There is now a consensus within NATO that, following the end of the war in Ukraine, Russia will launch an attack on NATO. They all say so, for example here, here and here (to name but a few). The narrative is that, thanks to the EU’s and NATO’s vast sums of money and arms supplies, as well as the Ukrainians’ heroic efforts, the Russians will be tied down in Ukraine for several years to come; by which time, NATO will be so heavily armed that the Russians will come off badly. A tall tale, but so what? If it can persuade European populations to accept the vast sums of money being channelled to Ukraine and the military build-up, it has served its purpose. And it seems to be working just fine. The European peoples are up to now meekly accepting the story.

The idea that Russia would launch an invasion of NATO is, in fact, completely implausible. They have no territorial claims and no desire for a war with NATO. But that does not mean that war cannot break out. It certainly can. But it will not begin with a Russian invasion of the Baltic states, the Nordic countries or Poland. That much is certain.

As the war in Ukraine has progressed, the West has escalated its actions against Russia. “Red lines” have been swept aside, one by one. There was a time when long-range missiles were ruled out. Not any more. There was a time when one would not have breached the right to freedom of navigation in international waters. Not any more. NATO is deeply involved in Ukraine’s war effort. Using intelligence from spy satellites, Ukraine is provided with targets in Russia and assistance in circumventing Russian air defences; it receives navigation support for missile strikes from Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites; and it is supplied with designs and components to assemble long-range missiles. They are inflicting major damage in Russia, as intended, but this does not seem to be helping them on the front line in Ukraine. And in response, the Russians have, as it should have been possible to foresee, stepped up their missile, bomb and drone attacks in Ukraine.

Eight people were killed and 62 injured on July 18 when Ukrainian drones struck two warehouses belonging to Russia's biggest online retailer, Wildberries, Photo is from the internet. Russia is now responding with attacks on Ukrainian warehouses. 

Retired British Royal Navy Commodore Steve Jermy has recently written an interesting article entitled “The Coming War with Russia: A European Path to Ruin”. As one might guess from the title, it is not particularly optimistic on behalf of the EU and Britain. He emphasises that this is not a prediction, but merely a scenario of how things might unfold. He believes that the increasingly escalated and overt support for Ukraine may, at some point, prompt Russia to retaliate against the European NATO countries with a large-scale conventional missile attack. He believes this would be directed in particular at their military and energy infrastructure, which he claims is extremely vulnerable, plunging them into a deep economic crisis. It is a daunting scenario, but it is not the only one one can envisage.

Contrary to the European narrative, the most likely scenario, as mentioned, is not a land war. Russia has neither the motive nor the capacity for a land war against European countries. At the same time, the European countries do not have the capacity to invade Russia, as Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler did (with some initial success). It is worth bearing in mind that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union with 3 million German soldiers and around 800,000 from other nations (mainly Finns and Romanians, but also smaller contingents from other countries such as Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain and Croatia, including around 8,000 Danish volunteers). It was a vast “coalition of the willing”. Despite Macron’s efforts, it will be difficult for the EU and NATO to muster anything even remotely similar, as many of their own citizens are unwilling to serve in such a war. So if the European countries go to war with Russia, it will be a strange war, bearing no resemblance whatsoever to the Second World War. Instead, it may come to resemble the war between that US and Israel are waging against Iran. It may start on a small scale with what is termed a tit-for-tat exchange of missile strikes. It will be difficult to avoid a steady escalation, which will cause major damage to both sides and could lay parts of the economy in ruins (even if it can be prevented from culminating in the use of nuclear weapons).

When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, it did so with a coalition comprising 3 million German soldiers and around 800,000 from other European countries – not least Finns and Romanians – but around 8,000 Danes also took part on the Eastern Front. As is well known, things went well at first, but it did not end so well for them. Macron’s “coalition of the willing” has some high standards to live up to. Photo from wikimedia.

If the war the EU is planning follows the scenario of US' and Israel’s war against Iran, the EU and NATO countries will target, in particular, Russia’s shipping, military industry and gas and oil industries. Russia will presumably do the same, on the principle of tit for tat. In such a scenario, it is of no help for a country in Europe to claim it is not taking part in the war. If it has bases and a military-industrial complex and is funding Ukraine’s war, then it is involved and will be targeted anyway – just as the Gulf states and Jordan discovered during the Iran-Iraq War. American bases may well be spared if the US stays out of it, but if the US does participate, it can forget the idea that it would act as a ‘tripwire’ to protect against attacks (as the Gulf states mistakenly believed). Steve Jermy believes that such an exchange of missiles will affect European countries more than Russia, as the Russians have a better missile defence system and the Europeans are powerless against Russia’s hypersonic missiles (a claim I have no idea about). So he believes that, realistically, it will end with the Europeans having to beg for peace. The greatest risk he sees is that France and Britain, when faced with defeat, will resort to the use of nuclear weapons. One must hope that does not happen.

One of the major unknowns is what the other NATO countries will do. Jeremy speculates that Turkey will stay out of it, and that this might also apply to Spain, Italy and a few others. So it will primarily be a war for Britain, Germany and France (along with their Scandinavian, Polish and Baltic followers). But what about the US? They have extensive bases in European countries (particularly in the UK, Germany and Italy, but also smaller facilities in Spain, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Greece, and now also in Denmark and Norway), but as they discovered during the Iran War, these are highly vulnerable. They have been forced to withdraw a significant proportion of their aircraft and other military equipment far away from Iran. And contrary to what the Nordic and Baltic countries and Poland apparently believe, the presence of US bases offer them no security; instead, they make them prime targets for such a missile war.

French President Macron has taken the initiative to assemble a ‘coalition of the willing’ to send troops to Ukraine. It is said to be conditional on peace being established first, but given that one of Russia’s main objectives has been to prevent NATO troops from entering Ukraine, this seems a rather odd initiative. What is the purpose of it then? Are they living in a parallel world?

The US is hardly keen to get involved in a ground war with Russia. A large proportion of the American public would be opposed to this, not least in light of the fiasco in the Middle East. But does the US government (whoever may be president at the time) want to spend billions of dollars and deplete the country’s missile stockpiles in a missile exchange with Russia? Although we would probably have to enter a nuclear war scenario before US' home turf is directly hit, its troops in Europe would be at risk. So we do not know what the US will do. The European NATO countries must face the fact that they may have to stand on their own two feet. And that is unlikely to go well for them. Unlike the US, they do not even have a direct telephone line to the Kremlin. Because they do not want one. Why should they talk to the new Hitler?

If I have understood correctly, the EU’s plan right now is to increase the pressure on Russia byⁱ:

• Continuing to fund and supply weapons and intelligence to enable Ukraine to continue and expand its attacks deep into Russia.

• Threaten third countries with secondary sanctions if they buy oil and gas from Russia. India and Turkey are the most obvious candidates, as China is unlikely to be intimidated.

• Together with the US, utilise the NATO countries’ superior naval dominance to prevent Russia’s export of oil and gas by seizing their vessels, regardless of the flag they may be flying. The most obvious place to block the Russians is at the exit from the Baltic Sea in the Gulf of Finland and through the Danish straits, and via Ukraine to attack all Russian ships in the Black Sea. Then the Russians would only have access to international waters via the Barents Sea and the Pacific Ocean. But as Trump has shown, NATO and the US can also use their superiority at sea to intercept Russian ships in other locations in international waters.The whole thing is timed and orchestrated.

• The next step could, as Macron wishes, be to send NATO troops to Ukraine to help them with their manpower shortage. But this is apparently something they are hesitant about, as it would cost the lives of many of their own soldiers.

The British Navy boarded on June 14 an oil tanker with oil from Russia, Smyrtos, registered in Cameroon, with 24 Georgian and Indian crew. The charge against the captain, according to BBC, was that the ship was evading international sanctions imposed on Russia’s oil exports. BBC didn’t mention that there are no international sanctions, only NATO’s own sanctions, but apparently ‘international’ sounds better, hinting that it could be legal. Which it isn't.

One must assume that all the clever minds in the EU (Leyden, Kallas, Merz, Macron, Frederiksen, etc.) have tried to think through the various scenarios. I have seen nothing from them other than the usual muddled narrative about a coming massive Russian invasion. But I cannot bring myself to imagine that they actually believe in that scenario themselves. Europe is thus in the midst of a massive military build-up, without the public being told how it is to be used in the predicted war with Russia. Apparently, no politicians - not to mention journalists - dare to ask the question. But we are going to war! In 2030 or before.

How does one expect Russia to react to its ships being seized? Retaliation with missile strikes on EU shipping? Or what if, at some point, Russia launches a (conventional) missile attack on military bases used to supply Ukraine, and on the industries producing drones and missiles for them? What will the EU do then? What is the plan of action?

The people of Europe have a right to know what their governments and the EU are dragging them into. It is they who will be putting their lives and limbs on the line. Not Kallas, Leyden, Merz, Macron, Stubb, Frederiksen and whatever their names are. They are a bunch of headless chickens who have become a security risk for their own populations.

****************

Notes:

1. NATO planners have also included in their plans either to capture or destroy the Kaliningrad enclave (with its 1 million inhabitants). But such an undertaking would probably result in Russia resorting to nuclear weapons in order to defend it. So we must hope that they think again.