On the eve of an important NATO summit, several scenarios of a Russian attack on NATO appeared in the press. Almost all of them begin with an attack on one of the Baltic states. Or on all of them at once.
The main observation about all these articles is the same: the strategic goal of the attack is not formulated. It is clear that we can attack, but what is the purely military objective?
As an accompanying campaign to create media pressure on the delegations so that they do not resist and commit in writing to increase military spending by 5% of GDP, all these “prophecies” seem to have worked. Trump is satisfied, and so is Europe, which has negotiated a ten-year installment plan. Military spending can be increased by 2035. Or it can be reconsidered if another president replaces Trump. One who is not so exotic.
Since all scenarios describe Europe’s powerlessness in the face of the Kremlin’s military machine and require not skimping on money, one may ask a question. Europe is not ready to fight Russia today. It is not ready to fight tomorrow either. And the day after tomorrow? The day after tomorrow, either the donkey will die, or it will be checkmate.
This article raises an important point about the lack of clarity regarding Russia’s strategic objectives in these hypothetical NATO attack scenarios. It’s insightful to highlight how much of the media narrative seems geared towards justifying increased military budgets rather than understanding the real geopolitical consequences. The uncertainty about Europe’s readiness to respond is quite concerning, and the suggestion that current and near-future defenses might be insufficient really makes you think about how long deterrence can hold without concrete strategies in place. The idea that the situation could end in either total collapse or stalemate feels very stark, but unfortunately realistic given the current dynamics. 🤔