Today’s Provocation: On 10 September 2025, Poland’s air defenses were scrambled as swarms of drones breached its airspace from the east. Polish forces, backed by NATO allies’ jets, shot down nearly two dozen Russian drones – marking the first time NATO assets engaged a Russian target since the Ukraine war began[1]. Moscow denied any deliberate incursion, but Polish officials defiantly presented photos of debris with Cyrillic markings. “We know that it was not a mistake… Poland will not be intimidated,” declared Polish Secretary of State Marcin Bosacki at an emergency UN session[2]. The episode jolted Europe: a NATO member’s skies violated on a scale never seen, its towns startled awake by falling wreckage and the specter of Russia’s war spilling past Ukraine’s borders.
Firefighters repair the roof of a Polish home hit by debris after Russian drones violated Poland’s airspace on 10 September 2025[3][4]. Warsaw shot down the drones with NATO support, underscoring the seriousness of this breach of a NATO country’s territory. This drone provocation is not an isolated incident or accident – it is a deliberate act of hybrid warfare and escalation. By probing Polish airspace, Russia is testing NATO’s resolve and response time, much as it has tested other red lines in recent years. The incursion follows a pattern: ambiguous aggression executed just below the threshold of open war, aimed at destabilizing and intimidating, all while offering denials (“a technical error,” “an errant strike”) to muddy the waters. With this latest breach, Moscow sends a calculated signal that it can extend the conflict’s reach, confronting NATO with split-second decisions – and daring the Alliance to respond.
From Georgia to Ukraine: Moscow’s Playbook of Aggression
The drama in Poland’s skies is new, but the aggressive strategy behind it is not. Ever since its invasion of Georgia in 2008, Russia’s hostility toward its neighbors and the West has only intensified[5]. In August 2008, under the pretext of protecting breakaway regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian troops stormed into Georgia – the first European war of the 21st century. A short five-day clash ended with Moscow occupying Georgian territories and facing minimal long-term consequences[6]. The muted international response to the Georgia war failed to deter Russia’s future aggression, as analysts later observed[7]. Indeed, the pattern repeated: in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist war in eastern Ukraine; by 2022, it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, seeking to topple Kyiv and redraw Europe’s map by force[6]. Each time, the Kremlin gambled that the West’s response would be limited to condemnations and sanctions – a calculation largely vindicated until the unprecedented unity behind Ukraine in 2022.
Moscow’s military drills and “war games” have long been a telling indicator of its intentions. The Zapad exercises (“Zapad” meaning “West”) are held periodically near NATO’s eastern flank and have often doubled as rehearsals for real conflicts. During Zapad-2021, Russia massed troops in Belarus under the guise of exercises – many of those units later rolled across the border in the Ukraine invasion of February 2022[8]. This year’s Zapad-2025 drills, launched jointly with Belarus, came immediately on the heels of the Polish drone incident. Over 7,000 Russian and Belarusian troops began war games on 12 September, practicing battlefield maneuvers and even simulating decisions on nuclear weapon use[9][10]. NATO officials, while monitoring the drills, warned that the Kremlin has a “known history of using military exercises to pursue coercive policies.”[11] In other words, Zapad is not mere posturing – it is a stress test of NATO’s readiness and a cover under which Russia has moved to achieve strategic surprise in the past. The timing of the Polish incursion, coinciding with these drills, is unlikely a coincidence: it fits Russia’s modus operandi of blending saber-rattling exercises with real acts of aggression to keep opponents off-balance.
Historical echoes are hard to ignore. In 2008, just before invading Georgia, Russia conducted large military maneuvers in the North Caucasus; in 2014, it mobilized “snap exercises” in Crimea as a prelude to annexation. Each episode probed the West’s limits. Ever since 2008, Russia’s actions – from war in Georgia to the seizure of Crimea and beyond – have steadily intensified its challenge to NATO[12]. The drone intrusion over Poland’s territory is the latest link in this chain. It shows that even as Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, it is willing to broaden the confrontation with the West. NATO’s Article 5 – the collective defense guarantee – was not formally invoked by Poland, likely because no human lives were lost in the drone incident. But the message from the Kremlin is clear: our conflict with the West is not confined to Ukraine, and we can reach you at times and places of our choosing.
The Disinformation Front: AI-Fueled “Operation Overload”
Military aggression is only one front in Moscow’s hybrid war. Another is the battle for hearts and minds on a global scale – a battle Russia increasingly wages through bytes, bots, and artificially generated personas. Western democracies have in recent years been bombarded by waves of Russian propaganda and disinformation, but 2025 has seen a disturbing escalation: the use of AI-generated content and algorithmic manipulation to flood social media with false narratives. A coordinated influence operation dubbed “Operation Overload” has dramatically ramped up its output, exploiting advanced AI tools to produce fake news reports, deepfake videos, and demagogic memes in staggering volume[13][14].
According to research by disinformation experts, Operation Overload is a pro-Russian campaign aligned with the Kremlin’s interests, active since 2023 and now churning out content at an explosive rate[15]. In less than a year, the campaign’s content production jumped roughly 150%, with over 587 pieces of fake content created in an 8-month period – the majority fabricated with the help of AI[16]. The goal is an “information overload” – to saturate the online environment with so many false or distorted stories that truth and lies become harder to distinguish. By impersonating legitimate media outlets and pumping out stories on divisive issues (from the Ukraine war to immigration fears), the operation seeks to sow division within Western societies and push populations toward extremes[13][17].
Critically, these aren’t crude Internet trolls or obvious bots of yesteryear. Russia’s digital operatives are now wielding cheap, off-the-shelf AI tools to make their fakes more convincing. They’ve generated images using AI programs (for example, fabricating pictures of “Muslim migrants” supposedly rioting in European cities to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment)[18][19]. They use AI voice-cloning and video manipulation to create deepfake clips of public figures saying things they never said[20][21]. In one striking case, the campaign produced a fake video of a French academic speaking (in flawless German) to urge Germans to stage mass riots and vote for a far-right party[21].
The footage was borrowed from a real lecture, but her voice was AI-modified to deliver incendiary political propaganda – a chilling example of how truth can be twisted with new technology. The clip spread on X (formerly Twitter) and even trickled onto TikTok before vigilant fact-checkers and platform teams managed to take it down[22].
This deluge of AI-driven disinformation aims to overwhelm the algorithms of social media, ensuring that at least some of the fake content goes viral before it can be caught. By exploiting how engagement-driven algorithms amplify sensational or polarizing material, Russia’s online operatives essentially hack the attention economy to propagate their narratives. The effort is global – targeting not just Europe or the U.S., but any democratic society where wedge issues can be inflamed[14]. Ukraine remains a prime target (with constant attempts to demoralize its supporters or falsely accuse it of atrocities), but Western elections are also in the crosshairs. The overarching strategy is sometimes described as a “firehose of falsehood” – overwhelm your adversaries with so many lies, half-truths, and conspiracy theories that the public cannot process it all.
The danger of this “operation overload” is profound. By destabilizing democracies from within, Russia can weaken the very foundations of the Western alliance. If voters in NATO countries come to believe extreme or false narratives – for example, that their leaders are corrupt, that supporting Ukraine risks nuclear war, or that immigrants are causing societal collapse – they may turn toward isolationist, pro-Kremlin, or ultranationalist politicians. Indeed, stirring extremism and polarization is the point. A divided, internally distracted West would be less able to present a united front against Russian aggression. Thus, the floods of AI-fabricated propaganda are not just random mischief or election interference – they are an integral part of Moscow’s hybrid warfare arsenal, aimed at achieving through psychological manipulation what it also attempts through bullets and bombs.
Sabotage, Assassinations, and Cyberattacks: A Pattern, Not Isolated Incidents
Russia’s drone incursion over Poland and its disinformation offensives are part of a bigger mosaic of hybrid aggression. The Kremlin’s strategy operates in a gray zone: a spectrum of actions that fall short of overt war, allowing Russia to strike at its adversaries without triggering a full military response. These include cyber hacks, covert sabotage, targeted killings, incursions into airspace and territorial waters, and more. It is crucial to recognize these incidents not as unrelated episodes, but as elements of a systemic campaign to undermine and intimidate the West.
Consider the recent spike in sabotage across Europe. Western intelligence agencies report that over the past three years, Russia has recruited local criminals and smugglers to carry out arson, bombings, and even assassination plots on European soil[23]. In spring 2024, for example, a series of mysterious arson attacks hit logistics and energy facilities in multiple NATO countries – including a fire at a warehouse in London and a foiled bomb plot on a German cargo plane[23]. European investigators later uncovered that some perpetrators were paid by Russian intelligence proxies[24][25]. Perhaps most brazen was the attempted assassination of a German arms industry CEO: Russian operatives targeted the head of Rheinmetall (a company supplying Ukraine with tanks and munitions), prompting U.S. intelligence to quietly tip off Berlin. German police disrupted the plot in the nick of time[26]. These are not the acts of rogue individuals; they are state-directed attacks meant to punish and deter Western support for Ukraine and to signal that no one is beyond the Kremlin’s reach.
NATO officials openly acknowledge the pattern. An alliance assessment in 2024 warned that Moscow is conducting an “escalating and violent campaign of sabotage and subversion” against NATO countries, aiming to coerce governments and populations[27][28]. Britain’s MI5 and Germany’s domestic intelligence have likewise sounded the alarm: Russian intelligence units are increasingly “reckless” and “aggressive” in Europe, resorting to arson, poisonings, and cyber attacks on critical infrastructure[29][30]. From the poisoning of defectors and dissidents (as in the infamous Skripal nerve-agent attack in the UK) to the hacking of parliaments and power grids, the Kremlin’s message is one of intimidation. By inflicting just enough damage – a sabotaged rail line here, a dissident journalist shot there – Russia seeks to make societies feel vulnerable, to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion, all while maintaining plausible deniability.
Airspace violations are another piece of the puzzle. Long before the Polish drone incident, Russian military aircraft routinely probed NATO’s skies. Warplanes with transponders turned off have skirted Baltic and North Sea airspace, leading NATO fighters to scramble. Russian submarines have lurked near undersea cables and pipelines, raising the specter of sabotage to critical infrastructure. Each tactic alone might seem like a one-off provocation; taken together, they form a clear pattern of hybrid warfare – conflict waged through a mix of military, covert, and informational means, always calibrated to keep Western responses just short of all-out retaliation[31].
The strategic logic behind these operations is straightforward. As a recent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted, actions below the threshold of open war offer Russia several advantages: they are relatively cheap, deniable, and unlikely to trigger NATO’s collective defense clause if kept ambiguous[32][33]. In essence, Russia can wage war on the West in bits and pieces, exploiting our own reluctance to escalate. A joint NATO-EU statement in late 2024 captured this reality, listing the “sabotage, acts of violence, cyber and electronic interference, disinformation campaigns, and other hybrid operations” that Russia was conducting against Allied security[34]. The statement underscored that these were not independent phenomena but part of a coordinated strategy directed by the Kremlin. Indeed, Western intelligence has traced many of these operations back to Unit 29155 of Russia’s GRU (military intelligence) – a shadowy unit tasked with subversion and assassination in Europe[35].
The key for Western policymakers and publics is to see the connecting thread. When Russia’s hackers shut down a Ukrainian power grid, when a pro-Kremlin media outlet spreads a conspiracy theory about a Latvian politician, when unknown saboteurs sever an undersea data cable off Norway, and when drones violate Poland’s airspace – these events are chapters of the same playbook. The Kremlin is telling the West: we can hurt you in many ways, in many places, and we will deny it all while watching your response. To protect our democracies, we must recognize this hybrid threat for what it is – and craft a unified, equally multi-faceted response.
The Transatlantic Rift: Washington’s Waning Reliability
Compounding Europe’s challenge is an uncomfortable reality: the traditional security guarantor for the continent, the United States, is showing signs of strategic distraction and internal division. In the last few years, Washington’s political landscape has grown more polarized, and its foreign policy priorities have shifted – developments not lost on Moscow, Beijing, or Europe’s own leaders. Europeans are increasingly worried that the U.S. security umbrella, long taken for granted, may no longer be ironclad. The drone crisis over Poland, for instance, elicited a notably muted and muddled initial response from the highest levels in Washington. While the U.S. Ambassador to the UN robustly affirmed America would “defend every inch of NATO territory”[36], President Donald Trump initially suggested the Russian drone strike “could have been a mistake,” a comment that sent ripples of concern through European capitals[37].
Such mixed signals reflect deeper transatlantic strains. After a brief revival of U.S.–Europe solidarity in 2022–2023, the return of an “America First” mindset in Washington has stirred doubts. President Trump – now in his second term – has openly demanded steep increases in European defense spending and even threatened to abandon the NATO alliance if allies are “delinquent”[38]. At the NATO Summit in The Hague earlier this year (June 2025), Trump pressed allies to raise military outlays above 3–5% of GDP, warning that the U.S. might “go its own way” otherwise[38][39]. European diplomats privately fret that these ultimatums, coupled with partisan rifts in the U.S. Congress over aid to Ukraine, signal an America less willing to bear the burdens of Europe’s defense. Indeed, Washington’s strategic focus is increasingly split – with an eye on rivalry with China in the Indo-Pacific, and domestic political turmoil at home, from government shutdowns to election disputes.
The U.S.’s internal polarization is not just an abstract worry; it has material consequences for European security. In early 2025, upon the change of U.S. administration, several joint U.S.-Europe security initiatives were abruptly halted or scaled back. For instance, a coordinated effort to counter Russian hybrid warfare – set up by the previous administration to share intelligence on sabotage and disinformation – was put on pause[40][41]. Regular inter-agency meetings between Washington and EU/NATO counterparts were dropped[42]. The Trump White House also moved to suspend certain military aid programs for Europe (arguing European nations should pay for their own security), and reports indicate plans to wind down U.S. special operations forces missions training European allies in counter-sabotage tactics[43][44]. Each step sends a clear message, intended or not: Europe, you are on your own.
European leaders from Paris to Berlin have been alarmed by what one EU analysis called the “contours of an isolationist US policy” emerging[45]. A German think-tank report bluntly noted that Washington is “distancing itself from the post-war European order and not shying away from blackmailing its European partners on security issues.”[45] The harsh wording underscores a perception that the U.S. is now willing to leverage its protection (or withdrawal thereof) to extract policy concessions – behavior more typical of great-power transactionalism than the old spirit of alliance. The credibility of Article 5 hinges not just on capabilities but on political will; if Europe suspects that will is eroding in a divided America, the deterrent power of NATO is weakened.
The shock of the Israeli strike on Qatar (discussed in the next section) has only heightened these concerns. In that episode, a close U.S. ally (Qatar) found itself under attack by another U.S. ally (Israel), and Washington did not prevent it. Gulf leaders interpreted it as a failure of the American security guarantee – a disturbing precedent for Europeans who also rely on U.S. security commitments[46][47]. “How much can we still rely on Washington?” is no longer a theoretical question in Brussels, Warsaw or Tallinn – it’s being asked in earnest. NATO’s Secretary General (former Dutch PM Mark Rutte) recently emphasized the need for Europe to “boost its share of the burden” and even floated the notion of a 400% increase in NATO’s European air defense capacity as urgent[48][49]. The subtext was clear: U.S. contributions may plateau or decline, so Europe must step up dramatically.
None of this is to say the transatlantic bond is broken – U.S. forces are still stationed across Europe and Congress (for now) continues to fund NATO deployments. But the trend is toward uncertainty. Europe faces the possibility of abrupt policy shifts in Washington with each election cycle, and even the specter of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO can no longer be wholly dismissed. This vulnerability is exactly what Russia seeks to exploit. The Kremlin’s hybrid threats bank on a hesitant or divided response. A United States distracted by internal feuds or by crises elsewhere (Asia, Middle East) might hesitate to respond firmly to a Baltic sabotage incident or a creeping Russian incursion in the Black Sea. Moscow watches U.S. politics keenly and knows that anything which drives a wedge between American and European interests is to its benefit.
In sum, Europe in 2025 faces a dual challenge: an external aggressor in Moscow that is testing its defenses and an America whose reliability is no longer rock-solid. This confluence of threats and uncertainties is fueling a profound rethinking in European capitals about the continent’s strategic autonomy and capacity for self-defense.
European Strategic Autonomy: From Concept to Imperative
Faced with a revanchist Russia and wavering U.S. support, Europe has come to a sobering conclusion: it must be prepared to protect itself. The buzzword for this is “European strategic autonomy,” and it is rapidly evolving from a theoretical EU goal into concrete policy. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, have in recent months openly called for building a “Europe of defense” strong enough to act independently if needed. This push is about more than just pride or political posturing – it is born of urgent necessity. As one EU strategy document put it in March 2025, Europe must “accelerate the mobilization of the necessary instruments and financing in order to bolster the security of the European Union and the protection of our citizens.”[50] In practical terms, that means investing heavily in capabilities that Europe traditionally underfunded, and coordinating closely to eliminate duplication and weaknesses.
What would European strategic autonomy look like in practice?
Key focus areas are emerging:
Integrated Air and Missile Defense:
Europe has learned from the Ukraine war and incidents like the Polish drone incursion that it needs layered air defenses covering the continent. A German-led project, the European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI), was launched to create a multi-layered air defense network across Europe[49]. Over a dozen countries have signed on, pooling resources to buy systems like Germany’s IRIS-T, U.S.-made Patriots, and Israel’s Arrow-3 missiles[51]. The goal is an interoperable shield against everything from stray drones to ballistic missiles – so no European nation is left exposed or reliant solely on U.S. Patriot batteries. NATO’s Secretary General Rutte emphasized that dramatically boosting air defense is vital for deterrence in this new era[48]. Recent joint purchases (e.g. Sweden’s $900M order of IRIS-T systems via ESSI) show Europe is putting serious money into this critical capability[52][49].
Joint Military Procurement and Industrial Cooperation:
Europe can no longer afford the luxury of fragmented defense spending, where 27 countries independently buy 27 versions of the same equipment. The European Commission in late 2023 launched a new initiative (EDIRPA) specifically to co-finance joint procurement of defense equipment[53]. Though modest in budget (~€300 million initially), it is a pilot for larger cooperative buys – for example, a recent EU agreement to jointly purchase 1 million artillery shells for Ukraine (pooling orders to get volume and speed). The longer-term vision is a single European defense market: consolidating the dozens of national arms programs into common projects.
The EU’s Strategic Compass and a 2024 White Paper on Defense call for Member States to carry out at least 40% of their defense procurement jointly by 2030[54]. This would not only save money through economies of scale but also ensure European armies can all fight together seamlessly with the same systems.
Initiatives like PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) encourage countries to team up on projects (from developing next-gen helicopters to joint cyber units).
The message is clear – “European sovereignty” in defense requires that Europe build and buy its own advanced kit together, rather than depending on U.S. suppliers or acting at cross purposes.
There are challenges (national pride and protectionism die hard), but the trend has begun to shift. As one German analysis noted, strengthening Europe’s defense industrial base and reducing strategic dependence on the U.S. is now an explicit EU goal[55].
Coordinated Cyber Defenses and Counter-Hybrid Forces:
In the face of relentless Russian cyber attacks and meddling, European states are moving to synchronize their defensive measures. NATO and the EU have established a Joint Cybersecurity Task Force, and information-sharing about Russian cyber units and disinformation networks has intensified.
The EU’s March 2025 summit conclusions called for improving “cyber defence and the use of artificial intelligence in electronic warfare” as part of the broader security upgrade[55]. This includes training “cyber rapid response teams” that can be dispatched across the union to assist with major hacks. European governments are also pressuring social media companies to tweak algorithms and amplify content from authoritative sources to counteract Russian “algorithmic distortion” of the information space[56][57].
In the hybrid warfare domain, NATO has opened European Centres of Excellence (in Finland, Estonia, etc.) focused on spotting and responding to tactics like election interference or energy blackmail. The idea is to foster a whole-of-Europe resilience: better coordinated law enforcement and intelligence to foil assassination plots and sabotage, stronger civilian infrastructure protection, and unified attribution of malign acts.
When a mysterious explosion hits a European railway or a high-profile dissident is poisoned, European agencies now increasingly default to comparing notes and, when evidence permits, calling out Moscow together rather than in isolated national voices. This collective approach raises the diplomatic and economic costs for the Kremlin’s transgressions.
As an EU Security Spokesperson summarized, Europe is now “coordinating with NATO on countering hybrid threats, which span everything from physical sabotage of critical infrastructure to disinformation campaigns.”[58]
European strategic autonomy does not mean Europe wants to decouple from the United States or NATO – rather, it is about building a stronger European pillar within NATO and a safety net if the U.S. continues to turn inward. In fact, many of these efforts directly contribute to NATO readiness. By taking greater responsibility for its own neighborhood, Europe also answers longstanding American demands for fair burden-sharing. The hope in European capitals is that a more self-reliant Europe will both deter Russian aggression and keep the transatlantic partnership healthy (by reducing frictions over unequal commitments).
Crucially, Europe’s moves towards autonomy signal to the Kremlin that its strategy of intimidation is backfiring. Far from fracturing under pressure, the EU is tightening its defense union. Budgets for defense across Europe have surged (Germany’s defense budget, for example, is finally on track to exceed 2% of GDP, shattering a taboo). Joint exercises among European militaries have been scaled up to improve readiness. In short, Europe is rearming and uniting – a strategic shift unimaginable a decade ago. This resolve must continue, for as we turn to the global stage, it’s evident that Europe’s security challenges are but one piece of a larger puzzle of international instability.
Global Implications: Multipolar Chaos and Authoritarian Gains
The Polish drone crisis and Europe’s awakening are occurring against a backdrop of broader geopolitical turmoil. We live in an era where multiple conflicts and power-plays are unfolding simultaneously – a multipolar world of often unchecked aggression. And in this global disorder, authoritarian regimes like Russia’s see opportunity. Vladimir Putin has long yearned for a “post-Western” world order where U.S. influence wanes and might makes right in settling disputes. Recent events suggest that chaos is becoming a feature, not a bug, of the international system – and this chaos is being cynically leveraged by those who thrive in a rule-breaking environment.
Consider the shocking events just days ago in the Middle East: Israel’s sudden airstrike on Doha, Qatar. On 9 September 2025, Israeli warplanes launched a barrage of missiles at what they claimed were Hamas leadership targets in the Qatari capital – an astounding move, given that Qatar is a sovereign state and close U.S. ally hosting American troops[59][60]. The attack killed several people (including a Qatari officer) and sent smoke billowing over Doha’s skyline.
Qatar’s government, outraged, condemned it as a “flagrant violation of international law” and “state terror”[61][46]. An emergency Arab-Islamic summit was convened as regional powers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE rallied to Qatar’s side, denouncing Israel’s action[62]. Beyond the Middle East, however, the strike’s ramifications were deeply felt in the security community: it shattered a decades-old assumption that U.S. partners could rely on Washington to restrain such inter-ally aggression[63][46]. Qatar had believed that being an indispensable mediator and hosting the largest U.S. air base in the region immunized it from attack[64][65]. That illusion was demolished in one night.
Smoke rises over Doha, Qatar after Israel’s unprecedented strike targeting Hamas figures on 9 September 2025[59][66]. The attack on a U.S.-aligned Gulf state stunned the region and undercut confidence in American security guarantees.
For U.S. allies in Europe and Asia, the Qatar strike was a Sputnik moment – a sudden event that forces a reevaluation of strategic fundamentals. If Israel, heavily dependent on U.S. security aid, could take such an unilateral step against another U.S. friend, and if the U.S. either could not or would not prevent it, what does that say about the coherence of the American-led alliance network? Gulf leaders openly asked whether Washington had given a green light; U.S. officials insist they had no advance knowledge (though President Trump claimed he tried to give a warning)[47][67]. Either scenario is damaging: in one, the U.S. is complicit in violating an ally’s sovereignty; in the other, the U.S. looks unable to influence even its closest partner’s actions. Arab states concluded that American guarantees had become guises, prompting frantic diplomacy among themselves to close ranks[68][69]. It is not hard to imagine the Kremlin smiling at this fallout. A cornerstone of U.S. influence – the confidence of its allies – was cracked. And when U.S. influence diminishes, a vacuum opens that players like Russia (and China) eagerly seek to fill.
Indeed, multipolar destabilization directly benefits Moscow’s strategic position. Putin’s advisors have explicitly theorized that if the West is bogged down by crises on multiple fronts, it cannot effectively counter Russia. As one analysis revealed, the Kremlin hoped that a “distracted West, entangled in conflicts on other fronts, would be unable to unite in the face of the Russian threat”[70]. Look around the world today: the U.S. and Europe are grappling not only with Russian aggression in Ukraine but also a war in Gaza with potential to ignite a wider Middle East conflagration, intensifying Chinese military pressure on Taiwan, nuclear brinkmanship from North Korea, and more. This overload of crises strains Western bandwidth and resources. Political attention and public opinion can only focus on so many emergencies. When fatigue and division set in, authoritarian powers exploit the gaps. In the Middle East, Russia quickly positioned itself as a sympathetic interlocutor to Arab states furious about the Qatar attack (even as Russian state media cynically amplifies conspiracy theories about the U.S.’s role). In Africa, the Wagner mercenary group (nominally “independent” but Kremlin-aligned) fans local conflicts, knowing each one diverts French or U.N. peacekeeping focus. The cumulative effect is a world more divided and chaotic – an environment in which Putin can assert that Western-led order is failing and that Russia’s hard-power approach is as legitimate as anyone’s.
Crucially, Putin’s regime sees global instability not as a danger but as an opportunity. The Kremlin’s strategists have spoken of a coming “new normal” of constant conflict – arguing that the relatively stable post-Cold War decades were an aberration, and that we are returning to an era where wars (proxy or direct) happen frequently[71][72]. In their view, Russia is better suited to this environment than the complacent democracies. Moscow’s propaganda openly gloats that while Europe frets over energy prices or refugee flows, Russians can endure hardship and conflict – making them more fit for a Darwinian world of strife[73][74].
There is a perverse logic: by fueling chaos (be it through Syria, Libya, cyber-sabotage, or political subversion), the Kremlin validates its narrative that the Western-led peace was a sham and that power politics are back. If nations lose faith in international law and U.S. guarantees, they may pivot to appease Russia or adopt similar might-is-right behavior. We already see some drift: countries like Hungary and Turkey, NATO members, hedge their bets with Moscow; some African and Asian states openly embrace Russia’s narrative of resisting “Western hegemony.”
It cannot be overstated: a fragmented, tumultuous world works in Russia’s favor. Western unity is what contained Moscow; Western disunity empowers it. As a top U.S. analyst, Kori Schake, warned, blinding ourselves to Russia’s shadow war and letting chaos spread is dangerously shortsighted – “we’re choosing to blind ourselves to potential acts of war against us.”[75]. Conversely, shining a light and confronting these acts – as Europe is starting to do – is the only path to stymie the strategy of chaos.
In the case of the Israeli strike on Qatar, the global community’s response (or lack thereof) will set a precedent. If such violations become normalized, authoritarians everywhere will feel emboldened. Imagine China calculating U.S. hesitation after witnessing intra-alliance rifts – it could make a move on Taiwan, assuming the U.S. might equivocate.
Or Russia itself, seeing NATO’s caution over the Poland drone event, might test another boundary in the Baltics or Balkans next time. The ripple effects cross continents: in a multipolar context, no crisis exists in a silo.
This is why European strategic autonomy, discussed earlier, has global significance. A Europe that can hold its own allows the West to better manage simultaneous crises – sharing the load so that an overstretched America isn’t the lone pillar propping up world order. If Europe can secure its neighborhood, the U.S. can focus attention where needed without leaving a vacuum behind.
Finally, it’s worth noting that not all is going in the Kremlin’s favor. While the world is indeed more disorderly, Russia hasn’t been able to avoid consequences. Its aggression galvanized NATO in 2022 rather than splintering it. And its hopes for automatic anti-Western solidarity through blocs like BRICS have been only partly fulfilled[76][77]. Many nations still prefer not to choose sides. This means there is still a window for the democratic world to regroup and push back against the forces of chaos.
Conclusion: A Call for Unity and Resolve
Europe stands at a crossroads not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War. The 10 September drone incursion into Poland’s skies was a startling reminder that the fight is at our doorstep. But it was also a catalyst. In a single week, we have seen both the fragility of old assumptions – be it NATO’s inviolability or America’s constancy – and the gathering determination of Europe to forge a more secure future on its own terms. The lessons are clear. Russian aggression, from Georgia to Ukraine to Poland, will not simply dissipate; it must be confronted with strength and unity. Hybrid warfare must be met with hybrid defense – drones with air defenses, lies with truth, saboteurs with counter-sabotage teams.
Europe can no longer view security as “someone else’s job.” The calls for European strategic autonomy are in fact calls for responsibility. By investing in its own defense, Europe does not weaken the alliance with America – it fortifies it, providing a second strong pillar to uphold our shared values. The transatlantic relationship, though strained, remains indispensable; efforts to strengthen Europe’s role should go hand in hand with diplomacy to keep the U.S. engaged. Washington, for its part, would do well to remember that a more capable Europe serves its interests too, and that retreating from global leadership only invites the very chaos that adversaries like Putin crave.
Above all, democracies worldwide must recognize the interconnected nature of today’s threats. A drone swarm over Poland, a deepfake video in Germany, a sabotage in London, an airstrike in Doha – they are threads of the same tapestry of instability that autocratic regimes are weaving. Our response must be a tapestry of unity and resolve. NATO, the EU, and other partners need to bolster collective defense, share intelligence rapidly, sanction aggressors decisively, and never let divisive narratives at home erode the solidarity that is our greatest strength.
As history has shown, authoritarian powers often miscalculate the resolve of free nations. It is up to us to prove Putin’s gambit for an “operation overload” futile – by demonstrating that we will not be overloaded, overwhelmed, or intimidated.
In this decisive moment, Europe has begun to awaken. The drone wreckage on Polish soil, like the shrapnel of past aggressions, should steel our resolve. The path forward is challenging, but it is illuminated by a simple truth: in unity, democracies are unassailable.
By understanding the hybrid war we face, by investing in our collective security, and by standing firmly with each other – on both sides of the Atlantic – we can ensure that Putin’s playbook of escalation fails, and that a rules-based peace prevails for the next generation.
The time to act is now; the stakes could not be higher.
Sources:
- Reuters – US vows to defend NATO territory after suspected Russian drone incursion in Poland[1][78]
- RFE/RL – Russia Looks to Gauge NATO With Zapad War Games[8][11]
- Atlantic Council – Issue Brief: A NATO strategy for countering Russia[5][31]
- WIRED – Pro-Russia disinformation campaign uses AI for “content explosion”[13][21]
- Reuters – Exclusive: US suspends efforts to counter Russian sabotage[23][24]
- CSIS – Russia’s Shadow War Against the West (analysis of subversion tactics)[29][34]
- Breaking Defense – European Sky Shield Initiative for air defense[49][48]
- SWP Berlin – Strengthening Europe’s Defence Capabilities[50][53]
- Reuters – Israel strikes Hamas leaders in Qatar, shaking Gulf confidence[59][62]
- The Guardian – Israel’s attack on Qatar upends faith in US protection[46][47]
- CEPA – Has the Kremlin’s Dream of Global Chaos Come True?[70][71]
Links
[1] [2] [3] [4] [36] [37] [78] US vows to defend NATO territory after suspected Russian drone incursion in Poland | Reuters www.reuters.com/business/… [5] [6] [12] [31] Issue brief: A NATO strategy for countering Russia - Atlantic Council www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-… [7] THE ENDURING IMPACT OF THE 2008 RUSSO-GEORGIAN WAR warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/… [8] [9] [10] [11] Russia Looks To Gauge NATO With Zapad War Games. Here’s What To Know. www.rferl.org/a/russia-… [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] A Pro-Russia Disinformation Campaign Is Using Free AI Tools to Fuel a ‘Content Explosion’ | WIRED www.wired.com/story/pro… [23] [24] [25] [26] [40] [41] [42] [58] [75] Exclusive: US suspends some efforts to counter Russian sabotage as Trump moves closer to Putin | Reuters www.reuters.com/world/us-… [27] [28] [29] [30] [32] [33] [34] Russia’s Shadow War Against the West www.csis.org/analysis/… [35] A More Brazen Russia Slowly Raises the Specter of a NATO … worldview.stratfor.com/article/m… [38] Fit for purpose? Reforming NATO in the age of Trump 2.0 | European Union Institute for Security Studies www.iss.europa.eu/publicati… [39] [45] [50] [53] [54] [55] Strengthening Europe’s Defence Capabilities through Clear Tasks and Objectives - Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik www.swp-berlin.org/publikati… [43] Trump to end European security programs focused on Russia www.washingtonpost.com/national-… [44] RUPTURES AND NEW REALITIES - IGA - 2025 NATO POLL instituteforglobalaffairs.org/2025/06/r… [46] [47] [63] [64] [65] [67] [68] [69] Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar shatters Gulf’s faith in US protection | Qatar | The Guardian www.theguardian.com/world/202… [48] [49] [51] [52] Sweden inks $900M IRIS-T air defense deal through European Sky Shield Initiative - Breaking Defense breakingdefense.com/2025/06/s… [56] Blame It on the Algorithm? Russian Government-Sponsored Media … ijoc.org/index.php… [57] B10-0076/2025 - European Parliament www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc… [59] [60] [61] [62] [66] Israel targets Hamas leadership in military strikes on Qatar, officials say | Reuters www.reuters.com/world/mid… [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [76] [77] Has the Kremlin’s Dream of Global Chaos Come True? - CEPA cepa.org/article/h…
