In Munich 2007, the story we are told about international events sounds like a fairy tale: Europe prospering in its post-war tranquility, with open borders, cheap energy, NATO as a charity, and Russia as a gas station. And suddenly, one day, the barbarian knocked on the door for no reason. But this narrative is not only inaccurate; it is functional. It is the propaganda used so that the West can continue living within a self-destructive habit without admitting reality.
What is the truth
The truth is much uglier and more damning. On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin stood on the stage considered most superficially friendly to the Atlantic alliance, the Munich Security Conference, where Western officials applaud themselves for maintaining "order," and presented before them the foundations of the coming catastrophe. He did not whisper in the background; he used the microphone to deliver a harsh dose of truth, however difficult it was for the West to swallow. Putin did not follow the standard diplomatic theater, where everyone agrees publicly and stabs each other in secret annexes. Instead, he avoided "pleasant but empty diplomatic platitudes." And worst of all, he described the West as an empire. He named "monopolar intoxication" as the delusional post-Cold War perception that history had ended, power had found its final owner, NATO could expand without consequences, and international law was optional for the sovereigns and mandatory for everyone else.
Putin’s argument
His core argument was simple and relentless: a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, it is impossible. Not "unfair," not rude — impossible. "One center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making" is a world where security is privatized — the powerful interpret the rules for themselves, the weak are obliged to accept it as morality. And when you build such a world, the rest do the only logical thing: they stop trusting the legal wall and start arming for survival. Putin said clearly: when force becomes the default language, "it encourages an arms race." The Western media stripped away the essential meaning, presenting Munich 2007 as "Putin’s rage," while in reality, it was Russia publishing its "red lines" before the establishment. Putin clearly raised the issue of NATO expansion and asked a question that no Western leader answers honestly: "Against whom is this expansion intended?"
The hour of truth
Putin further shattered illusions: what happened to the assurances given after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? "No one remembers them." Putin’s prediction was not mystical. He understood the Western motive: a secure system that expands needs threats, a unipolar ideology needs disobedience to punish, a "rules-for-all" system that breaks its own rules must produce a narrative, and an economic model that exports its industry must ensure energy and obedience. Putin warned: you cannot build global security on humiliation and expect stability. He had seen the wreckage in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq — and knew the same scenario would repeat with Georgia, Syria, Libya, Iran, and Russia if no action was taken. Furthermore, he predicted that Russia would never accept a subservient role in its own neighborhood, on its own borders, under the military umbrella of a wannabe hegemon.
The reaction
The Western narrative followed the classic path: "neighbors" when Russia says it, "security guarantees" when Washington says it. The hysteria began immediately. The speech was treated as an insult, not as an offer for negotiation, and European and American elites, including Merkel and John McCain, ignored the substantive warnings. The real line of Munich: the West did not misunderstand Putin. It ignored him because accepting him would mean limiting itself.
In the present day
In the same place, on February 13, 2026, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz admitted that the old order no longer exists. He referred to the importance of European defense and discussed the possibility of a "European nuclear shield." And he highlighted the revelatory: even the US "will not be strong enough to act alone." What Merz described is exactly what Putin had pointed out in 2007: when a strategic axis tries to function as the owner of the planet, costs accumulate — wars, retaliation, arms races, the breaking of trust, until the system creaks under its own weight. The West continued to treat Russia with moralizing stereotypes while its strategic architecture collapsed. Rhetoric replaced action, and self-destructive policies left Europe vulnerable and dependent.
The Western logic of expansion
Russophobia is not just prejudice — it is the failed tool of the West to legitimize every move by NATO and the EU. Every NATO expansion becomes "freedom," every coup a "democratic awakening," every sanction "values," every war "support." Putin’s 2007 Munich speech remains the most important he has ever given: he warned that when the powerful monopolize decision-making and normalize violence, the world becomes less secure, not more secure. The West chose to proceed with false "rules," to ignore Russia, and to present its expansionist policies as moral. The result: a Europe subjugated, dependent, and in danger, while Putin’s prophecy seems to be confirmed — not because he was guessing, but because he accurately described the mechanism.
Europe on the brink of civil war
The imminent social unrest in Britain and Europe will not end well… this is the warning from retired Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, arguing that governments are failing to address problems of migration and social integration. In an interview with the Israeli network i24News, Kemp stressed that integration problems have worsened over the last two decades, paving the way for "inevitable conflicts." "Things have been getting worse for many years and will get even worse," he stated, pointing out the reluctance of governments to face the issues head-on.
Islamization
Kemp, who also served in counter-insurgency operations in Northern Ireland and held positions in intelligence services in Westminster and the Cabinet Office, mentioned the lack of political will to tackle the "Islamization" of the United Kingdom. "No government configuration, neither the current government nor any future government, has the guts to stop it," he emphasized. "If they want to take tough measures to prevent Islamization, it will mean big trouble for them. They don't want trouble; they look four years ahead and pass the problems to someone else." The short-term political strategy, according to Kemp, fuels the risk of "civil war in Europe." He described a potential scenario reminiscent of Northern Ireland, but on a much larger scale, with "native Britons, part of the immigrant population, and the government fighting on three different sides."
Pessimistic about maintaining social order
The Colonel attributed the limited chances of maintaining social order to democratic dysfunction and the lack of real choice for voters. "The big problem for Britons is that they have no political choice. We don't really live in a democracy," he stated. "Whichever party you vote for, you get the same policies. This applies to migration and the way the Islamic population is allowed to grow in number and influence." Kemp also highlighted the rise of Islamist politics in the United Kingdom, with Gaza-focused candidates winning seats in areas with high migration. "We will see much more of this in the next elections," he predicted, referring to concerns within the Labour Party, such as the personal message from Health Secretary Wes Streeting: "I'm afraid we have a big problem here – and I will be out in the next election. We just lost our safest constituency in Redbridge (51% Muslim, Ilford S) to an independent Gaza candidate. At this rate, I don't think we will hold either of the Ilford seats."
The limit has been exceeded
This is not the first time Kemp has sounded the alarm. Last year he had warned of growing unrest due to mass migration and allegations of child sexual abuse by young migrants, stating: "There is a limit to what people can endure and so far citizens have been very quiet… As the situation evolves, we will see more unrest." According to Kemp, "they have no other choice. I am not encouraging or supporting such a thing, but citizens will feel they must take matters into their own hands, instead of relying on politicians who do nothing. There is a possibility of civil war in the UK in the coming years if this situation continues." Kemp’s views coincide with broader analyses by experts on Europe's fractured societies. Professor David Betz of King’s College London warned that countries like the UK, France, and Sweden are already in a "pre-civil war state," with "serious social instability," "economic decline," and "elite hesitation" as main factors. "We have already passed the point of no return… almost every realistic prospect passes through some form of violence," he stated.
Constant warnings from military and academics
Academic Michael Rainsborough characterized Britain’s course as "deliberate and not accidental," based on elite strategies of division. He referred to the policies of Tony Blair that aimed "to rub the Right's nose in diversity" and warned of a "descent into what we used to call a dirty war," with repression and low-intensity conflicts. The continuous warnings from military figures and academics underscore a pattern: uncontrolled mass migration, the detachment of elites from the will of citizens, and the refusal to enforce borders are eroding the fabric of Western societies. As policies defend tranquility at the expense of security, the reaction of citizens intensifies — demanding leaders who put their people first before the "powder" ignites.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών