Paneuropa – possibilities and limitations of the idea

We discussed previously the basics of historical Prometheism:

1. The fight against Russian imperialism by supporting self-determination of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE);

2. The unification of these nations in the Intermarium Union in order to safeguard the acquired independence from revanchist Russia as well as Germany with an equal population, resources and advantageous geopolitical location;

3. The crucial role of Polish-Ukrainian-Baltic cooperation in creating such a union.

The New Prometheism, or Neoprometheism, takes in to account these ideas in the context of the 21st century:

1. The growing importance of nationalism, while being aware of the common responsibility towards Western civilization;

2. Action in the context of new supranational formations – the Visegrad Group, the Three Seas Initiative, NATO and the European Union (EU);

3. The division of the EU – the hostility of the political elite of its western part towards the national conservative CEE;

4. The aggression of other civilizations (mainly Russia and the Islamic world) against the West, at the same time unability of the West to respond properly;

5. The rapprochement of Western Europe with Russia, threatening to create a “Eurasia”;

6. The US geopolitical priority in the continent – to prevent the formation of “Eurasia” and to isolate Russia.

Preventing the creation of “Eurasia” is not just a geopolitical priority for the United States. Despite the naive fantasies of Western European and American nationalists about Russia as the “saviour of white / Christian civilization,” its strengthening brings the West closer to disaster. The use of prisoners, degenerates and Caucasian mercenaries in the war against the Ukrainians shows the only “saving” that Russia is capable of. The differences that have developed over a thousand years between the Western and Russian civilizations are fundamental. Our belonging to the West distinguishes us from the foreign world that begins behind Zilupe river, even though its representatives are seemingly Europeans – Slavs and Christians. Moreover, if in the past the Russians were able to assimilate subordinated peoples, now the opposite process is taking place in Russia – in southwestern Russia and Moscow, the formerly subjugated Muslim peoples are beginning to dominate, but in the meantime, Siberia is a space for natural expansion of China. In this context, expansion of Russia at the expense of Ukraine and its ambitions elsewhere in Eastern Europe are absurd and pointless – Russia is a shell empire with a limited time.

Meanwhile, EU rapprochement with unstable Russia means a united neo-Marxist “Eurasia,” aimed at destroying the identity of European nations and subsequently “merging” nations into a new totalitarian project. Yes, despite seeming contradictions, for example on the LGBT issue, the ideology of Western globalists and Russia are two sides of the same coin. The two share historical roots in Bolshevism, also multiculturalism, hatred of national self-determination, and the use of the lowest instincts of the immigrant mobs in the “cultural revolution” against Western civilization. A Russian-provoked vandal in Tallinn or Eastern Ukraine is essentially no different from the destroyers of historic statues in Western Europe. The contradictions are ostensible because they are contradictions between members of one faith who see the other as heretics, continuing the historical division between the internationalist Trotskyists and imperialist Stalinists. In the long run, this is irrelevant, as they are just different paths to the decline of Western civilization, paving the way for the expansion of Islamic civilization in Europe.

In the context of the decline of the West, various united European or pan-European projects that would replace the current EU are becoming more and more popular, also among nationalist circles. There is a point to this. Western civilization is our broader identity, without which our nationalism can become narrow and manipulable. In order to preserve the identity of Western civilization, Europe must be united – beyond the restrictive “old” nationalism and primitive globalism, organically combining the best of belonging to a nation with a sense of belonging to a common civilization. The multipolar world is becoming a reality in which Western institutions should be transformed into instruments for the defence of our civilization, not for the creation of a totalitarian project by transnational corporations, financial oligarchy and neo-Marxist “experts”.

However, relations of Intermarium countries with the rest of Europe must be built on realist positions. Contradictions are so great that they can only be ignored by the naive, or by politicians who, through serving the interests of the Brussels elite and Germany, are hoping for a well-paid position in the “big boys club”. The idea of a pan-European “nationalist international” is not practical also, as long as there is the Russian factor. Russia’s rapprochement with Western European countries, at the expense of CEE interests, poses the most significant obstacle to the unification of European nationalists. Russia’s interests in Europe are incompatible with the existence of Poland and Ukraine as independent states, but without them there are no alternative scenarios for the future of Europe that would not involve the “dissolution” of European nations into a “Eurasian” biomass.

The situation must be analysed according to the principle of geopolitical chessboard. Strategic partner of Intermarium is NATO’s strongest country, the United States, which has the interest in curbing Russia’s expansion and preventing the emergence of “Eurasia from Vladivostok to Lisbon,” that Putin and Macron see in their dreams. The idea of the Intermarium is in line with Halford Mackinder’s (1861-1947) geopolitical concept of “sanitary cordon” for the separation of Germany and Russia after World War I. As long as the US geopolitical logic is not replaced by ideological considerations, it will be in their interests to strengthen independence of Intermarium. Geopolitician George Friedman predicts that such a coalition of countries will become a major player in Europe by 2040.[1]

At the core of this coalition must be Poland and Ukraine – their demographic and economic potential, as well as their geographical location, makes them the basis of the Baltic-Black Sea Union. The Latvian-Lithuanian union would serve as a balancing power, with Latvia acting as a mediator in Lithuanian-Polish relations, but both taking on the role of mediator between Poland and Ukraine.[2] From a geostrategic point of view, it would be especially important to attract Belarus, whose membership in such union would prevent de facto isolation of the Baltic States. Eventualy, the project would also include the states that are already part of Three Seas Initiative.

In the emerging world of civilizations, that is replacing the liberal world order, Intermarium will emerge as one of the regional powers based on a common identity of civilization. Cooperation with the United States could be a model of sustainable development for the preservation of Western civilization. But can Intermarium be the beginning of a new European Union? There are two options: 1) Establishing Intermarium as an alternative to the EU, involving other European countries; 2) Reforming the EU in the interests of European nations, with Intermarium countries acting as internal opposition against globalists. However, both scenarios can be implemented simultaneously, both by strengthening Intermarium and by fighting for influence in the EU institutions.

History proves that great ideas can be realized if there is an elite that has been preparing for it for a long time. Every few decades, the international order “restarts” and a “window of opportunity” opens, which must be seized. In 1918 and 1991, with the collapse of Russia’s imperial projects, our nations gained freedom. Not only further division of the EU into regional blocs[3], but also disintegration of Russia is a very realistic scenario within one generation.[4]

But out of this chaos a new beginning is possible. In the place of the nightmare of “Eurasia” – a new European Union with Intermarium at its core in which European nations can develop their culture, preserve their individual and common Western identity, and feel secure. Can there be anything more important to fight for? Unfortunately, there is still a lack of a political elite that can see the common interests and mission of our region in Western civilization. Let us remember the words of the philosopher Pauls Jurevičs: “the new nations are the places in European culture from which (..) the restoration of its life could begin, the search for a way out of the labyrinth or dead end in which this culture now finds itself”.[5] Helping the West to return to basic values  – that ​​is our mission! An elite that can captivate a wider public with this idea will be the beginning of a great historical project. Only then follows the institutions (parliamentary, ministerial, university, cultural, security) and infrastructure (roads, railways, energy, military industry) that can unite the region. A new Prometheist elite, forming support groups and cells in each country, proclaiming the need for Intermarium in the context of the 21st century, is the hope for the future of Western civilization!

[1] Geopolitical futures: The Road to 2040: Your Crystal Ball into the Future, George Friedman. Viewed:

[2] It should be emphasized that Latvia and Lithuania are the lands of the Balts and their culture, which is the birthplace of all Indo-European Western culture, thus their role in Western civilization is invaluable.

[3] Rosen, Armin.11 chilling predictions for what the world will look like in 10 years. Viewed:

[4]Friedman predicts that at the time of Russia’s disintegration, the Polish-led Intermarium could expand to the east. Frīdmens, Džordžs. Valstu un tautu likteņi. Analīze un prognozes nākamajiem 100 gadiem. Rīga: Izdevniecība Avots, 2012., 148-149. p.

[5] Jurevičs, Pauls. Idejas un īstenība. Grāmatu Draugs, 1946., 213. p.

Leave a Reply