...
The conference “A Vision of a United Europe: Shared Defense, Diplomacy, and Geopolitical Agency” was held in Kyiv on Sept. 18, bringing together Ukrainian and European politicians, diplomats, researchers and security experts to discuss Europe’s ability to respond to Russia’s war against Ukraine and growing geopolitical challenges.
A recurring message throughout the conference was that Europe cannot continue relying on assumptions that a major war is impossible on the continent.
...
Several speakers argued that Russia’s war in Ukraine should be viewed as part of a broader confrontation with the European security order, while others warned that Europe is already losing, or has nearly lost, the hybrid conflict being waged against it.
The conference is set to continue in Vienna from Oct. 2-4, when a Paneuropa Congress will take place. A draft Vienna Declaration has already been prepared and is expected to be presented after the two events.
...
Reinhard Kloucek, president of Paneuropa Austria, said a generation of European politicians had grown up believing that war was something that happened elsewhere rather than on the continent.
“That makes you lazy,” he said.
Kloucek argued that the international order is already changing and that Europe needs to become an independent geopolitical actor rather than remaining dependent on the US, China or Russia.
...
Kloucek also added that Ukraine is central to Europe’s ability to develop such a geopolitical role.
“The clear point is if we, as Europe, want to play a geo-political role, we need Ukraine,” he said, adding that Russia’s success in conquering Ukraine would demonstrate its ability to divide Europe despite the continent’s greater economic potential.
...
Valeriy Pekar, chairman of the board of the NGO Decolonization, offered one of the conference’s most detailed scenarios for how a wider European conflict could begin.
He argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should not necessarily be viewed as the model for future Russian military action. Instead, he pointed to what he described as Russia’s concept of “liminal war” – a conflict designed to create uncertainty over whether and how an adversary should respond.
...
Pekar said a future confrontation could begin with a combination of missile and drone strikes, sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation, political influence operations and covert activity, potentially without the immediate deployment of ground forces.
He used Poland as a hypothetical example, saying a combination of attacks and infrastructure disruption could create a refugee crisis and undermine European decision-making.
...
This can be said about Ukraine since Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons. USA and Iran has a similar dynamic with empty threats. The "Western" block of Europe has two states armed with nukes however and NATO which has the US as a member. This is a significant qualitative difference. So either it's: Russia won't actually attack because MAD is recognised or Putin is a madman.
The middle of the road approach would be to understand the very real danger of military escalation and threat of nuclear war and then demilitarise to lower the explosiveness of inevitable infractions during periods of heightened tensions.
The insane approach would be to increase militarism. Major military spending is perversely useful though because it caulks over crisis by stimulating the economy without redistributing wealth or creating level playing fields as would be the case with educational spending. Russia itself is a good example of this. By doing things this way you are signalling to your opponent (Russia in the case of the EU) that the game is on.