Elnur Enveroglu

The latest warnings from Vladimir Putin and Kremlin spokesman
Dmitry Peskov, according to some speculations, highlight a
dangerous escalation in rhetoric between Russia and the West.
Putin’s insistence that any NATO troops appearing in Ukraine would
become “legitimate targets” for the Russian military, coupled with
Peskov’s declaration that Moscow would never allow NATO to deploy a
contingent there, is not mere sabre-rattling. It reveals both
Russia’s strategic anxieties and its determination to shape the
narrative of the ongoing war.

The core question is whether these statements are just political
rhetoric or whether they signal the potential for a wider, perhaps
even catastrophic, confrontation between NATO and Russia. The
answer lies somewhere in between. While NATO leaders have
repeatedly avoided sending combat troops into Ukraine, Russia’s
statements are designed to deter even limited Western military
missions under the guise of training, peacekeeping, or technical
support.

What many think, as in Putin’s insinuations, is the danger of
direct confrontation…

Let’s be clearer. If NATO troops were ever to set foot in
Ukraine in a formal, combat capacity, the war would no longer be a
bilateral conflict between Moscow and Kyiv. It would transform into
a direct Russia–NATO confrontation. The immediate risks would be
immense: Russian forces could target NATO bases, convoys, or
airfields inside Ukraine, provoking a reciprocal response. Once
such a cycle begins, escalation could rapidly spiral beyond
anyone’s control.

In the early stages, the war would likely intensify with missile
and drone strikes on Ukrainian territory, not only against
Ukrainian infrastructure but also against NATO assets stationed
there. Russia could employ cyberattacks, electronic warfare, and
even tactical missile strikes to demonstrate its resolve. NATO, in
turn, would be compelled to respond militarily, most likely through
air campaigns and reinforcement of Eastern Europe. What begins as a
“limited” escalation could swiftly slide into a general European
war.

One point cannot be overlooked here. The elephant in the room is
Russia’s nuclear arsenal. For Moscow, the concept of “ensuring its
security” includes the option of escalating to nuclear threats if
it feels cornered. This is not an empty possibility. Russia’s
military doctrine explicitly reserves the right to use nuclear
weapons if the state faces an existential threat, which could
easily be interpreted to include a direct NATO intervention in
Ukraine. Even if nuclear weapons were not deployed, the mere threat
of their use would paralyse diplomacy and destabilise European
security for decades.

The consequences for Europe, especially countries bordering
Russia, would be profound. States such as Poland, the Baltic
nations, and Romania would become immediate frontline zones. Their
military bases, airfields, and critical infrastructure would be
prime targets for Russian strikes. The economic fallout would also
be enormous: mass displacement of civilians, collapse of
cross-border trade, and soaring defence spending.

For the European Union as a whole, a NATO–Russia war would
trigger unprecedented security challenges. Refugee flows from
Ukraine could turn into millions more seeking safety in Western
Europe. Energy supplies, already vulnerable since the start of the
Ukraine war, would face further disruption. Gas pipelines, nuclear
power plants, and transport corridors could all be at risk. The
EU’s internal political cohesion would also be tested, as not all
members may agree on the scale of escalation or the endurance
required for a long war.

It is interesting that Russia manages to keep its finger on the
pulse of Europe, and the Kremlin leadership, knowing all this,
seems to be sending an ultimatum to Europe. By issuing threats, the
Kremlin aims to achieve two goals. First, it seeks to instil fear
in European societies already weary of war and economic strain.
Russian officials hope that voters in NATO countries will pressure
their governments to limit involvement. Second, Moscow wants to
shape the framework of any eventual negotiations. By declaring NATO
troops in Ukraine unacceptable, it sets a “red line” that could
later be enshrined in a settlement, effectively guaranteeing
Ukraine’s neutrality.

At the same time, Russia frames its actions as defensive. When
the Kremlin says it will “do everything
to ensure its security,” it implies not only military readiness
but also a justification for maintaining a permanent sphere of
influence over its neighbours. This expansive definition of
security allows Moscow to rationalise everything from nuclear
modernisation to deployments in Belarus and the Black Sea.

The most interesting and terrible for now is the scale of the
Russia-NATO conflict. If an open war did erupt, the scale would
dwarf the current conflict. NATO possesses overwhelming
conventional superiority in terms of air power, naval capacity, and
technological systems. Yet Russia’s geographic depth, mobilisation
potential, and nuclear deterrent make it a uniquely dangerous
adversary. The war would not remain confined to Ukraine; rather, it
could extend into the Baltic Sea, the Arctic, the Black Sea, and
possibly even cyberspace globally.

Civilian populations would pay the heaviest price. Major
European cities could face cyber-disruption, missile strikes, or
energy blackouts. Cross-border trade and investment would collapse.
The dream of a stable, integrated European order would give way to
a new age of militarised blocs and pervasive insecurity.

Now, there is a thin line between rhetoric and reality, and it
could be a moment to turn a spark into a big flame. While the
likelihood of NATO deliberately sending combat troops into Ukraine
remains low, the risks of miscalculation or unintended escalation
cannot be ignored. Russia’s warnings are not purely rhetorical, but
they reflect a deeply ingrained fear of encirclement and an equally
strong desire to control the security architecture of Eastern
Europe.

The West, therefore, faces a delicate balancing act. It must
continue to support Ukraine militarily and politically, while at
the same time avoiding steps that could provide Moscow with a
pretext for direct confrontation. The future of European security
may hinge not on bold declarations, but on careful management of
this volatile line between deterrence and escalation.

The nightmare scenario of a NATO–Russia war remains distant, but
the mere possibility shapes every decision made today. Europe must
prepare for the consequences, not just in military terms but in
political unity and societal resilience. If words become actions,
the entire continent could face a conflict of unparalleled scale
and devastation.