Welcome to Energy, Politics & Money (EPM), where we will be our daily look at the interconnected worlds of Energy, (Geo)Politics and Money.
Curated from the world’s leading sources of information, our analysis and commentary is designed to help you make sense of the events driving the major developments in the world.
In this roundup, we take a closer look at the “Russia is testing NATO’s limits” narrative that was developed over September.
The narrative is leading to suggestions such as the establishment of a no-fly zone over western Ukraine, and the shooting down of Russian drone and fighter jets in the event they enter NATO airspace. It is also used to discredit voices opposing such moves, through the argument that Russia’s actions indicate an intent to attack Europe, meaning that “Europe is at war with Russia” already anyway.
EPM notes such policies would represent serious escalations of the Ukraine War, as they would effectively establish a “hot war” between the European NATO countries and Russia, undeniably. (As financiers and weapons suppliers of Ukraine the European NATO countries retain “plausible deniability” which preserves the “taboo” on Russia attacking European NATO facilities even though it knows it is from these facilities that the war is being coordinated, led and organized.)
The above mentioned narrative build on a number of events over the month of September.
First, there was the accusation that Russia had jammed the GPS system of an airplane carrying European Commission President Von der Leyen. Despite the media uproar, EurActiv writes that the EU failed to substantiate the accusation as publicly available flight data called the affair into question.
Then there was the incursion of “Russian attack drones” into Polish territory, which turned out to be decoy drones made from plywood and foam, as documented by The Guardian, while Russia denied having anything to do with the event, as documented by the BBC.
Then three Russian fighter jets were said to have flown 12 minutes into Estonian airspace, with their transponders off. Russia again denied the accusation and said the aircraft remained in international airspace, writes CNN, and were en route from an air base in northwest Russia to Kaliningrad, writes Security Council Report. EPM notes that the map showing the flight of the Russian jets released by the Estonian ministry of defense appears to support both claims. The Russian did indeed breach Estonian airspace, but the breach was limited and in accordance with a flight toward Kaliningrad.
Our EPM assessment is, therefore, that the events used to justify an escalation in the European NATO countries’ stance vis-à-vis Russia are being portrayed in an exaggerated manner. Our reasons are the following.
Firstly, there is undoubtedly real tension between Russia and NATO. The Russians are not unaware of the role NATO countries are playing in the Ukraine War. Recently, Russia’s foreign minister said that NATO is effectively fighting a war against Russia by using Ukraine, writes Reuters. In this situation one would expect coordinated Russian efforts to gather intelligence on the European NATO countries. Not only their actions in support of Ukraine, and the supply lines they use, but also their own defenses. This is why, as The New York Times reported, it has been long known that Russian drones are being flown over the weapons supply routes to Ukraine across Europe; and why, as Yahoo News reported, over the past 10 years there have been some 40 breaches of Estonian airspace by Russian fighter jets. From the Russian perspective, these are normal defensive measures for a country that fears an attack by NATO.
Secondly, the reports on the pre-September Russian intelligence gathering and defense systems testing operations make quite clear they are designed not to cross so-called “Red Lines” that would justify an act of hot war in response. This assessment is supported by a Yahoo News report that confirms the Russian jets over Estonia did not behave aggressively toward the Italian F-35 fighter jets that escorted them on their way to Kaliningrad, with the Russian pilots apparently even waving to their Italian colleagues. Also, EPM would note, the NATO countries are undoubtedly performing similar intelligence gathering and defense systems testing operations over Russia. Consider, for example, the US’s use of the U-2 spy plane over Russian / Soviet union territory during the Cold war. Earlier this year, the US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth ordered a halt to cyber-based operations against Russia, writes The Telegraph.
The Russian operations on the border of NATO territory, or even inside NATO territory, are therefore most likely “deliberate”, but not “provocations” by the Russians, signalling an intent to “test NATO defenses” as part of “preparations for an attack on NATO territory”. `
Because these Russian operations are not new, but having going on for years, one could argue since the start of the Cold War some 80 years ago, the EPM conclusion is that the European NATO countries have taken a conscious decision to change their stance regarding these Russian operations in Europe. Similar to how the Europeans over time changed their stance on weapons deliveries to Ukraine, they are now consciously changing the general narrative regarding Russia to justify an arms buildup inside Europe, and following potentially an active engagement with boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Put it all together and on can clearly see a concerted US effort to play on Europe’s mindset, to get them to escalate, from which the US can benefit geo-strategically
The comments by US president Trump indicate this would not go against US interests. “Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them,” Trump wrote on his social media account, according to Axios. This Trump statement is in a way urging the Europeans on, by giving the impression of US support in case they escalate in the direction of Russia. But, EPM notes, without offering real concrete US support other than weapons sales. In other words, the US sees the European desire to escalate as an opportunity to use the war in Ukraine to weaken both Russia and Europe, in the processes gaining financially.
This assessment is aligned with Trump’s recent push for the Europeans to move first on additional, secondary sanctions on Russian crude oil sales, where he said that if Europe targeted India and China with such sanctions, then the US would follow. Put it all together and on can clearly see a concerted US effort to play on Europe’s mindset, to get them to escalate, from which the US can benefit geo-strategically, as it would isolate Europe from the rest of the world, leaving it totally dependent on its relationship with the US.