The Dangers of NATO–Russian Confrontation: Why the Official Western Threat Analysis is Irrational

  • Szénási Endre
doi: 10.32565/aarms.2016.3.9

Abstract

We are witnessing a new era where NATO and Russia are engaged in deep a confrontation, including its military dimension. The West – especially the US and some countries on the Eastern borders of NATO – equal the Russian threat against Europe to that of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), and Ebola. Plenty of studies examine Russian use of hybrid warfare in “aggressions” against independent states, including Ukraine, Georgia, and last but not least Estonia, a member of the Alliance.
The portrayal of Russia, as the leading military threat against NATO is a hopelessly flawed threat perception that makes no sense at strategic level, unless it serves unstated and concealed geopolitical goals of some great powers. Both a conventional and a nuclear war between NATO and Russia are completely irrational and in nobody’s interest, since it will inflict enormous damage and there could be no real winner.
If a conventional military incident might occur between NATO and Russia, the parties will most likely restrain themselves to avoid a major war, as they did in several confrontations briefly analysed in the article. If a nuclear confrontation occurs, the capabilities of both parties are far more than enough to change living conditions on Earth beyond recognition, when the remnants of humanity will struggle to survive.
It is in Europe’s interest to reverse the confrontational course with Russia, while the perception of an “aggressive” Russia as a key military threat mainly serves US interests. The ultimate paradox is that Russia would truly become a leading threat to peace and security if the West succeeds destabilising her.

Keywords:

NATO US Russia ISIS conventional war nuclear war

How to Cite

Szénási, E. (2016) “The Dangers of NATO–Russian Confrontation: Why the Official Western Threat Analysis is Irrational”, AARMS – Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science. Budapest, 15(3), pp. 291–300. doi: 10.32565/aarms.2016.3.9.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.