How to Lower the Odds of Russia–NATO War

Among America’s European allies, predictions of Russian aggression abound. Never mind their claim that Ukraine is on the march, close to defeating the aggressive Bear. If Moscow does ultimately triumph, they warn, Vladimir Putin’s legions will inevitably march westward, despite their devastating losses in manpower and materiel in a fight right off Russia’s border. 

In fact, Putin has never demonstrated such an interest. Obviously, he has no moral objection to the use of military force. But Putin appears to be more Russian nationalist than Soviet communist, and after taking power, he originally sought improved ties with the West. Just a couple weeks after 9/11, he told the German Bundestag:  

It is my firm conviction that in today’s rapidly changing world, in a world witnessing truly dramatic demographic changes and an exceptionally high economic growth in some regions, Europe also has an immediate interest in promoting relations with Russia.

No one calls in question the great value of Europe’s relations with the United States. I am just of the opinion that Europe will reinforce its reputation of a strong and truly independent center of world politics soundly and for a long time if it succeeds in bringing together its own potential and that of Russia, including its human, territorial, and natural resources and its economic, cultural, and defense potential.

Alas, his attitude eventually changed. The Clinton administration had chosen to treat Russia as a defeated power, assuming that it, rather like Germany after the First World War, would have no choice but to submit. The Russian people as well as elites were angered by the West’s continuing disdainful treatment of their country. Just as Germany recovered from its defeat, so did Russia. And Putin abandoned efforts at accommodation.

The Russian president told the 2007 Munich Security Conference: “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force—military force—in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.” Who to blame? “One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural, and educational policies it imposes on other nations.”

Most importantly, Putin opposed efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO and ultimately waged war to prevent that outcome. Even so, he avoided expanding the Ukraine war into a direct conflict with the rest of Europe and especially with the U.S. After all, Putin went to war primarily to ensure that Russia did not face a long border dominated by the transatlantic alliance. It would make no sense for him to directly attack a NATO state, guaranteeing war with Europe and very likely America as well. The suggestion that after failing to expand the Ukraine conflict he would risk a global and even nuclear conflict just to test the alliance’s viability is too clever by half.

The Ukrainian imbroglio has now raged longer than the First World War and shows no sign of abating. Throughout the conflict, the Europeans and Americans have waged an increasingly bitter proxy war, sustaining Kiev’s defense and helping kill tens of thousands of Russian soldiers. Moscow appears to be intensifying its response, especially if it is responsible, as charged by Germany, for last month’s drone attack on Leipzig Airport.

European policymakers are increasingly concerned about the potential for a broader conflict. Reported the Financial Times: The Leipzig episode “has provided a brutal wake-up call about Moscow’s intensifying hybrid campaign against Europe, and exposed Nato’s failure to deter Russia from staging attacks below the threshold to trigger the alliance’s ‘Article 5’ mutual defense clause.” The Washington Post’s David Ignatius agreed:

The grim fact is that Russia’s war on Ukraine is escalating and spreading to NATO countries. That’s a new reality that most Americans (including many senior Trump administration officials) don’t seem to recognize. Russia’s “hybrid” war against European supporters of Ukraine is moving from the gray zone to blood red, and the U.S. is doing little to deter the attacks.

To be sure, the situation is dangerous. But it is important to understand the sources of Russia’s confrontational behavior. 

Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was criminal and unjustified, as are its war efforts today. Yet Washington and its allies have little moral standing to complain. First, they foolishly treated the Russian government as worthy of no consideration and ignored multiple warnings of Russian redlines. They thus encouraged Moscow’s even more reckless response.

Second, they routinely initiated illegal unilateral military action for their own advantage. Consider the George W. Bush administration’s Iraq invasion—which led to widespread internal strife and mass civilian casualties. The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations backed Saudi Arabia’s sustained assault on Yemen, which resulted in extraordinary civilian hardship and significant deaths. The Trump administration lawlessly attacked Iran, killing thousands of noncombatants, turning the Gulf states into military targets, and threatening the global economy.

Finally, the U.S. and its NATO partners are now waging a costly proxy war against Russia. Whether the allies are doing so primarily to defend Ukraine or to weaken Moscow is a matter of dispute. In any case, allied support has been critical for Kiev’s resistance. Russians have been injured and killed by Western munitions guided by Western intelligence. Allied officials even claimed credit for the death and destruction.

It is this deadly role that is pushing the Russian government toward a direct confrontation with Europe. Explained Ignatius:

What makes the situation so dangerous now is that Putin is clearly trying to regain the advantage by attacking the European nations that have become Ukraine’s main weapons suppliers. In April, Russia’s Defense Ministry published the names and addresses of 21 companies in Europe that it claimed were producing drones or parts for Kyiv, and officials warned that they were “potential targets.”

Allied policymakers are now expressing shock at the discovery that Moscow is threatening violence. European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen opined in October 2025,

Tackling Russia’s hybrid war… requires a completely new mindset for all of us. We must be ready to leave our comfort zone. We need to explore new ways of doing things. And most importantly, we must deter everyone who seeks to harm our territory and our people.

So far, that means escalation short of war. However, pressure will grow to draw the U.S. more deeply into Europe’s fight for Ukraine. The Trump administration’s reaction is hard to predict. Although the president still focuses on improving diplomacy with Russia, his sentiments appear to have moved toward Ukraine in recent months. And he has largely abandoned his talk of leaving NATO, apparently pleased at his ability to use American forces to extort unbalanced trade deals from European states, whose officials admit to accepting such demands in an attempt to maintain Washington’s military protection.

Meanwhile, most members of the foreign policy establishment, sometimes known as “the blob,” favor not only retaining but strengthening America’s defense dole for Europe. They believe that NATO should in turn confront Moscow. For instance, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations called for “a steely response to deter Putin from stepping up his attacks on Europe.” 

Ignatius argued similarly. “The U.S. should first issue a joint statement with its European allies bluntly warning that continued Kremlin-sponsored strikes on NATO countries will result in severe consequences,” he wrote. “And if Putin continues nonstop attacks on Ukrainian cities, the U.S. and Europe should quietly assist Ukraine in proportional attacks on Russia.”

Alas, this would reinforce the very cause of Moscow’s escalation: the allies’ enabling wider and more destructive attacks on the Russian homeland. Ignatius’s policy would probably push Putin, under ever-greater pressure from Russian elites who favor a tougher and rougher war, to escalate further. This shouldn’t surprise Washington officials, who would never tolerate Russian aid for attacks on the American homeland. For Moscow, the war against Ukraine is existential, and Putin is more likely to double down than retreat, which could imperil his government, or at least his personal control. In contrast, Ukraine matters far less to most European states, and especially to Washington and the American people.

Instead, the allies—at least the U.S.—should step back, reducing their role in the conflict. Putin committed a great wrong against Ukraine, which warranted allied support for its survival. But NATO and especially America should avoid a broader military confrontation.

Washington policymakers typically view themselves as angelic figures dedicated to goodness and light and determined to inaugurate a new utopian age of peace. Unfortunately, no one else, especially Russians, view them this way. The allied proxy war against Moscow is increasing the likelihood of general war. The administration should drop its support for an ever more dangerous proxy battle and press its allies to do so as well. Putting America first surely means avoiding war with Russia over Ukraine.

The post How to Lower the Odds of Russia–NATO War appeared first on The American Conservative.

Read the full article here