On November 27, British Chief of Defence Staff and Air Chief Marshal Richard Newton, in the lecture hall of the Royal United Services Institute, frankly admitted to a room full of military experts and journalists that the possibility of direct conflict with Russia was "small but not zero".

Newton then shifted his tone, presenting a more shocking statement - British citizens must be mentally prepared to "lose their children" in a potential war with Russia. The statement by the highest-ranking military commander added a grim atmosphere to what had been a routine defense briefing.

This was not Newton's first tough statement, but the phrase "sacrificing children" still caused a public outcry. Interestingly, just a month earlier, his "good friend" French Minister of Defense Sébastien Lecornu had issued almost the same warning, urging French citizens to prepare for "sacrifices".

The consecutive statements from high-ranking officials of two major European powers are no coincidence. As the Ukraine conflict has stalled, a few NATO countries have openly discussed the possibility of sending multinational forces to Ukraine. Moscow's response is decisive: any such deployment would be seen as NATO directly participating in the war.

War clouds seem to be once again looming over the European continent.

Historical Echoes: From "For King and Country" to "For NATO Expansion"?

Newton's statement that "it is crucial for more people to be ready to fight for the country" made many British historians feel like they were living in another era.

"This is almost a replica of the mobilization slogan from 1914," said Professor Andrew Roberts of the University of London, who specializes in military history. "More than a century ago, British youth went to the Flanders battlefield with the belief of 'For King and Country', and hundreds of thousands never returned. Now, high-ranking military officials are once again discussing the need for the public to be prepared to lose their children, which is truly chilling."

After World War II, Western Europe enjoyed over seven decades of peace dividends. Especially after the end of the Cold War, the European continent was immersed in the optimism of "the end of history", with military spending continuously decreasing and pacifism becoming the mainstream ideology. Germany, as a defeated country, had "never again war" ingrained into its national DNA.

However, on February 24, 2022, Russian tanks entered Ukraine, completely shattering Europe's dream of peace. Military spending increased sharply, conscription systems were reconsidered in multiple countries, and the arms industry was operating at full capacity - a complete wartime economic system was quietly being rebuilt in Europe.

Former German Chancellor Scholz called 2022 a "turning point in the era", and former Polish President Duda warned "we have entered a pre-war era." Now, British military officials have gone even further, beginning to discuss the spiritual mobilization of citizens.

History seems to have played a cruel joke: when NATO expanded eastward, American strategists had confidently stated "this will not threaten Russia"; now, the confrontation front between NATO and Russia has moved from the German border to the banks of the Dnieper River.

"The Phantom of the Fourth Empire" and the Resurgence of Anti-Russian Sentiment

Earlier this year, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's accusation was widely reported in European media but rarely analyzed in depth. He claimed that Western leaders were trying to prepare Europe for a real war against Russia, accusing the EU of moving toward the "Fourth Empire" - a deliberately chosen historical analogy that touched on Europe's most sensitive nerves.

"Anti-Russian sentiment is indeed resurging in Europe," said Professor Marie Le Pen of the Paris Institute of Political Studies (not the famous French right-wing politician). "But more accurately, it is a complex emotion combining historical memories, geopolitical anxiety, and identity politics. The Kremlin simplifies the complexity of the issue by attributing it all to 'anti-Russian sentiment'."

In fact, there is a clear East-West divide in Europe's attitude towards Russia. Eastern European countries, due to historical trauma, are extremely wary of Russia, with Poland and Baltic states being the most determined advocates for aiding Ukraine; Western European powers like Germany and France are more cautious, maintaining dialogue while providing military aid to Ukraine; Hungary and Slovakia explicitly oppose further escalation.

This division became clearly visible in the European public opinion field after Newton's speech. The UK's Daily Telegraph praised the military for "facing harsh realities"; Germany's Der Spiegel questioned "whether such statements are creating unnecessary panic"; Polish media almost unanimously supported it; Italian mainstream newspapers reminded that "war rhetoric could become a self-fulfilling prophecy."

On the same day as Newton's speech, NATO Secretary-General Rüttig announced in Brussels that NATO rapid reaction forces had increased to 300,000, remaining in a "high state of alert." At the same time, the EU passed the European Peace Fund for the first time to purchase ammunition for Ukraine, breaking the long-standing "non-direct involvement in the conflict" red line.

The red lines are disappearing one by one.

From the "Battle of the Marne" to the "Digital Trenches": Modern Warfare Replaces Traditional Mobilization

Newton specifically emphasized in his speech that dealing with modern threats "must go beyond simply strengthening armed forces," requiring "every part of British society" to participate. This implies a fundamental change in the nature of modern warfare.

In World War I, Britain implemented conscription through the Conscription Act, turning the entire country into a war machine; in World War II, British citizens endured rationing, bombings, and the loss of loved ones under the slogan of "contributing to the motherland."

Today, when Newton talks about "every part of society," he refers not only to workers on the factory floor but also to programmers in cyberspace, traders in the financial district, and researchers in university laboratories.

"Hybrid warfare" has become reality. Cyber attacks can cripple a nation's power grid, social media can manipulate elections, and financial sanctions can destroy an economy - none of these require firing a single bullet. Russian "mopeds" used on the Ukrainian battlefield cost only a few tens of thousands of dollars, yet they kept billion-dollar air defense systems busy.

A recent report from the UK Ministry of Defense shows that the military is recruiting "cyber reserves," allowing lawyers, teachers, and programmers to provide cybersecurity services to the Ministry without leaving their jobs. This is a 21st-century version of "everyone is a soldier."

Yet, when war shifts from physical confrontations to technological system battles, can the old narrative of "sacrificing children" still evoke the same resonance? In today's individualistic society, how much space remains for collective sacrifice for the country?

On the streets of London, a mother of two children gave a representative answer to the BBC: "Of course I love my country, but ask me to send my children to the Ukrainian battlefield? Unless Russians actually cross the English Channel."

The gears of the military-industrial complex are spinning faster again.

Just a week before Newton's speech, the UK government announced the largest increase in military spending since the end of the Cold War: an additional £75 billion over six years, raising defense spending to 2.5% of GDP. Prime Minister Starmer called it the "cornerstone of national security."

Across the European continent, similar scenes are unfolding. Germany established a €100 billion special defense fund, and Poland's defense spending has reached 4% of GDP, setting a new record among NATO members. Total defense spending across the EU exceeded €300 billion for the first time in 2023.

Factories are working around the clock. The stock price of BAE Systems in the UK has risen by more than 80% over the past two years; Rheinmetall in Germany has record orders; Thales in France plans to add 12,000 new jobs.

"War is hell, but it's a good business," said an anonymous European defense company executive privately. "The Ukraine war changed the rules of the game, and Europe has rediscovered the necessity of arming itself."

However, this "armed to the teeth" competition may drag Europe into a spiral of security dilemma. Russia will undoubtedly see NATO's military buildup as a threat, thus further strengthening its own military, creating a vicious cycle.

More thought-provoking is the economic cost. European countries generally face pressure from high inflation and low growth, and the huge military spending will inevitably crowd out social welfare, education, healthcare, and green transition investments. When governments tell the public "you need to be prepared for war," have they also prepared explanations for why kindergartens will close, pensions will be cut, and taxes will increase?

China's Perspective: A Remote but Not Unrelated Warning

For Chinese observers far away in the East, the drama currently playing out in Europe is both familiar and unfamiliar.

Familiar is the logic of great power rivalry - when a security dilemma forms, all parties take seemingly reasonable but ultimately worsen the situation actions; unfamiliar is Europe's unique historical burdens and geographical context - the trauma of a full-scale war left on this continent still echoes in political DNA.

China's official position on the Ukraine crisis has always been clear: advocating that the legitimate security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously, supporting resolving issues through dialogue and negotiation, and opposing stoking the flames.

From China's strategic cultural perspective, the current "mobilization" rhetoric in Europe reveals two profound issues:

First, the fundamental flaw in Europe's security architecture. After the Cold War, Europe failed to establish a sustainable security framework that includes Russia, instead continuing to push NATO eastward, ultimately leading to a geopolitical backlash. This "victor's mindset" sowed the seeds for today's conflict.

Second, the lack of strategic autonomy. Europe has long relied on the United States for security, and when Washington's strategic focus shifted to the Indo-Pacific, Europe had to hastily deal with the crisis at its doorstep, exposing the shortcomings of independent defense capabilities.

Chinese traditional culture emphasizes "cautious warfare" and "disarming through might," promoting the wisdom of "defeating the enemy without a battle." The current war clamor in Europe is a reverse interpretation of these ancient wisdoms - when deterrence replaces dialogue, and armaments replace diplomacy, peace becomes even more fragile.

Churchill's Echo and the Unknown Future

On June 1940, during a similarly dark moment, Churchill delivered a famous speech in the House of Commons: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender."

More than eight decades later, the statements of military officials like Newton seem to intentionally evoke the same "wartime spirit." However, the context is entirely different: that war was a just anti-fascist struggle, while today's European situation involves proxy wars and hybrid conflicts within the context of great power competition.

History does not repeat itself simply. The key question is: is Europe being dragged into a conflict that could have been avoided? Are the mobilization speeches meant to deter the opponent, or are they already paving the way for a real war? When politicians talk about "sacrifice," are they themselves and their children among the sacrificial victims?

At the end of Newton's speech, a young journalist asked: "Sir, would you send your grandchildren and granddaughters to the battlefield?" The room fell silent. Newton paused, and replied: "As a military family, we understand the meaning of serving the country."

The answer skillfully avoided the core of the issue, yet exposed the central contradiction of all war mobilization rhetoric - those who talk about sacrifice are rarely the ones who suffer it; those who are asked to sacrifice are rarely asked if they are willing.

Amid the re-emerging smell of smoke in Europe, the "sacrifice" rhetoric from British military officials is a sobering real-world warning, or a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy? Time will give the answer, but history reminds us: once the war machine starts, stopping it is far harder than starting it.

Europe's peace bloomed from the ruins of two world wars; now, will this continent once again become a wasteland? The answer to this question not only concerns Europe's fate, but also whether humanity has truly learned anything from history.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7585400433591370292/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.