Is a Russian attack on Europe closer than we think? What speaks for the aborigines who lose against the Santos oil company: pipeline allowed

Volodymyr Zelensky’s calls for more weapons and ammunition are becoming increasingly desperate. But it seems that Western politicians have not yet woken up. This is despite the fact that time is of the essence. Not just for Ukraine.

We have only two to three years left to build a sufficiently strong deterrent that can prevent Kremlin boss Vladimir Putin from attacking NATO territory. Fabian Hoffmann, an expert in security and defense policy at the University of Oslo, comes to this conclusion.

The worst-case scenario, if that doesn’t work, looks like this: Russia could attack and occupy parts of the Baltic states in a first, targeted attack and immediately establish a nuclear protective shield over them. This means making it clear to NATO that any attempt to recapture Russian-occupied territory would be met with a nuclear strike.

At the same time, targeted ‘de-escalation attacks’ also took place in Western Europe: attacks on European cities with long-range precision weapons, including hypersonic missiles. First, individual pinpricks, such as substations or other critical infrastructure, are addressed. The message Putin would send to the West: We can hurt you a lot more if we want to – so don’t even think about defending yourself.

The Russian threat had no longer arrived thousands of kilometers further east, but had arrived in the heart of Europe.

Putin’s trump card is hesitation in the West

Just an unrealistic horror scenario? “If we look at the indecisiveness in the West when it comes to supporting Ukraine, unfortunately not,” said security expert Hoffmann in an interview with CH Media.

Hoffmann’s wake-up call has already sparked a lively debate online. Critics counter that Russia’s strategy of so-called de-escalation attacks has achieved little in Ukraine – why should it work against the West? Some observers also take the West’s resolve in Ukraine as a given.

Nevertheless: German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius recently warned of a possible attack on NATO member states. This week, a detailed plan from his ministry on how Putin’s army could attack the Baltic states appeared in German media.

Pistorius, however, spoke of the five to eight years Russia would need to prepare its own army for such an attack. Is security researcher Hoffmann’s time frame of two to three years just scaremongering?

This would be the case if Russia wanted to wage a conventional war against NATO. But that’s not what Putin had in mind. His trump card is the indecision of his opponents. Hoffmann puts it this way: “For Russia, it is not about taking down NATO in a protracted battle, but rather about using psychological pressure to force decision-makers into negotiations.” The moment NATO would start negotiations over parts of its territory would already mean the end.

The US is and remains central

How can this be prevented? “Credible deterrent,” says Hoffmann. This includes a massive increase in NATO forces in the Baltic states. Large contingents of German, French and British soldiers on NATO’s eastern border would have to fend off a Russian surprise attack from day one.

The US also needs to move military equipment into the region so that it can quickly deploy soldiers if necessary. The US is and will remain crucial to deterrence. Ultimately, European arms factories will have to significantly increase production. There isn’t much time left for that.

Until then, any success in Ukraine will strengthen Russia’s back. Any disagreement in the West over support reinforces the Kremlin’s view that NATO simply lacks the will, the strength or both.

Or can we at best hope that Putin is not so serious about incorporating more national territory into his imperial empire? Today in Moscow and other Russian cities you can see posters of a large-scale advertising campaign offering the answer to this question. They read: “Russia’s borders end nowhere.” (aargauerzeitung.ch)