According to Sven Biscop, professor of geopolitics at UGent, two major elements must be taken into account to assess the Russian threat: its military capabilities and its intentions.
“Russia’s ability to rebuild its military tools after the war in Ukraine is undeniable”he says. However, Moscow’s intention remains more difficult to pin down. He insists: “What is clear is that Russia may consider aggression towards Europe, but it is impossible to say if and when this will happen. What we do know is that we must prepare now and invest in defense to deter them. Deterrence remains the key word.“
gullMany observers think they might be tempted to attack a Baltic state.”
For now, the Russian army is largely focused on the Ukrainian conflict. “They are not capable of waging a second large-scale conflict”continues the man who is also director at the Royal Egmont Institute. However, Moscow has already engaged in a war economy, massively producing weapons while suffering heavy losses.
“Once this war is over, it is obvious that they will try to replenish their arsenals. But the real question is: will they have the economic means to support such an effort? Military investments bring few additional economic benefits, and objectively, Russia will not be able to compete with the West’s economy.”
War in Ukraine: the emergency village for Ukrainian refugees in Antwerp will close its doors
Testing the West: a temptation for Moscow
However, many experts speak of the risk that Russia will test the determination of European countries. “Many observers think they might be tempted to attack a Baltic state for example to see how we would react. This could be a way of testing our willingness to fightbelieves Alexander Mattelaer, director of European Studies at the Egmont Institute and assistant professor at the VUB.
gullThe main weakness of Europe is that there is no single army.
He is particularly concerned about potential divisions within NATO, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s return to power in the United States.
“Deterrence relies largely on U.S. credibility within the alliance. If Trump weakens this cohesion, it could encourage Russia to attempt an opportunistic coup, even if Trump does not take action directly. His words alone weaken NATO’s credibility.”
War in Ukraine: Russia says it shot down 55 drones, oil depot on fire
-Sven Biscop also insists on the need to send a strong message to Moscow, especially after the hypothetical end of the conflict in Ukraine.
“Let’s imagine a scenario where part of Ukraine remains occupied by Russia. We must be clear: if Russia attacks a NATO member state, such as Estonia, our response would not be limited to that state, he emphasizes. We should consider a response that also includes Ukraine. The key is to show that we are ready and determined, but this requires substantial investment on our part.”
Time is running out
Problem is, currently, EU member states spend on average 1.9% of their GDP on defense, a figure well below the 9% estimated for Russia.
And at the same time, while Volodymyr Zelensky pleads for a minimum of 200,000 European soldiers to counter the Russian threat, Moscow’s army continues to advance. This Wednesday, January 21, it claimed the capture of Zapadné, a strategic village in the Kharkiv region, while Ukrainian forces are struggling to resist in the east, particularly around Pokrovsk. Does Europe really have the means and the will to respond to such an escalation?
After saying he would resolve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, Donald Trump revises his estimate upwards
“Europe’s main weakness is that there is no single army under a single political authority. With 27 member states, this means less efficient military spending and more complex decision-makingrecalls Biscop. However, our strength lies in our scale: together, our combined armies represent a significant power. With real coordination and common will, we could absolutely stand up to Russia. This desire already exists in certain countries, notably the Baltic States and Poland, which have devoted considerable military budgets“.
Furthermore, the debate on the percentage of GDP to be devoted to defense sometimes seems disconnected from reality. Some people talk about ambitious figures, like 5%, but that seems like fantasy. Even at the height of the Cold War, Belgium never allocated so many resources, limiting itself to around 3% of its GDP, a level which did not impoverish the country, even in the 1980s.
Ukraine War: Secret military documents reveal Russia planned war with Japan and South Korea
Proof that significant efforts are possible, provided the right budgetary choices are made. The current urgency, however, is not about an unrealistic goal, but about the need to quickly reach the planned 2%, or even more. Accelerating this evolution is therefore no longer a question of ambition, but of survival in the face of growing threats.
