The “permanent test” to which Russia subjects Europe. Three possible scenarios in which to respond to the Kremlin / “They must prove that fear does not define the future of the continent”

Russia has only one goal: to redraw the security map of Europe without starting a direct war with NATO. To achieve it, he uses a set of pressure tools that are based on strategies perfected since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Currently, there are three possible scenarios that these challenges may push us towards, according to an analysis by The Conversation.

A series of seemingly unrelated events, such as the entry of Russian tanks into Georgia in 2008, the occupation of Crimea in 2014, the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the recent incursion of Russian military aircraft into the airspace, but also the mysterious appearance of drones that caused the closure of airports across Europe, are only chapters of a unique, focused and continuously evolving strategy set up of Russia, writes Chris Kostov, PhD professor of history, associate at two renowned universities in Spain and PhD, in an analysis for The Conversation website.

Russia's goal is to exercise military power when necessary, engage in “gray zone” warfare tactics when possible, and exert political pressure everywhere. Moscow has been doing all this for decades with only one goal in mind: to redraw the security map of Europe without starting a direct war with NATO.

This goal is neither improvised nor ambiguous, and essentially aims to reverse NATO's post-Cold War expansion and reassert Russia's sphere of influence in Europe, according to the analysis.

At the same time, it was this singular objective that determined Russia's actions in the period leading up to the invasion of Ukraine. In December 2021, Moscow demanded that NATO bar Ukraine and Georgia from joining the alliance and that NATO forces withdraw to their May 1997 positions, where they were before the former Soviet states of Eastern Europe joined NATO. This was not a diplomatic maneuver preliminary to the February 2022 ground invasion, but an objective in itself.

“From the Kremlin's perspective, NATO expansion is both a humiliation and an existential threat, and must be stopped at all costs,” the history professor writes in his analysis.

Pressure “toolkit” used by Russia

Russia's actions can be interpreted in various ways: as military threats, as the policy of calculated risk or as diplomatic pressure. In fact, all these labels are correct, but Russia uses them in combination to blur the typical boundaries between diplomacy, military actions and domestic propaganda, according to the university professor divides Moscow's pressure “toolkit” into different types of actions:

• Risky politics to force dialogue: Military escalation, from troop concentrations to the invasion of Ukraine, creates crises that draw the West's attention. Russia creates emergencies to gain negotiating leverage, as it successfully did during the Cold War and more recently in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014.
• Testing the gray area: Drone and fighter jet incursions over Germany, Estonia, Denmark and Norway are deliberate tests of NATO's detection and response capability. They also serve the practical purpose of gathering information on radar coverage and readiness without going into open hostilities.
• Hybrid pressure on smaller NATO allies: Cyber ​​attacks and disruptions in energy supplies from various EU member states are meant to test the alliance's solidarity. Moscow targets smaller and weaker states to fuel resentment and doubt within NATO.
• The domestic theater: For Putin, the confrontation with the West is successful domestically. As Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, recently stated, “Europe is afraid of its own war.” For the Kremlin, this fear reinforces the narrative that Russia is an assertive power and the West is indecisive.

Russia's use of these tools is not new, but based on strategies perfected since the collapse of the Soviet Union. From Transnistria to Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Donbas, Moscow supports “unresolved” wars that prevent states from joining NATO and the EU, thus maintaining Russia's influence indefinitely, according to the analysis.

Russia's “permanent test”.

Today, the Kremlin's strategy increasingly favors hybrid means—drones, cyberattacks, disinformation, and energy blackmail—over war. These are not random challenges, but a coherent testing campaign, The Conversation's analysis shows.

Every incursion and attack has a diagnostic purpose: “Can Europe detect? Can it coordinate a joint response? Can it implement this response quickly and effectively?”.

As Belgian officials have acknowledged after a recent spate of drone sightings, the continent needs to “move faster” in building air defense systems. Each such admission reinforces Moscow's conviction that Europe is unprepared and divided.

In Russia, these moments are selected for inclusion in propaganda clips broadcast on state television, in which pundits ridicule European “weakness” and present the continent's disarray as validation of the Kremlin's embattled stance. This manufactured crisis is, in turn, the latest application of a well-crafted strategy.

As far as the West is concerned, the goal is exhaustion, not conquest—a “permanent test” designed to exhaust resources and unity through constant, low-intensity pressure.

The three possible scenarios

Russia's increasingly intense challenges to NATO and Europe cannot be maintained as the status quo. As things currently stand, there are three possible scenarios as to where this could lead us, writes Chris Kostov in his analysis.

1. A new long-term confrontation: this is the most likely scenario, as NATO cannot accept Russia's main demands without undermining its founding principles. The conflict would likely take the form of a prolonged stalemate: more troops on the alliance's eastern flank, rising defense budgets and a new Iron Curtain in Europe.
2. “Finlandization” of Ukraine: One possible, albeit unstable, outcome could be for Ukraine to be forced to adopt a neutral status—forgoing NATO membership in exchange for guarantees, as Finland did during the Cold War. From the West's perspective, this would reward Moscow's aggression and strengthen its right to veto its neighbors' sovereignty.
3. Escalation through miscalculation: In a context of heightened tensions, even a minor incident – ​​the downing of a drone, a failed cyber attack – could degenerate into a larger confrontation. A deliberate war between NATO and Russia is still unlikely, but no longer inconceivable.

Europe's imperative: resilience

The Kremlin's approach is based on fragmentation, according to The Conversation, and Europe's response must be cohesion. This means developing certain capabilities:

• Integrated Air and Missile Defense: Building a truly continental shield to cover the gaps that drones and hypersonic systems could exploit.
• Collective Hybrid Defense: Treating cyber attacks or drone incursions as alliance-wide challenges. A single, pre-agreed NATO response mechanism would prevent Moscow from isolating members.
• Technological and political autonomy: investment in European defense industries, renewable energy independence and resilient supply chains. Security now begins with self-sufficiency, especially in the context of wavering US support.
• Deterrence through diplomacy: Europe must combine credible military deterrence with pragmatic engagement, ensuring that channels of communication remain open to prevent escalation.

Russia's strategy is not reactive, but structural. The Kremlin is trying to force the West to accept a new security order through a combination of coercion, polling and perpetual testing. The tools may vary – from tanks to drones, from open invasions to hybrid wars of attrition, but the goal remains the same: to undermine European unity and restore the sphere of influence lost to Russia in 1991.

Moscow's challenges to Europe are clear and will continue until the costs become unsustainable, and in this never-ending crisis, “Europe must demonstrate that resilience defines the continent's future, not fear.” Only a united and prepared Europe can make this possible, according to analysis by The Conversation.