Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

The peculiar strength of strategic thought lies in its paradoxical nature—particularly in the Chinese tradition—wherein one often achieves an objective by pursuing its apparent opposite. These days we are witnessing the gravest political crisis in NATO’s history. Russia is mounting an unprecedented assault on the cohesion of the Western front, combining military threats with the offensive use of strategic logic.

Readers of Defence Finance Monitor will recall that it has often been argued here that Russian airspace incursions are not designed to test NATO’s defenses, but its political credibility, both in the eyes of the world and of its own member states. The clear intent is to fracture the Alliance politically, since, at least in theory, Moscow could not confront it militarily. This is why violations of NATO airspace by Russian aircraft and drones represent the most serious challenge to the Alliance’s political credibility since its founding. It is worth reconstructing and clarifying why.

Russian incursions form part of a broader, carefully crafted strategy. They are merely the first step. Their purpose is to probe the political resilience of Europe and NATO, to put their credibility to the test before the international community. These incursions were meant to provoke a reaction, which came, after a few days, in the form of a statement by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who declared that should such violations be repeated, Russian aircraft could be shot down.

If the Commission President made this statement without an exceptionally strong political mandate from European states and the United States, and without the closest coordination with military leadership, then there is a risk that, while correct in deterrent terms, her words were delivered too hastily. Perhaps this was precisely Moscow’s aim. Indeed, almost immediately, Russian Ambassador to Paris Alexey Meshkov tightened the noose, warning that the downing of a Russian jet would amount to an act of war.

This means Russian provocations will continue, with the explicit purpose of testing NATO and the European Union’s ability to honor the commitments they have undertaken, by giving real substance to the words they have spoken and to the treaties they have signed. In strategic affairs, words are like stones: they must be measured and calibrated with utmost care, for if they are not followed by deeds the consequences can be incalculable. Should Russian incursions persist without consequence, NATO’s political credibility would collapse in an instant, and its military strength would lose all significance. In other words, what is at stake is not merely NATO’s resilience, but its very survival as a political architecture of security.

What would follow from such a collapse? Member states, no longer feeling secure under NATO’s umbrella, would either seek to defend themselves independently—thereby increasing regional instability and their own vulnerability—or attempt bilateral accommodations with Moscow, effectively becoming its vassals. In this way, what is on paper the largest defensive military alliance in history would dissolve like snow in the sun. Moreover, once the credibility of security guarantees vanishes, Moscow might come to believe that an attack on NATO members—Poland, the Baltic States, or Finland—could be both militarily sustainable and politically advantageous. At that point, open warfare could reach the borders of the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance itself.

It has been said that Russia has placed the Union and NATO in check. But check is not checkmate, and a response remains possible. How? By keeping the promises already made: defending NATO member states and responding firmly to Moscow’s provocations, even to the point of downing Russian aircraft that trespass not by accident but as part of an aggressive political and military strategy. Were NATO and the Union to act as they have pledged, it would then be Russian credibility that would be placed in question.

It is also possible that Moscow has overreached—perhaps wagering on European weakness. To speak explicitly of open war against NATO and European states in the event of a Russian jet being shot down is a gamble. The fact remains that the more direct and resolute the Western military response to Russian incursions, the stronger the political message of unity sent to Moscow, and the lower the probability that Russia would embark upon a genuine act of war. At that point, Moscow’s gamble—openly invoking war with NATO—might reveal itself to be a bluff, undermining Russia’s credibility instead.

Here lies the essence of the strategic paradox: the absence of a strong Western response brings war closer, while firmness pushes it further away. If NATO allows Russian incursions to pass unchallenged—after publicly stating it would do otherwise—it encourages further provocations and leads Moscow to believe that aggression can be undertaken at low cost, indeed that such aggression will yield tangible gains. Conversely, if a Russian aircraft violating NATO airspace were to be shot down, the dynamic would be reversed: it would no longer be the Alliance’s credibility on trial, but Russia’s. The Kremlin would then have to decide whether to confront a politically united and militarily credible West, risking a direct clash with a cohesive bloc, or to end its provocations and consign to the drawers of its General Staff any plans for attacks on NATO’s most exposed members.

We are thus at a decisive juncture: hic Rhodus, hic salta. NATO faces the choice of preserving its credibility or watching it disintegrate. These aerial incursions are not isolated episodes but part of an aggressive strategy aimed at undermining the political credibility of NATO and the European states, and thereby the entire edifice of continental security. Should the Alliance falter, should it allow provocations to multiply unanswered, it will open the way to a near future that—at best—will be dominated by ever greater blackmail and political subservience to Moscow, and—at worst—by a new large-scale Russian assault on a European country. If, instead, NATO and the Union demonstrate the capacity to translate deterrent logic into action, they will not only reaffirm their raison d’être but also reduce the likelihood of war. Far from being a risk, firmness is perhaps today the only option that can keep us from war.

Moscow has skillfully posed the strategic equation regarding the future of Europe’s security and independence, binding Europeans within a logical trap of its own making. It is now for us Europeans to solve that equation: either to stand by our word, without fear, or to resign ourselves to becoming an appendage of a Russo-Chinese Eurasia.