What Russia Is Really Up To in Europe

The threat of a Russian attack on European soil has been a persistent concern for NATO and its member states. However, closer examination reveals a more nuanced strategy: one that prioritizes creating fear and uncertainty over traditional military might.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denials of aggressive intentions against European statehood ring hollow given the mounting evidence of clandestine sabotage operations across the continent. Cyberattacks in Italy, arson in the UK, undersea-cable ruptures in the Baltic, and severed pig heads left outside French mosques all point to a carefully calibrated campaign aimed at intimidating Europe.

Moscow’s goal is to persuade Europe to stop supporting Ukraine. As the conflict on the ground has become increasingly dire for Russia, with Ukraine’s long-range drones inflicting significant damage on Russian infrastructure and supply chains, the Kremlin has escalated its efforts to strangle Kyiv’s access to European aid.

European governments have donated billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, including funding for arms production facilities within EU countries. Ukrainian companies like Fire Point have established manufacturing bases abroad, solidifying Europe’s role as Kyiv’s secure supply chain. This support has allowed Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory than ever before.

A full-scale attack on its European neighbors is unlikely because of the risks involved – not just for Moscow but also for Putin’s own survival. A conventional war would require hundreds of thousands of troops, straining even Russia’s military might. Moreover, it would likely trigger an immediate response from NATO, including a strategic blockade of the Baltic Sea and rapid mobilization of troops stationed in Europe.

Western war games have outlined scenarios involving limited incursions into Baltic towns or simultaneous invasions of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. However, these possibilities require significant resources and planning. Russia has not visibly prepared for such an escalation, instead choosing to maintain its hybrid campaign using inexpensive means, expendable operatives, and calculated leaks.

This campaign is designed to create fear and uncertainty among Europeans. By foiling these operations at every turn, European security services inadvertently play into Putin’s hands. The message conveyed by these harassment tactics is clear: “We’re watching you. We have access to you. You are not in control.” This is a calculated gamble on Moscow’s part – one that may ultimately prove more effective than a traditional military campaign.

As the stakes grow higher, Europe must remain vigilant but also strategic in its response. Continuing to supply Ukraine with arms and aid can strangle Russia’s hybrid war effort from within. Meanwhile, NATO must maintain its presence along the eastern border and engage in regular exercises to deter any potential aggression.

Putin’s gamble may prove costly – not just for Russia but also for his own leadership position. As Ukraine continues to fight back against Russian occupation and Europe remains committed to supporting Kyiv, the likelihood of a conventional war decreases by the day. Instead, Moscow will be forced to continue its hybrid campaign, an effort that is ultimately doomed to fail in the face of European unity and determination.

The question now is what concessions Putin will demand in exchange for ending his hybrid war. One thing is certain: as long as Kyiv receives support from its European allies, Moscow’s campaign of fear and intimidation will continue to falter – and ultimately fail.