Would Putin be foolish to attack Nato?
Putin would be foolish to attack Nato
Even with Russia’s planned military modernisation and build-up, there is no evidence that Putin has the intent to attack a Nato member state. In fact, the Russian leader has assiduously avoided a direct conflict with Nato even as he has expanded operations in Ukraine since 2014. Russia has not attacked shipments of US and European military equipment on their way to Ukrainian forces, has limited missile strikes in Ukraine’s western regions where the risk of an errant missile hitting Nato territory is high, and has refrained from intentional air incursions into Nato airspace near Ukraine’s borders. Given these examples of restraint, it seems unlikely that Putin’s next move would be to start the type of war he has eschewed to this point.
But even if Moscow did launch such a campaign, Europe should be confident in its ability to repel Russian forces, despite its military deficiencies and gaps. If a small country like Ukraine can fight Moscow to a stalemate, despite limited manpower and weapon shortages, Europe fighting as a collective — with many times Russia’s GDP and population — should be able to halt an incursion and drive Putin’s forces back, even without US military support.
Europe has two factors working in its favour: Russia’s military shortcomings and the advantages of defensive warfare. First, the war in Ukraine has revealed the Russian military’s significant weaknesses, including its limited ability to project power over long distances as would be required for an offensive into Nato territory. Second, Ukraine’s battlefield has underscored the advantages that accrue to the defender in modern warfare. In responding to a Russian attack, Europe would be able to exploit these advantages by establishing barriers like minefields and trenches and leveraging drones to make it difficult for an aggressor to advance.
For policymakers in Washington, the bottom line is that even a larger, modernised Russian military does not pose a direct threat to the United States or its interests in Europe, nor does it constitute a challenge that Europe cannot handle itself. The Trump administration should not let Europe’s dire warnings derail its efforts to disentangle itself from continental security burdens or delay its plans to draw down a US military presence in the region. Trump and his advisors should instead move full steam ahead, regardless of changes on the horizon for Russia’s military force.
Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.
Douglas McCallum
19 hours ago
The author is one of the “experts” at Defence Priorities, a staunchly far-Right think-tank founded by supporters of Sen Rand Paul and bank-rolled by the Koch brothers (the money-men for a wide variety of far-Right causes). The article reflects, unsurprisingly, the isolationist philosophy of Trump and MAGA. Withdrawal of the USA from all links to Europe is one of the key policies pushed by these people. Of course the author wants to down-play the threat to Europe posed by Putin, as a way of justifying US disengagement from NATO: see – there is no threat so US support isn’t needed. Besides, staying engaged would under-cut Trump’s pathetic fantasy that Putin is just another strong man (like himself) with whom a deal can be made. These isolationist views are not limited to Europe, by the way, but apply more or less globally. Let’s build Fortress America and to hell with the rest of the world!