Будущая война в Европе

Overview

The speaker reviews an article in Foreign Military Review (issue 5, year 26) by Capt. 1st Rank N. Bashkirov, which allegedly describes how Western military analysts view a future war in Europe involving Russia.

Main claims about the likely character of the war

Western experts, as presented by the speaker, expect that:

• The long post-1945 peace in Western Europe is ending, with a war against Russia planned for the “turn of the 2030s.”
• The coming conflict would be a long “war of attrition,” not a short decisive campaign.
• The West would prevent or limit nuclear escalation by Russia.
• The U.S. would participate in a large-scale European war mainly through “rear” support of an anti-Russian coalition.

Geography and trigger scenarios (Baltics, Kaliningrad, Transnistria)

The speaker frames escalation as tied to specific regions and disputes, including:

• NATO deployment around the Baltic Sea as central to the war’s opening conditions (“window to Europe”).
• Two “conscripted from military books” escalation triggers:
  1. Kaliningrad disputes, linked to Poland’s historical/geopolitical aims (returning/reshaping borders).
  2. Transnistria as a second possible trigger.
• The expectation that conflicts over these areas would likely draw in Baltic states, Finland, and Poland.

Economic and logistics strategy: striking Russian infrastructure and routes

According to the speaker’s retelling of Western analysis, NATO would:

• Increase destruction of Russia’s “critical economic facilities” to accelerate Western victory.
• Target the Baltic Sea’s transport role for Russia by:
  • Conducting NATO mine-laying exercises (cited as up to ~3,700 sea mines per week).
  • Blocking exits connected to the Gulf of Finland, restricting Russian operations in northern/high-latitude economic areas.

This approach is tied to efforts to prevent activity along the Northern Sea Route (e.g., Murmansk/Arkhangelsk and Yamal oil production). The speaker compares these dynamics to wartime German raider behavior and coastal disruption.

Nuclear posture and the role of space

The speaker claims the reviewed analysis emphasizes that:

• UK/French nuclear forces function as an “umbrella” for Western Europe, relying largely on submarines (with the argument that a disarming strike would be difficult).
• The U.S. is portrayed as pursuing political objectives with comparatively less direct military involvement.

A major Western concern, as presented, is Russia’s potential large-scale use of anti-satellite weapons, which could generate space debris and degrade satellite availability for decades.

The speaker also adds a purported Russian “clear right decision” in such a scenario:

• Mass nuclear use in space to destroy satellite constellations (Western, Russian, and Chinese), preventing the West from achieving decisive situational awareness and targeting superiority.

Operational end-state: air superiority, blockade, and prolonged war

The speaker describes the anticipated end-state as:

• Quickly obtaining air superiority to enable sustained operations and a prolonged, bloody war.
• Blocking Russia from western and northern exits, and potentially from eastern routes if the conflict expands eastward.
• Using space and aerospace control to make war conduct more “routinely,” reducing reliance on human risk.

“Spiritual potential” and readiness planning

A key “needed” factor for Western success is described as:

• Societal resilience and long-term endurance.

The speaker asserts the West would use “4–6 years” before the war to prepare populations via information-driven education and training systems (contrasted with his own generation’s experience). He also recalls a mobilization-era tendency for people to flee abroad, citing an anecdote about Germans planning to leave the country.

Additional historical framing and commentary

The speaker includes broader historical analogies and interpretation, arguing that:

• Europe has mobilized “against Russia” before (e.g., Napoleon and Hitler-era framing), and the current situation is framed as another iteration using modern technology and potential technological gaps.
• NATO’s approach is not “Ukrainian-style” warfare, but large-scale infrastructure and economic destruction.
• The reviewed magazine does not present detailed plans for “dismembering Russia,” focusing instead on infrastructure and economic targeting.

Presenters or contributors

• Capt. 1st Rank N. Bashkirov — author of the Foreign Military Review article being retold (“Views of foreign military experts on the nature of a future war in Europe”).
• The video speaker (reader/commentator) — an unnamed presenter who summarizes and comments on the Bashkirov article and adds personal remarks.