Warning Without A Message
Estonian officials I have spoken with speculate that domestic politics partly explains Poland’s more alarmist rhetoric, and that “escalation” has become this year’s fashionable buzzword, much as “deterrence” was not long ago. Few people stop to think carefully about what the word actually means, but because mentioning it reliably attracts attention, it is tempting to drop it into an interview anyway.
So the question is not whether Russia’s hybrid war against NATO is escalating. It has been deadly and destructive for years. Russian attack drones carrying live warheads have repeatedly exploded inside NATO countries. The GRU has blown up ammunition depots, killing citizens of EU and NATO member states.
The real question is why this is being talked about now as though it were a new phenomenon. The answer may be uncomfortably prosaic: the West senses a vague shift in Russia’s willingness to take risks, while remaining uncertain about its own possible future responses.
And even if that is not actually the case, repeatedly declaring that the risk of escalation is rising as if forecasting bad weather — without conveying any sense of agency — may unintentionally leave Moscow with precisely that impression.
Rather than publicly parroting warnings about escalation, allies should work harder behind closed doors, coordinate more closely, and speak more candidly among themselves about possible responses. Publicly, they should strengthen readiness and presence. The purpose of deterrence is not to advertise their heightened sense of uncertainty to the adversary, but to make clear through actions that his next move will narrow his own options and leave him in a worse position.