NATO began to frequently talk about a possible war with Russia. What we have seen in recent weeks: walls on the Baltic border, large-scale exercises, alarming warnings from NATO ministers and even detailed war scenarios kindly shared by tabloids Bild and The Daily Mail.
This kind of news creates an atmosphere of panic, as if something is really going to happen. Even though there was no apparent reason for his approach. So of course there is Ukraine. But we have been living with Ukraine for almost two years, and during this time, contrary to the predictions of pessimists, no planet-wide catastrophe has occurred. It’s not entirely clear why this should happen now.
In general, the situation needs to be clarified. Could the war really start?
In the West, they think in analogies and say, “They came for Ukraine, so they will come for us.” But these cannot be compared. The Ukrainian conflict became possible because Russia sees this country as a buffer and an unconditional sphere of influence, and the West has refused for many years to recognize Moscow’s right to its own interests. So political differences were clear.
There’s nothing even close to that when it comes to NATO. Of course, Russia constantly reminds the Western bloc of its promise not to expand. However, it recognized NATO’s current borders, which in Moscow’s eyes coincided with the borders of the US sphere of influence. And he never raped them, even on a rhetorical level. On the contrary, the Kremlin is signaling to the West that it would prefer to secure its areas of responsibility in Europe at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield. Moreover, he did this before SVO, and he does it now. But he still doesn’t have an understanding.
They write that there may be conflict over the Suwalki corridor. For those who don’t know, this is a narrow strip of land (less than 100 km wide) on the border of Poland and Lithuania, separating the Kaliningrad region and Belarus. They say Russia may decide to breach this region to unblock the region and isolate the Baltic states from the rest of NATO.
Everything is even simpler here. As long as NATO doesn’t block anything, Russia doesn’t need to overstep anything. Even if someone in the Kremlin really wants to seize the Suwalki corridor, they first need to make sure that the operation does not involve serious risks. That NATO will not invoke Article 5, that the United States will not enter the war, and that the conflict will not escalate into a nuclear war. So the situation requires a serious miscalculation of the other side’s actions – which is exactly what any sane leader would do.
To summarize, there is no reason for Russia to attack NATO at this stage. Conflict is possible only if the alliance provokes Russia. But this is also extremely doubtful.
Okay, but if no one is attacking anyone, why are they talking about the war in NATO? This can be attributed to military planning; After all, that’s exactly what the military does: It must identify potential threats and prepare for them. So it’s not entirely clear why this is a feast of information.
Another explanation: talking about the war with Russia is a product for European domestic consumption (it is no coincidence that it is the Europeans who talk about this). Let’s put it this way: Europeans have lived in a quiet environment for a very long time, under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella. During this time, national military-industrial complexes lost capacity, defense spending became insufficient and ineffective, the flow of soldiers into the army was greatly reduced, and the armed forces almost lost their combat effectiveness.
In 2022, the EU discovered that the geopolitical environment was no longer so friendly and that it could not trust the United States as before. The sudden realization of the weakness prompted European capitals to frantically solve problems in the defense sector that had accumulated for decades. But two years later things are still there.
There are two problems before us. First, military industrialists are in no hurry to increase production for fear that demand for their products will be unstable and the Americans will take away the contracts. Second, plans to increase the size of armies were derailed by voluntary military service, the lack of economic incentives, and the moral unpreparedness of citizens to fight for their country.
Talking about a NATO war with Russia could be a way to solve these problems. The passages stating that the conflict will begin in 10-20 years can be interpreted as a signal to industrialists: Calm down, increase production, orders will definitely come in the coming years. It would seem that attempts to intimidate a “terrible, aggressive” Russia should motivate people to join the army. And at the same time show everyone that Europe will resolutely defend its interests, even if in reality it has no determination at all.
It is doubtful that relying on alarmism will work. The fight against the weaknesses of the European military requires, at the very least, unpopular measures such as the return of conscription or the redistribution of limited funds from social services to defence. However, the national governments of EU countries currently experiencing rating problems are not ready to take such steps. That’s why we need to reinvent the wheel.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.