Poland plans to join the French initiative to create a new nuclear deterrence system in Europe. At the same time, in Finland, the government submitted a proposal to parliament to allow the import and storage of nuclear weapons on the country's territory, writes the BBC.
European states have begun to systematically change their approach to their own security against the backdrop of Russian aggression, and the scenario of a Russian attack on one of the NATO countries is no longer perceived as purely theoretical. That is why statements are emerging about strengthening armies, the possible deployment of nuclear weapons in Finland, and the development of new deterrence formats. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive comment to UNN by political scientist Oleh Lisnyi.
The expert emphasized that all recent signals from Europe should be considered as a reaction to the behavior of the Kremlin, which for years has used military force, blackmail, and nuclear threats as a political tool.
Europe prepares for the worst-case scenario
According to Lisnyi, European capitals are increasingly realizing that if Russia is not stopped by force, it will continue to test the limits of what is permissible.
I believe that this is a reaction to the aggressive policy of the Russian Federation. We see that the intelligence services of Western countries, primarily Europe, predict a possible Russian attack on one of the NATO countries. This no longer looks like fantasy, as it might have seemed before. This is a scenario that is being seriously studied.
In his opinion, Europe has seen the logic of the Kremlin's actions - first military pressure, then nuclear intimidation.
The scheme can be simple - an attack on one of the countries, and then an attempt to tell others - do not interfere, because we have nuclear weapons. By the way, this is exactly what Russia constantly uses in the Russian-Ukrainian war. When something doesn't work out for them, they pull out the nuclear card.
Why Europe is changing now
The political scientist emphasizes that for a long time many EU countries lived in the logic of post-war peace, when a major war on the continent supposedly could not happen. However, the events of recent years have destroyed these ideas.
The world has understood a very unpleasant thing: if you have nuclear weapons, you are listened to. If you don't have them, you are often not heard. Ukraine has become an example of how a state without nuclear status is forced to prove its right to exist in conditions of aggression. Everyone has seen this.
That is why, according to him, Europe is beginning to move towards a new security architecture.
Europe is starting, in my opinion, to make the right turn in the right direction. It is raising the stakes for Russia. It shows that intimidating the unarmed in a nuclear sense will no longer work.
Finland is about deterrence, not attack
Commenting on the initiative regarding the possible import and storage of nuclear weapons in Finland, the expert noted that this is not about preparing for war, but about preventing it.
The main function of nuclear weapons is deterrence. Not use, but deterrence. If such weapons can potentially be placed closer to Russia's borders, it means a signal: do not cross the line, because the price will be too high.
According to Lisnyi, it was the logic of deterrence that for decades prevented a direct conflict between nuclear powers from escalating into a hot phase.
This does not mean that someone is going to strike tomorrow. It means that Russia is being shown: the time when it alone can threaten with a nuclear button is coming to an end.
The Baltic states remain a risk zone
At the same time, Lisnyi considers the Baltic states, not Finland, to be the most vulnerable direction for potential Russian aggression.
I think the probability of an attack not on Finland, but specifically on the Baltic states, looks higher. Primarily because the Kremlin may perceive them as smaller states where it can try to test NATO's resolve.
The expert recalled that before the invasion of Ukraine, arguments were also made that the attack was illogical.
I remember very well how we said - Putin cannot attack with the forces that are near the border, it is illogical. But he attacked. Therefore, when someone today says that an attack on the Baltics is impossible, I am very cautious about such conclusions.
NATO's Article Five will be the main test
According to the political scientist, for Russia, a huge tempting factor could be an attempt to check whether the principle of NATO's collective defense really works.
The most important question for the Kremlin is whether Article Five will be applied. If the alliance proves unable to protect its member, it will be a colossal blow to the entire Western security system. And Moscow understands this perfectly.
That is why, according to the expert, demonstrating the Alliance's unity is critically important now.
Russia always looks for weakness. If it sees strength, it retreats. If it sees doubts, it starts to pressure.
Can Putin seek a "victorious war"?
The political scientist suggests that the Kremlin may be looking for a new conflict not only for military but also for political reasons.
Putin may need a small or "victorious" war - for internal consumption, for mobilizing the population, for demonstrating strength. It could also be an attempt to raise the stakes in negotiations on Ukraine.
In his opinion, the danger lies in the fact that authoritarian regimes often make decisions not based on common sense, but on the logic of fear of losing power.
He may have the instinct of a rat cornered. And then he rushes to where he considers himself weaker.
Nuclear strike unlikely, but blackmail will remain
Despite Moscow's aggressive rhetoric, the expert does not see Russia's readiness for the actual use of nuclear weapons.
Russia has already had several moments when it could have done so against Ukraine, if their own threats are to be believed. But it didn't happen. Because there is a difference between deterrence, intimidation, and use. Now they are in the intimidation phase.
Also, according to him, such a scenario is unprofitable for other nuclear powers.
It is unprofitable for the nuclear club as a whole. Unprofitable for China. Unprofitable for many. If someone breaks the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons, the world will go a completely different way.