Another Hitler-Stalin pact upon Europe?

[Daniel Balan]

Guys what do you think, what are the chances that Donald Trump and Putin will divide Europe upon spheres of influence the same way Hitler and Stalin devided the continent upon spheres of influence in 1939? 

I believe that this could happen given how hard MAGA works in concordance with Russia to destroy the EU.

I believe that there is a good chance that the Russians and the Americans will want to split Europe in two the same way Hitler and Stalin spilt the second Polish republic in two. 

This time America's sphere of influence will be the same as it was during the cold war and Russia will want to have the former Warsaw pact countries under its sphere of influence.

I believe that this is the end game that Putin and Trump are preparing for Europe. 

What do you think of my hypothesis?

[Daniel Balan]

I think I finally understood what the war in Ukriane is about! It is about what Russia would have liked to do in 1989 but couldn't and wasn't capable of. To militarily intervene into the countries that broke free from its sphere of influence. This war is basically what they would have done if they had the economic power to do at the end of the cold war. To invade and to maintain via military intervention its sphere of influence. In 1956 and 1968 they had the power to squash rebellion and disobedience, in 1989 and 1991 they lost that power, and the war in Ukraine is simply undoing with the newly gained prowess what was lost in 1991 and 1989 during times of weakness.

Edited Monday at 11:29 PM by Daniel Balan

[Basman]

They are both dead so I'm not sure how they would accomplish that. 

[Daniel Balan]

9 hours ago, Basman said:

They are both dead so I'm not sure how they would accomplish that. 

Please read the body of the post not just the title. Hitler and Stalin are now Putin and Trump.

[Ajay0]

10 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

This time America's sphere of influence will be the same as it was during the cold war and Russia will want to have the former Warsaw pact countries under its sphere of influence.

I believe that this is the end game that Putin and Trump are preparing for Europe. 

What do you think of my hypothesis?

I think Putin does not want countries neighboring Russia like Ukraine to be part of Nato, a military alliance hostile to Russia. This is highly understandable as no country on earth wants a hostile military force in its neighborhood.

For example, the US threatened Russia during the cuban crisis with nuclear war, if it did not remove its wmd targetting the US from Cuba.

Putin is okay with Ukraine being part of EU though.

[Basman]

I doubt very much that the goal is to physically split Europe. They can't realistically do that.

More likely, they seek to promulgate governments in Europe that are ideologically aligned with the Kremlin, IE. authoritarian. More AFDs, Trumps, Nigel Farages, etc. Undermine the EU and NATO as much as possible.

11 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

I think I finally understood what the war in Ukriane is about! It is about what Russia would have liked to do in 1989 but couldn't and wasn't capable of. To militarily intervene into the countries that broke free from its sphere of influence. This war is basically what they would have done if they had the economic power to do at the end of the cold war. To invade and to maintain via military intervention its sphere of influence. In 1956 and 1968 they had the power to squash rebellion and disobedience, in 1989 and 1991 they lost that power, and the war in Ukraine is simply undoing with the newly gained prowess what was lost in 1991 and 1989 during times of weakness.

Soviet nostalgia is being used as propaganda to justify the war, but it is really about political control for the sake of regime security. Putin isn't actually a communist. He's only interested in the part where Russia was "once great". Putin personally is in "self-defense" mode and sees Ukrainian sovereignty as a threat. The goal is political control, which is why it is not necessarily necessary to be physically at war with Ukraine if it sufficiently undermines Ukraine's sovereignty (Russia would agree to a peace deal if the outcome is worse for Ukraine politically than continued war for example). You see this with the hybrid warfare against Europe. The goal is to promulgate governments that are conducive to Russian influence.

Edited 20 hours ago by Basman

[Basman]

It is correct that Trump and Putin are ideologically allies. 

[Entrepreneur]

I don't think its anything like Hitler-Stalin or the Hitler-Stalin pact.

I think it is about hegemony.   The US has it and doesn't want to lose it.   Russia lost it around 1990 and Putin wants it back.   And Putin is willing to send as many of his people to their death as necessary to get it back.

Putin is pissed that old Soviet Union collapsed and wants to rebuild it and even expand it for the glory of Russia and for his own demented lust for history to see him as a powerful Russian Tzar.

The US currently enjoys some level of hegemony over individual European nations on an economic and military basis, but it is waning with time as the world continues to flatten.   Russia is already a "has-been" empire as is shown by its recent attempts to flex its military muscles.

[Daniel Balan]

@Entrepreneur @Basman I really think that Putin and Trump have already had their Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with secret protocols that puts western Europe under the sphere of influence of the US and Eastern and central Europe under the Russian sphere of influence. Russians aren't in the war for territory, they are after their lost sphere of influence. Those 3 years left on Trump's presidency will allow Putin the window to recapture its sphere of influence the same way Hitler allowed Stalin to capture its sphere of influence in 1939 and 1940.

You can't change my mind one bit. This is not a conspiracy, this is the real deal, this is not a drill.

[zazen]

I think it’s less ideological and more that the cost-benefit doesn’t add up in favour of continuing the war. Ukraine was instrumentalized in weakening / containing Russia indirectly - it was never meant to defeat Russia decisively. It’s now reaching it’s threshold of use. Any further support that can be given to decisively defeat Russia now risks direct war and involvement of NATO which isn’t desirable ie flirting with troops on the ground or tomahawks etc.

Have a look also at the latest 33 page national security strategy that’s been released: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

The sentiment among Europeans is the Europe has been “dropped”. But realistically - what is the end game otherwise? Continue escalating to WW3.. Ukraine was an asset that now has become a liability - it’s not sentimental but strategic. Geopolitics is a cold game that should avoid being moralised.

This is from back in February commenting on project 2025 - seems in line what what’s happening now:

On 25/02/2025 at 11:48 AM, zazen said:

Same, this is a clear pivot in foreign policy to rehabilitate the US-Russia relationship. Some are saying this is for the purpose of saving attention and resources in order to counter China which is a much greater rival to US hegemony. This aligns with much of project 2025. Ukraine is just secondary to this goal, and something that needs to be dealt with to free up those resources and energy. 

From the 2025 Mandate - https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

''In this light, U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counter terrorism enterprise. U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea. The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our freeworld efforts together.''

On Ukraine specifically, note how they mention China again (also note that Russia is metioned 108 times vs China's 483 times) :

''Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.  

The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives.''

Another view I've seen is that China needs to be countered sooner rather than later when it becomes too big to be able to counter, hence the speed of the shift we are seeing.

The thing about being a vassal state is that you don’t always get the memo when the empire changes course. Europe is suffering from inertia. The war machine needed Europe to be hysterical about Russia, and now that it’s wound up, it’s running on autopilot. The real irony is that Europe should be the one pushing for peace as they can’t escape geography, but US's geography allows it to play imperial games with little consequence. 

Europe needs to build its strength, power and sovereignty. The US wants “strong allies in Europe” but not sovereign. But Europe can only have sovereignty and do what’s in its best interest once it has the strength to do so - which right now it doesn’t. They outsourced the hardest pillar of sovereignty which is military - to the US. They are now energetically less sovereign and dependent on the US also.

They should copy China’s strategy - lay low and bide your time. Build strategic self sufficiently and optionally (multiple energy sources) in the background so no one can dictate to them. But for all this they also need to compete and innovate economically especially in tech which they  are behind China and the US in.

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

I think it’s less ideological and more that the cost-benefit doesn’t add up in favour of continuing the war. Ukraine was instrumentalized in weakening / containing Russia indirectly - it was never meant to defeat Russia decisively. It’s now reaching it’s threshold of use. Any further support that can be given to decisively defeat Russia now risks direct war and involvement of NATO which isn’t desirable ie flirting with troops on the ground or tomahawks etc.

Have a look also at the latest 33 page national security strategy that’s been released: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

The sentiment among Europeans is the Europe has been “dropped”. But realistically - what is the end game otherwise? Continue escalating to WW3.. Ukraine was an asset that now has become a liability - it’s not sentimental but strategic. Geopolitics is a cold game that should avoid being moralised.

This is from back in February commenting on project 2025 - seems in line what what’s happening now:

Europe needs to build its strength, power and sovereignty. The US wants “strong allies in Europe” but not sovereign. But Europe can only have sovereignty and do what’s in its best interest once it has the strength to do so - which right now it doesn’t. They outsourced the hardest pillar of sovereignty which is military - to the US. They are now energetically less sovereign and dependent on the US also.

They should copy China’s strategy - lay low and bide your time. Build strategic self sufficiently and optionally (multiple energy sources) in the background so no one can dictate to them. But for all this they also need to compete and innovate economically especially in tech which they  are behind China and the US in.

Thanks bro! Liked reading your post! But what do you think, is it possible that the US and Russia have already split Europe in half, and as years pass, Russia will take its sphere of influence back, dismembering the EU? The same way Germany and Russia split Europe and Poland in half in the secret protocols of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact? 

Edited 11 hours ago by Daniel Balan

[Basman]

16 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Thanks bro! Liked reading your post! But what do you think, is it possible that the US and Russia have already split Europe in half, and as years pass, Russia will take its sphere of influence back, dismembering the EU? The same way Germany and Russia split Europe and Poland in half in the secret protocols of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact? 

It should be pretty obvious that European countries have their own agency. The US and Russia even less have that ability to dictate European sovereignty like it's the 1940s. Russia can't even take a small country like Ukraine after hundreds of thousands of deaths and three years of continuous war. 

A mistake I often see when people analyze the Ukraine war is discounting the agency of Ukraine and other European countries and acting like big countries like the US, Russia and China are the only players on the field. Treating geopolitics as a cause and effect of the whims of big countries, which is partially true, but reductive if treated as the whole and only picture when it is not.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

I think you are correct about what Putin wants - to resurrect the USSR and regain it's original sphere of influence. However, from the Trump's point of view this theory doesn't make a lot of sense; granted, it's not really clear to me what he really wants and perhaps it's not entirely clear to himself either, but why would he want Russia becoming strong? Why would he want eastern and central Europe to slip into Russia's control, when these zones are already under Nato's (and thus essentially under US) control? If the reasoning is that they are ideological alies and therefore his aim is to be buddy-buddy with authoritarian regimes, then why did he authorize air strikes against Iran, why tariff China? Why bother with any Ukraine peace negotiations when the sphere's of influence are already decided? I'm seeing some flaws in your logic

[Daniel Balan]

59 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

I think you are correct about what Putin wants - to resurrect the USSR and regain it's original sphere of influence. However, from the Trump's point of view this theory doesn't make a lot of sense; granted, it's not really clear to me what he really wants and perhaps it's not entirely clear to himself either, but why would he want Russia becoming strong? Why would he want eastern and central Europe to slip into Russia's control, when these zones are already under Nato's (and thus essentially under US) control? If the reasoning is that they are ideological alies and therefore his aim is to be buddy-buddy with authoritarian regimes, then why did he authorize air strikes against Iran, why tariff China? Why bother with any Ukraine peace negotiations when the sphere's of influence are already decided? I'm seeing some flaws in your logic

The reason Trump wants to give half of Europe to Putin it is because this is the only thing that will secure a forever peace on the European continent, nothing short of complete restauration of the old Soviet sphere of influence will satisfy Russia and Putin, without Trump giving on a silver platter half of Europe to Russia's sphere of influence, Russia will always threaten Europe with war. Once Russia has her lost sphere of influence back, it will stop any aggression towards the remainder of Europe. Russia will sell its oil to western Europe that will be under thr US influence and things will be peachy for both the US and Russia. 

Russia always tells that the former USSR sphere of influence was won with 20 million of Russian lives that were lost, and because of those dozens of millions of casualty, they feel entitled to that sphere of influence. And America has nothing to gain form Eastern Europe really, America has to gain from the riches of Western Europe, not from the backward second world countries of Eastern Europe, which are culturally and developmentally almost identical to Russia. Eastern European countries have huge problems with corruption. 

For Trump it is a win to get rid of some dead weight in Eastern Europe while gaining a lot of friendship and business and other goodies from the partnership with Russia. Plus, Russia will no longer attack anyone once it gets its sphere of influence back. Thats the only guarantee for peace. Thats why before the Ukraine war begun, Russia wanted NATO to roll back all teritory acquired after 1997. After 1997 all the countries from the former Warsaw pact joined NATO. Those demands were no coincidence. That is the real endgame for Russia. 

@Leo Gura what do you think?

Edited 8 hours ago by Daniel Balan

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

It should be pretty obvious that European countries have their own agency. The US and Russia even less have that ability to dictate European sovereignty like it's the 1940s. Russia can't even take a small country like Ukraine after hundreds of thousands of deaths and three years of continuous war. 

A mistake I often see when people analyze the Ukraine war is discounting the agency of Ukraine and other European countries and acting like big countries like the US, Russia and China are the only players on the field. Treating geopolitics as a cause and effect of the whims of big countries, which is partially true, but reductive if treated as the whole and only picture when it is not.

Divide and conquer. Tell me, why is MAGA calling for the collapse and the dismemberment of the EU? Once the EU is no more, each individual small country can be toyed around like a bitch by the great powers. You can't toy with the EU, but you can toy with the countries that make up the EU, once you divide and destroy the EU, the continent is ripe for the taking, for both Russia and the US. 

 

[Jodistrict]

Russia can't conquer Ukraine.  America couldn't subdue Afghanistan after 20 years of trying.  Maybe their power is overestimated.  What they want to do and what they can do are two different things.  

[Jannes]

Well Vlad Vexler would argue that because of Trumps narcisstic supply dependence on Putin he would act in ways to let both of them be winners in the end and this would be such a way.

[Daniel Balan]

23 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Russia can't conquer Ukraine.  America couldn't subdue Afghanistan after 20 years of trying.  Maybe their power is overestimated.  What they want to do and what they can do are two different things.  

It is not about conquering land via war and military prowess, it is about spheres of influence. It only depends on Russia and US to draw a line in the middle of Europe and east of that line will be influenced by Russia and west of that line will be under the influence of the US. This can be done almost effortlessly once both Russia and The US destroy the EU unity.

[Basman]

43 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Divide and conquer. Tell me, why is MAGA calling for the collapse and the dismemberment of the EU? Once the EU is no more, each individual small country can be toyed around like a bitch by the great powers. You can't toy with the EU, but you can toy with the countries that make up the EU, once you divide and destroy the EU, the continent is ripe for the taking, for both Russia and the US. 

 

Because its woke technocratic big government. MAGA hates the EU ideologically. Authoritarians hate checks on power. Not because they are planning to conquer Europe necessary. 

It's laughable to think that Russia can take on a head on war with Europe. If it could it would already done so, instead of bothering with all this hybrid warfare. A head on war is the last thing Russia wants.

[Sandroew]

The Soviet Union wont happen again. Virtually none of the ex members want to partake in a divided Europe especially not led by Russia. Its not 1950 anymore, it doesnt work like that anymore. Clearly Europe has enough agency to defend itself and its not “ripe for taking” like you imagine it is.

Putin is such a fucking moron. What he should have done after 1989 is taking a step back, fucking process what happend in the meantime, and move on from the world view that was created in a century with two fucking world wars. Then he could have built a strong Eastern block with Russia as a flagship, but based on collaboration instead of dominance. Noone says that Russia has to be an enemy of Europe, it could be a part of it by now. But no, Putin plays the big bad wolf for 30 fucking years, goes as far as annexing Crimea in 2014 and now wants to play the victim when NATO stands up against him. Its your own fucking fault, you dickhead! Look at China, they sort of understood the assignment and they are doing a lot better than Russia.

I just hope when Putin dies his attitude goes with him. The world is ready to change for the better.