Subscribe
In light of the latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the West seems to be moving towards a possible rearmament strategy with particular attention to the air defence sector, while maintaining differentiated national specificities and propensities in relation to military investments. At the same time, we observe an intensification of Russian attacks against Ukraine, which fuel a spiral of military escalation accompanied by a deep ideological rhetoric reflected both in the declarations made by international political actors and in the internal dynamics of large supranational organizations. This context has contributed to redrawing the global balance of power, accentuating tensions between geopolitical blocs and imposing new diplomatic and strategic challenges of global scope, with significant implications for international stability. Undeniably, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has triggered a radical transformation of European security structures, the repercussions of which extend well beyond the continent. The evolution of the conflict has determined a trend – currently mainly theoretical – towards the progressive strengthening of the military capabilities of NATO member states, accompanied by a rhetoric that legitimises rearmament and accentuates antagonism towards the Russian Federation. The recent statements by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz regarding rearmament and Moscow’s response comparing him to Hitler, represent a critical point within this complex dynamic, which is also manifested in the internal tensions of the Atlantic Alliance. This heated confrontation not only highlights the ideological divisions between East and West, but also calls attention to the difficulties in reaching a shared strategic consensus on the methods and limits of European military strengthening. It is therefore essential to consider how these dynamics influence not only defence policies, but also multilateral diplomatic relations, requiring a delicate balance between effective deterrence and the prevention of uncontrolled escalation.
NATO’S RESPONSE: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED AIR DEFENCE
As stated by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in a speech at Chatham House, the air threat posed by Russian operations in Ukraine has determined the urgency of an unprecedented defensive strengthening: the Alliance’s air defence capacity, according to the forecasts brought to the attention of the Secretary, will have to increase by 400% to ensure the protection of the Eastern front. The plan presented would include an increase in national military spending of individual members up to 5% of GDP. An increase in investments that would also be in line with what has been indicated and forecast for some time by US President Donald Trump. In this context, Germany would seem to be proposing itself as a leader to improve and increase the European component of air defence, relaunching the project of a continental anti-missile shield already started in 2022 with the “European Sky Shield Initiative”. This relaunch is part of a broader framework of redefinition of the European strategic posture, marking a shift towards greater military autonomy and a new assertiveness on the international stage. However, this development is not without criticism: some analysts warn of the risk of an arms race that could further destabilize the region, while others underline the need to complement these measures with a strengthening of diplomatic capacities to avoid an uncontrolled military escalation. The challenge for Europe, therefore, will be to effectively balance security and multilateral cooperation.
THE INTENSIFICATION OF THE CONFLICT: RUSSIA BETWEEN RETAIL AND DETERRENCE
In parallel with the proposed strengthening of the Western defensive architecture, as well as in response to the attacks suffered on its territory at the hands of Kiev, the Kremlin has significantly increased offensive operations against Ukrainian urban centers and infrastructure. The air attack on Kiev on the night of June 9 was in fact defined as the most massive since the beginning of hostilities, with the use of hundreds of drones and missiles, many of which were intercepted by the Ukrainian defence. This episode was interpreted as a retaliation for the “Operation Spider’s Web”, a strategic attack by Ukraine on Russian bases, and is part of a broader context of asymmetric counteroffensives. Despite the impact that this attack by Moscow has had, some US sources cited by Reuters and other international press, have speculated that the Russian response has not yet reached its final form and that we can expect an action that could also involve multiple fronts, perhaps against symbolic targets or critical infrastructures. In this sense, the Russian approach aims not only at military logic, but also at communication and psychological logic. In addition, analysts highlight that the growing integration between cyber capabilities, electronic warfare and disinformation campaigns allows Moscow to modulate the intensity of the attacks, calibrating the political message intended for both internal public opinion and Kiev’s Western allies, with the aim of eroding cohesion and slowing down the Alliance’s decision-making process, while making shared support more difficult.
GERMAN REARMAMENT AND THE GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION
The rhetorical dimension of the conflict has intensified significantly in recent days following statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who compared German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Adolf Hitler, accusing him of possessing “militarist genetics.” This statement is not simply a provocative action, but also represents a broader strategic attempt to delegitimize Germany’s autonomous evolution as a military power in the European context. Beyond the immediate controversies, German rearmament constitutes a historical turning point of great importance, as it calls into question the post-war security architecture of Europe which, although different from that conceived after the First World War, is still based on the limitation of Germany’s military projection capacity. This change risks fueling tensions not only within the European Union, but also in transatlantic relations with NATO and the United States, historical key players in maintaining the regional strategic balance. Furthermore, the adoption of this new military posture by Germany could lead to a substantial redesign of the continental security dynamics, with potentially significant repercussions on the European geopolitical framework. In particular, this evolution could trigger processes of reassessment of existing alliances and generate new forms of strategic competition, testing the internal cohesion of both the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance. The complexity of these transformations, therefore, requires an in-depth and multidimensional analysis, which considers not only the military aspects, but also the political, economic and diplomatic ones connected to this phase of profound redefinition of the security balances in Europe.
ARE WE MOVING TOWARDS A NEW POLARIZATION?
The current phase of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and NATO’s response seem to outline a new arms race in Europe. A system that would not be based on and would no longer even be strictly linked to a mere deterrent balance, but that would be the basis of a structural reorganisation of defence policies in a broader sense, to the point of re-discussing the very national doctrines in this field. In this sense, a return to the logic of blocs is taking shape – albeit with the necessary specificities and distinctions that would not be easy to discuss in the context of this article – with large-scale investments, strengthening of military production, and a growing use of identity and ideological rhetoric. If on the one hand this could represent a necessary and contingent reaction to the Russian threat, on the other it exposes Europe to the risk of an uncontrolled and lasting escalation, which could also weigh on national coffers for a time that is difficult to predict. This situation also implies a complex game of diplomatic balances, since any increase in military spending could induce chain reactions between states, increasing internal and external tensions. At the same time, the debate on the balance between security and social investments is growing, with civil society often torn between the need for defence and concerns about the economic and humanitarian consequences of this new militarization.