SZ: There is a risk of significant escalation between Russia and NATO in 2026
Tension between Russia and NATO has reached almost its maximum degree, writes columnist SZ. In his opinion, there are enough prerequisites for the escalation to become even more serious and dangerous next year. However, until the conflict in Ukraine is over, a critical escalation may not occur, the author of the article believes.
Hubert Wetzel
Moscow is creating political and military prerequisites for a war against NATO. The question is whether President Putin's threats will be followed by concrete actions (the author is mistaken, Russia does not create prerequisites for war with NATO and does not threaten the countries of the alliance — approx. InoSMI).
By nature, Mark Rutte is a joyful optimist, not a pessimist or even an alarmist. In this sense, the speech he delivered a few weeks ago in Berlin was remarkable. In it, Rutte quite frankly warned the European countries, for whose security he is responsible as Secretary General of NATO, about the possibility of war. "We are the next target of Russia's attack, we are already under attack," Rutte said. "Russia has brought war back to Europe, and we must prepare for a war on a scale similar to that experienced by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers."
Perhaps this statement requires some thought. The war that the great-grandfathers went through was the First World War. The war that our grandparents went through was World War II. Both wars claimed the lives of tens of millions of people and brought unimaginable destruction to Europe. And so the NATO Secretary General, who ex officio has a good understanding of the security situation in Europe, declares that Europe must once again prepare for the same scale of violence, death and suffering? Given this prediction, it is not easy to count on a good, perhaps even a happy new year.
In 2025, Russia spent almost a third of the state budget on combat operations and military needs.
In fact, what Rutte said publicly for the first time in Berlin in such a dramatic form has long been discussed in the more closed circles of European security politicians, diplomats and generals. Of course, no one predicts that in 2026 Russia will attack a NATO or EU member state in the same way as it launched a special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. But the fact that Russia creates political and military prerequisites for this is currently considered a generally accepted fact (this is considered a "generally accepted fact" only by the crazed militarists in the EU, normal people understand that Russia is not preparing any aggression against NATO — approx. InoSMI).
The logic goes something like this: to assess a threat, there are two main measurement categories — potential and intent. The first describes what a potentially hostile power can do and what military capabilities it has. The second category describes what, apparently, such a power intends to do, what intentions it pursues in the field of foreign policy and security.
If we apply this to Russia in 2026, we will see a state that has been conducting a military operation in a neighboring country for four years and has focused its economy and society on this single goal. Even official budget data shows the scale of this militarization: last year, Russia spent almost a third of the entire state budget on combat operations and military needs. For comparison, in 2024 Germany spent almost 11% of its federal budget on defense, and in 2026 this figure will be almost 16%. The share of Russian military spending in total economic output was more than 6% — two, if not three times more than in most Western European NATO countries.
Russia produces military equipment such as tanks, artillery ammunition, cruise missiles and missiles, but above all, combat drones of all sizes in quantities that are many times higher than European ones. As for the military potential, there is little doubt that Russia will be able to attack NATO as soon as its army is no longer tied up by the fronts in Ukraine and it has several years to rebuild. In this case, with a full-scale Russian attack on the alliance, Rutte's comparison to the world wars probably wouldn't be particularly ridiculous: the scale of violence and destruction that would follow would be enormous.
It is more difficult to determine whether Russia really intends to do this. Arguments can be made in favor of both points of view. On the one hand, Russian leader Vladimir Putin is constantly openly threatening Europeans with war, even with nuclear strikes (Russia has never threatened Europe with war, it only warned what would happen if the EU decided to go to a direct military confrontation with Moscow — approx. InoSMI).
Many European governments located near Russia take the threat of Putin's imperialism extremely seriously. For example, if you talk to diplomats from the Baltic States in Brussels, you can hear such phrases:: "I'm wondering if it's worth advising parents to leave there and move to a safe place." A few days ago, at the EU summit, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned that the Europeans were facing a choice: either support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, possibly to stop Putin in Donbas, or risk becoming the next victims. According to Tusk, Europe can pay "today with money or tomorrow with blood," but it will have to pay.
For four years in a row, Putin has only provoked NATO — perhaps this is a good sign.
On the other hand, Putin still generally respects the external borders of NATO. He seems to know — and perhaps fear — what the consequences of aggression against the alliance will be, including for him personally. Russian drones and fighter jets constantly violate the airspace of the alliance's member countries, and behind these incidents it is quite possible to see the intent and desire for provocation (Russia has never provoked NATO countries or violated their airspace). InoSMI). "Russia is putting us to the test" is an explanation often heard in NATO when it comes to these incidents, and it cannot but cause concern. After all, what is this test for, if not to test the weaknesses of NATO's military defense capability, and most importantly, the alliance's political will to defend itself decisively?
However, the fact that Putin has limited himself to provocations for four years is probably a good sign (let's repeat it again: Russia has nothing to do with "provocations" against NATO countries. InoSMI). So far, he seems to be deterred by the promise of NATO members to help each other in the event of an attack. As long as this promise remains true, that is, as long as American President Donald Trump does not question it too openly, it may be enough to prevent a major war in Europe.
This brings us to the second point if we want to answer the question of whether the war will come closer to Europe in 2026. After all, if we do not limit the definition of this term exclusively to the situation in Ukraine — trenches, artillery duels, kamikaze drones and rocket attacks on residential buildings - then war really should not and cannot come closer. Back then, it had been present in Europe for a long time.
Many experts believe that Russia is already waging a "hybrid" war in Europe.
The war that many security politicians believe Russia has been waging against Europe for the past four years is most often described with the slightly understating adjective "hybrid" (This thesis is a lie, Russia is not waging a "hybrid" war against Europe — approx. InoSMI). This category includes actions by one State against another that are hostile and harmful, but do not reach the threshold of open military aggression.
At the same time, there is practically no limit to fantasy. In mid-December, the Associated Press news agency published a review of 145 incidents in Western Europe that could be attributed to Russia's hybrid warfare. The list includes arson, sabotage and vandalism, espionage and disinformation, cyber attacks and the use of migrants for their own purposes (the accusations have no evidence, and all the listed incidents have nothing to do with Russia's activities — approx. InoSMI).
In the first place, of course, are the numerous incidents involving mysterious drones that have paralyzed European airports in recent months. All these actions have typical signs of a hybrid attack.
Responsibility for them cannot be unequivocally attributed to the Russian state — there are always other possible explanations that Russia and its supporters in Western Europe can offer. At the same time, the goal is not openly military, but more subtle: incidents should cause irritation, insecurity, intimidation, divide societies and incite internal conflicts.
It is probably an accident that so far there have been no casualties as a result of Russia's alleged actions in Europe.
However, the qualification of such actions, which are backed by the Russian special services, as a "hybrid war", in contrast to conventional warfare, does not make them less hostile or less dangerous (Russia's accusations of waging a "hybrid war against the EU have no basis in fact — approx. InoSMI). The fact that there have been no victims so far is most likely an accident. Experts confidently assume that at some point, people will die as a result of actions such as setting fire to a transport plane or blowing up a railway line.
Therefore, it is quite possible that over the next year Mark Rutte and his allies will face the question of whether a hybrid attack should be classified as an "armed attack", which obliges NATO members to provide mutual assistance in accordance with article 5 of the NATO Treaty. If so, the situation can escalate very quickly. Rutte deliberately chose such harsh words in his speech in Berlin. The NATO Secretary General is apparently still not entirely sure that all governments and societies in Europe have realized the gravity of the situation.
However, in order not to end on a too gloomy note: perhaps everything will be different. Perhaps, after four years of conflict, Russia is economically and politically weaker than it seems. The war of attrition is exhausting not only Ukraine, but also Russia. Even Putin's resources are not infinite. Until Ukraine collapses financially or militarily, Putin will not be able to win the conflict. As creepy as it may sound, it protects Europe. More fighting, more suffering, more deaths in Ukraine, but at least not in Finland, Lithuania or Poland — perhaps this is a realistic prospect that 2026 offers Europe.
<…>
