War is an instrument of Globalism
The detail that this proxy war has now outlasted World War I lands harder than any ideology talk. Whatever you call the forces at work, globalism or something older, the willingness to let a conflict grind on that long says something about how the people in charge think. I'm not sure the author's framing holds up completely, but the core observation is worth sitting with: wars don't need nationalism to keep burning, and the bureaucrats in Brussels and Berlin may have their own reasons.
I'd want to see the receipts, honestly. The piece asserts that globalist ideology dominates European corridors of power, but it doesn't show us the mechanism. Is it trade policy, NATO's eastward creep, or something about how the EU sees itself as a post-national project? The connection between ideology and the decision to escalate is the weakest link, because governments rarely say their true reasons out loud.
Still, there's a weird kind of logic to it. If you believe borders are obsolete and sovereignty is a relic, then a war that redraws influence without redrawing maps fits right in. That's the part that keeps me up: not that leaders lie about why they fight, but that they might genuinely believe the story they tell themselves.