGBT propaganda – posed no long-term threat: it was deemed to degenerate and die a natural death. Today’s Europe, however – standing firmly behind Ukraine despite wavering American support, awakening to its own identity, rearming, and positioning itself against – is seen as an enemy that must be crushed.
In the Kremlin’s mythology, any enemy of Russian autocracy is labeled ”fascist“or even “Nazi.” Thus, the theme of a “Nazi Europe” signals that the Kremlin is preparing ideologically for war against Europe, just as the denunciation of the “Nazis of Kyiv” prepared public opinion for the invasion of Ukraine. “Nazi Europe” has now become a standard trope in Kremlin propaganda. For example, Foreign Minister Lavrov indignantly criticized European leaders’ refusal to attend the Victory Day parade on May 92: “It is hard to understand why the EU wants to revive the European ideology of Nazism,” he said. In an article titled “How to Break Europe’s Back,” Karaganov laid out a program of action: “We must tell Europeans clearly: your elites will make you the next batch of cannon fodder, and if the war turns nuclear, we will not be able to protect Europe’s civilian population – as we try to protect Ukraine’s civilians (sic)… The European elites must be warned that they, and their places of residence, will be the first targets of nuclear retaliatory strikes. Hiding will not be possible.” He concluded: “Peace on the continent will only be established once we have broken Europe’s back again, as we did with our victories over Napoleon and Hitler, and when the current elites are replaced by a new generation. And this will not happen in a purely European context – Europe is finished – but in a Eurasian context.”
But let us first examine how Putin’s propagandists manipulate history in this document. For them, history is a toolkit from which weapons can be drawn to demoralize enemies or sway potential allies. What stands out is the sheer amateurism of the document’s authors, who hastily delivered a sloppy piece of work. Invoking the precedent of Jacobinism to support the theory of France’s congenital ”fascism” is particularly ironic, considering that the Jacobins inspired Lenin – who actually criticized the French revolutionaries for being too soft and not exterminating enough enemies of the people. Had the SVR scribes bothered to read Drieu La Rochelle’s writings more carefully, they would have avoided citing him as a theorist of Euro-fascism. In his 1934 work Socialisme Fascisme, Drieu wrote: “The paths of Mussolini and Stalin are converging3,” praising the “spirit of virile action4” he found in both Bolshevism and Fascism. In his Journal (June 16, 1934), he wrote: “This revival, this rebirth of the body, is the most intimate and powerful driving force behind the fascist, Hitlerian, and even Bolshevik movements.” And on September 2, 1943: “My hatred of democracy makes me hope for the triumph of communism5.”
Similarly, it would have been wiser for them to avoid mentioning French collaborators in German ranks: At no point did the number of French volunteers fighting for the Nazis exceed 6,500 – the lowest figure among all collaborationist countries in Europe. By contrast, more than a million Soviet citizens fought alongside the Germans! But the ideological foot soldiers of the Kremlin save their sharpest arrows for Great Britain.
In their eagerness to prove that foggy Albion was even more predisposed to “fascism” than France, our Chekist scribes fail to distinguish between monarchy and tyranny – a crucial difference articulated as early as the 5th Century BC by Socrates: “Monarchy is the rule of consenting men and of cities according to law, while tyranny is the government of men who are forced, against the rule of law, according to the will of whoever holds power6.” Nor do they hesitate to draw arguments from woke-inspired American university literature to fuel their hatred of the British Empire. According to them, it was England that inspired Hitler’s genocidal practices – presumably referring to the British concentration camps used during the Boer War (1900–1901).In truth, it was the Bolshevik example that inspired Hitler – as revealed in Goebbels’ diaries, which show how closely the Nazi leadership studied Bolshevik methods.
Russia created its first concentration camps as early as the summer of 1918, under Lenin’s orders to intern “kulaks, priests, White Guards, and other suspicious elements.” In short, the British Empire is depicted as even more horrific than fascism itself. Perfidious Albion is accused of all possible historical crimes: sympathy for Mussolini, elite collaboration with the Nazis, responsibility for the Cold War, and support for the Ukrainian government – nothing is spared. This extraordinary hostility toward Britain stems from two main causes: First, traditional Russian animosity toward Britain, which, more than any other European – and certainly more than the United States – consistently saw through Russia’s ambitions. Historically, British diplomacy pursued a single aim: maintaining the balance of power in Europe. Whenever a single country threatened to dominate the continent, Britain intervened to restore equilibrium. Thus, after Napoleon’s defeat and the Ottoman Empire’s weakening, Russia was poised to become the dominant power in Europe – prompting Britain to act, leading to the Crimean War (1853–1856), often painted by Slavophile propaganda as the peak of Russophobia, though it merely reflected Europe’s balance-of-power mechanisms. For the same reason, Britain played a key role in the onset of the Cold War. This leads to the second reason for Russia’s relentless attacks on Britain: At a time when Moscow dreams of a new Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact – this time with the United States – to divide Ukraine and claim hegemony over Central and Eastern Europe, it fears the ”special relationship” between London and Washington.
The SVR document includes numerous overtures toward a Russo-American entente against Europe. To appeal to Trump – and encourage his imperial ambitions in Canada – the text even recalls the burning of Washington in 1814 by British forces, who sought to divert American military resources from Canada by attacking Washington, burning the Capitol and the White House. Unsurprisingly, the Suez Crisis of 1956 is also invoked, when both the Soviets and the Americans intervened to stop ”the enraged Europeans.” Despite congratulating themselves that “Russia and Trump are now in the same boat,” the Russians fear that Trump could change course overnight, as he often does. Hence the Kremlin’s multifaceted efforts to anchor Trump firmly to Russia’s cause.
Just as Stalin went to great lengths to please Hitler during the Nazi–Soviet Pact era (August 1939–June 1941), even organizing Hitler’s favorite composer Wagner’s concerts in Moscow – Putin is now carefully courting Trump.
He commissions a portrait of Trump by a Russian artist. He dangles before Trump the prospect of building a Trump Tower in Moscow. Former Russian Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky announces that Russian history textbooks are being rewritten to celebrate Trump’s peace efforts. But the ultimate cement for the future Putin–Trump pact is hatred of Europe and the project to destroy the European Union. The Russians place high hopes in Trump’s ideologist Steve Bannon, who, according to political scientist Vladimir Mozhegov, aims to rely on the European right to “break European globalism and create, in place of today’s globalist Europe crushed by Eurocracy, a new Europe that is national and conservative… Bannon envisions a world of great powers, with three major players: America, China, and Central Eurasia – Russia, Europe, and India. A tripolar world according to his vision.”
Another objective of the Kremlin’s anti-European campaign is the demoralization of Europeans by instilling guilt, hence the portrayal of European history as an endless catalog of crimes. However, Europeans can respond that they do not have a monopoly on atrocities: Russia’s own history would make for an even more damning record – with one major difference: Europeans have confronted their past honestly and drawn lessons from it, whereas Russia glorifies its crimes, exalts Stalin’s genocidal practices, and continues to draw inspiration from them. Europeans know from experience where nationalist folly, dreams of Lebensraum, blind personality cults, fanaticism, contempt for law, and injustice lead. They understand that economies do not tolerate violence for long and eventually retaliate. As Georges Bernanos wrote: “European civilization, like every civilization that preceded it, was a compromise between the good and the evil in man, a system of defense against his instincts. There is no human instinct that cannot turn against man and destroy him7.” Today, we are facing two predators – Russia and the United States – where such a defense system no longer exists. Consumed by dreams of annihilating others’ freedoms, they are in fact destroying themselves with their own hands. Hubris is always punished sooner or later. This is the true lesson of history. Our duty as Europeans is to stand firm, to remain united, to neither underestimate our own strength nor overestimate that of Russia, to support Ukraine, and to foil the plans of the two predators plotting our downfall.
Eurofascism, as was the case 80 years ago, is the common enemy of Moscow and Washington
Press Bureau of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), April 16, 2025
A retrospective analysis of the policies of Western states demonstrates Europe’s “historical predisposition” to various forms of totalitarianism, which periodically give rise to destructive global conflicts. According to experts, the current rift in relations between the United States and European Union countries, which accuse Donald Trump of authoritarianism, becomes – against the backdrop of the upcoming 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War – a factor promoting a situational rapprochement between Washington and Moscow, as has occurred on several occasions in the past.
This is evidenced, in particular, by the scandal surrounding the demands made by French Member of the European Parliament Raphael Glucksmann, who called on the Americans – “who have decided to side with tyrants” – to return to Paris the Statue of Liberty, previously gifted to the United States. Glucksmann, representing globalist forces and a staunch supporter of the Kyiv regime, criticized the occupant of the Oval Office for weakening support for Ukraine and for dismissing government officials with liberal views. White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt sharply rebuked the “impertinent Gaul,” reminding him that it was only thanks to the goodwill of the United States, whose troops landed in Normandy in 1944, that he was able to express his thoughts in French rather than in German.
Attention was drawn to the fact that France has repeatedly seen the rise to power of dictatorial regimes known for particular atrocities and cruelty. Among them are the Jacobin dictatorship, which between 1793 and 1794 killed thousands of its own citizens and imprisoned 300,000 on suspicion of “counter-revolution,” as well as the bloody actions of Napoleon. America owes its freedom to the willingness of the ancestors of modern Americans to resist dictatorships such as the British monarchy and the Jacobin revolution.
According to experts, the concept of Eurofascism was introduced, and its ideology justified as inherent not only to Germans but to other European “societies,” in the works of French writer and publicist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, who collaborated with the German occupation authorities during World War II. In this context, mention may be made here of the French volunteer “Charlemagne” SS division, named after Charlemagne, the “unifier of Europe”. Soldiers of this division defended the Reichstag against the assault of the Red Army up until the final hours of the Hitler regime. Twelve of these Nazi fanatics were captured by American forces but were later handed over to French General Philippe Leclerc. On May 8, 1945, by his order and without unnecessary judicial proceedings, all these war criminals were executed.
In conservative expert circles in the United States, the British elite – mentioned by a representative of Donald Trump – is considered particularly prone to committing the most serious crimes against humanity. Harvard University Professor Caroline Elkins convincingly argues that it was from the British that Nazi Germany’s totalitarian regime borrowed the idea of concentration camps and the practice of genocide. She emphasizes that British “liberal imperialism” is an even more stable and therefore more destructive force than fascism, due to its “ideological elasticity” – its ability to distort facts, conceal realities, and adapt to new circumstances.
Security and defense expert Lauren Young writes about the close ties between the British aristocracy, including the royal family, and the German Nazis. Attention is drawn to a visit to Italy, prior to the outbreak of World War II, by future British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who was reportedly left with a favorable impression of the local fascist regime. Churchill’s inflammatory speech at Fulton in 1946 became the trigger for the active involvement of the United States and Europe in the Cold War against the USSR. During this period, the British – akin to Goebbels’ “lying machine” — engaged in “black propaganda,” disinformation campaigns, and special operations that, according to Western experts, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Africa, the Middle East, and Indonesia.
In this regard, analysts are not surprised by London’s leading and destructive role in the Ukrainian conflict. The British actively encourage the Kyiv regime, which glorifies punitive forces that fought on Hitler’s side – Banderite executioners – and today commits numerous crimes against humanity. America experienced similar British inclinations as early as August 1814, when British forces occupied Washington, burning the Capitol and the White House. According to experts, it may be in light of these historical events that some American historians have suggested that Britain be rightfully considered the first ”empire of evil.”
Experts recall that there were past instances where Washington and Moscow partnered to counter London and Paris on the international stage. A characteristic example is the Suez Crisis of 1956, during which the firm positions of the USSR and the United States halted the tripartite aggression by Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt. Another little-known episode in Western history is the Crimean War of 1853–1856, during which Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia united against Russia (similar to today’s “coalition of the willing”). Although formally maintaining neutrality, the sympathies of the White House at that time were on the side of Saint Petersburg. Evidence of this includes the participation of American doctors in treating the defenders of Sevastopol, the “request of 300 riflemen from Kentucky” to be sent to defend the city, and the activities of the Russian-American Company supplying gunpowder and provisions to Russian fortresses and possessions on the Pacific coast.
Notably, during that Crimean “expedition,” Anglo-French forces bombarded Odesa and ravaged Eupatoria, Kerch, Mariupol, Berdyansk, and other cities of Novorossiya – cities that the West today labels as Ukrainian. These same cities and villages were ruthlessly destroyed by German fascists during the Great Patriotic War.
Eighty years ago, all the peoples of the Soviet Union took part in the sacred battles against German and other European fascists. In Crimea, monuments commemorate the soldiers from units formed in the former Soviet republics – Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia – who died during the assault on Sevastopol in 1944. Similar memorials, along with graves of Holocaust victims – whose executioners are praised by Kyiv, as Israel still turns a blind eye on this behavior – are scattered throughout Donbas.
As for Russian-American relations in the context of past and present events, foreign expert circles express hope that Moscow and Washington will once again join forces to prevent the world from sliding into a new global conflict and to counter possible provocations from Ukraine and the “Europeans gone mad,” as always encouraged by Britain.
She has a degree in classical literature and spent 4 years in the USSR from 1973 to 1978. She is an agrégée in Russian and teaches Soviet history and international relations at Paris Sorbonne.
Footnotes
- Russian political scientist who heads the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, an institution that analyzes security issues. He is also dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. He is considered close to Putin and Lavrov. Editor’s note:
- The Russians, like the Soviets before them, celebrate the victory over the Nazis on May 9, not the 8th. Editor’s note:
- Drieu la Rochelle, Socialisme Fascisme, Gallimard 1934, p. 108
- Ibid. p. 129
- Drieu la Rochelle, Journal, 1939-1945, Gallimard, 1992, p. 353
- Xénophon, Mémorables, IV, 6.12
- G. Bernanos, Liberté pour quoi faire ? Gallimard 1953, p. 151