Foreign Affairs
If Europe Confronts Russia, It Should Pay the Costs
The old continent is at risk of an escalation spiral.
Europeans are readying for possible conflict with Russia. Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, who chairs NATO’s Military Committee, cites Moscow’s alleged clandestine operations across the continent. Alliance officials, he reported, “are studying everything.” Preemptive action is possible, although, admitted Dragone, “It is further away from our normal way of thinking and behavior.”
Blaise Metrewell, head of MI6, Great Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, charged that the “export of chaos is a feature, not a bug, in the Russian approach to international engagement.” Her country’s top military officer, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton, similarly warned: “The war in Ukraine shows [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s willingness to target neighboring states, including their civilian populations.” Times columnist Edward Lucas called on Brits to “muster Churchillian resolve for the struggle ahead.”
However, some European leaders are hesitant. Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen explained that being more assertive was an option, but “so far, I don’t think there has been a need for that. We also should take a step back and really analyze what the aggressor is after. Then, probably, we shouldn’t be hysterical.”
Wise words. After all, Europeans can no longer assume Washington’s automatic support. The recently released National Security Strategy and President Donald Trump’s interview with POLITICO highlight the current administration’s antipathy toward the continent, or at least its liberal leaders. Sky News analyst Michael Clarke spoke for many when he doubted that the Trump administration would support a tough response: “I think it’s pretty clear to most of the Europeans that the Americans will not be backing them up in confrontation with Russia.”
It would be surprising if Moscow did not attempt to surreptitiously disrupt allied support for Kiev. Denmark recently blamed the Putin government for two “destructive and disruptive” cyber-attacks. Associated Press lists 145 disruptive incidents attributed by European officials to Russia. The Atlantic Council’s Piotr Arak charged that “Russia has expanded the battlefield into the daily life of European societies. Moscow’s objective is clear: weaken Western unity by creating a constant sense of vulnerability, without crossing the threshold that would trigger a formal NATO response.” A recent report from the Center for European Policy Analysis similarly concluded: “Europe as a whole is under a sustained assault.”
However, the full extent of Russia’s activities is uncertain. European governments tend to blame Putin for any mysterious event, such as drone flights, without offering any evidence of his responsibility. Indeed, Kiev has been caught blaming Moscow for its own actions. In November 2022 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky charged Russia for his military’s presumably errant missile strike on Poland, which killed two residents. Before that, a gaggle of American and European officials joined the Ukrainians in accusing Moscow of disabling its Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany, a self-evidently ridiculous claim since debunked by Berlin.
Nevertheless, assume that Russia is responsible for most of the acts blamed on it. Even then, as Valtonen insisted, Europeans “should take a step back and really analyze what the aggressor is after.”
It is Europe that acted first, launching an ever more serious proxy war against Russia. From Moscow’s perspective, its malign activity is retaliation, and not very substantial at that, even as the allies’ proxy war continues unabated.
Of course, this doesn’t mean Putin’s brutal aggression against Ukraine was justified. However, allied officials share blame for the conflict, having recklessly violated promises to Moscow and ignored oft-expressed Russian security concerns. What of Russia’s actions? Imagine how Europeans would respond if Moscow underwrote combat against European governments, providing money and weapons, including missiles, and causing substantial damage and casualties.
Presumably Putin has responded cautiously—for which he has been sharply criticized at home—because he believes Russia is winning and does not want to risk conflict with NATO, or at least with the U.S. No doubt, he still hopes to hinder European military assistance to Ukraine. According to a report from the Center for International Studies, “many of these targets had links to Western aid to Ukraine.” Similarly, the International Institute for Strategic Studies acknowledged that Russia’s “unconventional war” escalated “in 2022 in parallel to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
Europe has obvious reason to be concerned about Russia’s operations. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys cited the recent explosion damaging a Polish train line to Ukraine as a dangerous “escalation” by Russia: “we should address it really seriously because we are minutes from big casualties here.” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski declared, “This time, it was not just sabotage, as before, but an act of state terrorism, as the clear intention was to cause human casualties.”
However, this is precisely what the allies intend with their aid to Kiev. To kill Russians, lots of them. Europe and the U.S. are providing offensive weapons, sharing battlefield intelligence, drafting battle plans, freezing (and perhaps seizing) financial reserves, imposing economic sanctions, punishing trade partners, and much more. Yet so far Russia has done surprisingly little in response. European “retaliation” that looks like “escalation” to Moscow might trigger more than what continental governments expect.
European leaders like to play tough—indeed, governments with the smallest militaries, like the Baltic states, have been among the most persistently belligerent. However, European publics seem less inclined toward war. A Pew Research Center poll found that majorities in most countries surveyed didn’t want to defend their neighbors, even as they expected the American cavalry to race to their rescue. General Fabien Mandon, head of the French armed forces, triggered a cascade of criticism when he warned that if his country “is not prepared to accept losing its children, to suffer economically because priorities will be given to defense production, then we are at risk.”
Although American sympathies should be with the Ukrainian people, the United States has little at stake in the ongoing war. For most of U.S. history, Kiev was ruled by the Russian Empire (for a time known as the “Soviet Union”). Ukraine’s geographic borders, governing practices, and military capabilities today matter little to America’s security. Washington and Moscow have no territorial disputes and little economic competition. Russia is a declining power, with minimal ability to threaten the U.S. other than with nuclear-tipped missiles, but Washington’s deterrent remains strong. Moreover, right after the Cold War ended, Moscow leaned West, not East.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s decision to orchestrate Ukraine’s war against Russia is dangerous as well as expensive. Acting as a belligerent in everything but name—with anonymous U.S. officials claiming credit for the deaths of Russian generals and sinking of Moscow’s Black Sea fleet flagship—creates a continuing incentive for Moscow to retaliate. Which in turn incites allied belligerence. For instance, former U.S. diplomat Daniel Fried denounced “Russian sabotage and aggression [emphasis added] against Europe.” Tom Tugendhat, a former British cabinet minister, called Russian behavior equivalent to “attacking NATO.”
European hawks thinking of turning the continent’s cold war with Moscow hot should remember Gen. Mandon’s challenge. Few seem prepared to sacrifice their children for Ukraine. For instance, Italian Gen. Guido Crosetto grandly announced: “We are under attack and the hybrid bombs continue to fall: The time to act is now.” However, his nation continues to lag far behind NATO standards on military spending. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni urged the U.S. to provide a security guarantee for European peacekeeping forces for Ukraine but declined to commit any troops for that purpose. As always, the overwhelming European position remains “Let America do it!”
European states should recognize the risks before escalating their proxy war on Russia. Moscow’s surreptitious activities on the continent, far from being inexplicable “aggression,” are largely a response to the allies’ ongoing hostility against Russia. The more vigorous their intervention in the Ukraine war, the more destructive Moscow’s likely riposte. Are Dragone and other European political and military leaders prepared for the consequences?
The post If Europe Confronts Russia, It Should Pay the Costs appeared first on The American Conservative.
