Beyond Ukraine: Why Europe is preparing for a wider conflict

Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Something is spooking Europe.

This week, Belarus, Russia’s closest military ally, conducted large exercises near the Suwałki Gap, the narrow corridor connecting the Baltic states to the rest of NATO. The geography that has long made it one of NATO’s most vulnerable points.

French President Emmanuel Macron summoned France’s political leaders for a confidential intelligence briefing, then announced new measures to protect critical infrastructure from intensifying Russian hybrid attacks.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk went further, warning that Russia may launch drone or missile attacks against NATO countries and disguise them as accidents.

The UK has told citizens to start preparing for the possibility of war, and to stockpile canned foods and drinking water. Its chief of defense said Britain faced the “most dangerous” period in decades.

Germany is preparing its hospitals for a possible Russian attack. Its Chancellor, Friredrich Merz, warned of “decisive moments” in “defending the freedom and peace of our continent.”

Even the famously neutral Switzerland adopted a new national security strategy calling for greater resilience and an ability to defend itself against an armed attack.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, suddenly announced progress toward establishing a permanent US Army base in Poland. Two weeks ago, he dispatched the CIA Director on a secret mission to warn Moscow against attacking NATO territory.

Countries on both sides of the Atlantic seem alarmed that Russian President Vladimir Putin might soon widen his war beyond Ukraine.

The United States got a glimpse of the threat this week.

Federal prosecutors charged five people allegedly working with Russian intelligence in a network plotting attacks and murders around the world, including inside the US. Prosecutors also allege the network commissioned attacks against civilian and military infrastructure in European countries.

The charges fit a broader pattern Europeans have confronted for years: cyberattacks, sabotage, arson, drones and attacks against critical infrastructure. Last month, Germany blamed Russia for a drone attack at a civilian airport.

The strategic challenge for NATO is that Russia can conduct such operations without clearly crossing the threshold into conventional war.

Fly a drone into NATO airspace, disrupt an airport, sabotage infrastructure, conduct murders through criminal networks — all deniable “gray zone” operations.

Putin uses ambiguity and denial as a weapon, testing NATO resolve, while recognizing that NATO is divided on how best to respond, or to respond at all.

But what if Putin decides to go further?

The Suwałki Gap offers one answer.

It is a roughly 65-mile border between Poland and Lithuania and the only land connection between NATO’s Baltic states—Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia—and the rest of NATO.

Imagine a crisis in which Russia, perhaps operating with Belarus, moves forces into a portion of the corridor. It’s not an explicit invasion of a NATO state, such as tanks rolling into Poland. Putin would claim a limited incursion if he said anything at all, and that Russia did not seek escalation.

Russia would also claim through non-official channels that a NATO response risked nuclear war.

The purpose is less about the Gap and severing NATO’s Baltic flank, than undermining NATO and its mutual defense commitments altogether.

Would 32 NATO countries agree to fight Russia to recover a small strip of territory? Would an American president risk escalation with a nuclear power over Lithuania? Would Germany and France?

Nobody can say for certain, and that plays into Putin’s hands.

NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte was asked this year about a war game involving precisely such a Russian move against the Suwałki corridor. His response was that NATO regularly exercises against such scenarios and that an attack would produce a devastating response.

Does Putin believe him? With Washington at loggerheads with its closest allies, including Canada — perhaps not.

Ukraine has provided Europeans with a brutal tutorial in what modern war requires.

Countries need more than military materiel. They need electrical grids that can survive attacks, hospitals capable of handling mass casualties, redundant communications, functioning transportation networks and governments able to operate under sustained pressure.

Most importantly, they need societies capable of absorbing costs without collapsing or polarizing.

Gleb Garanich/Reuters

This week, NATO publicly released updated requirements for national resilience, covering everything from continuity of government and energy supplies to food, water, health care and communications during “crisis and conflict.”

NATO officials are studying how Ukrainians have kept essential services functioning under sustained Russian attack.

It’s an extraordinary turn of events. Ukraine is no longer simply receiving lessons from NATO — NATO is also receiving lessons from Ukraine.

In doing so, the alliance aims to deter not just by promising a devastating response to aggression — but by demonstrating to Putin that his aggression won’t work.

Preparedness itself becomes part of deterrence. That is one reason for the slew of headlines this week.

There is also an American factor behind Europe’s urgency.

The US is simultaneously deployed in Europe, fighting Iran in the Middle East and deterring China in the Indo-Pacific. Air defenses, naval forces, intelligence platforms, and depleting munitions cannot be everywhere at once.

Trump has done much to strengthen NATO, but his commitment to its mutual defense clause is uncertain.

Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine. But Putin does not need another invasion on the scale of Ukraine to challenge NATO. He can move up an escalation ladder: sabotage, cyberattacks, assassination plots, drone or missile attacks — and then a limited military operation designed to test whether NATO still means what it says.

Damian Lemanski/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Ask yourself whether Trump would go to war with Russia over a patch of land called the Suwalki Gap? Would Americans be ready for such a thing? The question answers itself.

And that alone undermines deterrence.

For three decades after the Cold War, Europe allowed national preparedness to atrophy. Risks of war seemed remote. Spending on militaries and recruitment plummeted. Civil defense was a relic of the past. And the US was presumed to be there in a pinch.

Europe is preparing for war because its leaders increasingly understand an uncomfortable truth: deterrence depends on what Putin believes, and America’s response to a widening war would be uncertain.

The Belarusian exercises near the Suwalki gap are raising alarms because, despite Russia’s struggles in Ukraine, the deterrence equation has atrophied.

The best way to prevent a widening war is to make certain Putin believes it will fail.

And judging by the urgent moves now underway across European capitals, there is growing concern that he may believe the opposite.

布雷特·麦格克是 CNN 全球事务分析师，曾在乔治·W·布什、巴拉克·奥巴马、唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登等总统手下担任高级国家安全职务。

欧洲似乎笼罩着某种神秘的气氛。

本周，俄罗斯最亲密的军事盟友白俄罗斯在苏瓦乌基走廊附近举行了大规模演习。苏瓦乌基走廊是连接波罗的海国家和北约其他地区的狭窄通道，长期以来一直是北约最脆弱的地区之一。

法国总统马克龙召集法国各政治领导人举行秘密情报简报会，随后宣布了保护关键基础设施免受日益猖獗的俄罗斯混合攻击的新措施。

波兰总理唐纳德·图斯克的警告更为严厉，他指出俄罗斯可能会对北约国家发动无人机或导弹袭击，并将其伪装成意外事故。

英国已告知民众开始为可能发生的战争做好准备，并储备罐头食品和饮用水。其国防部长表示，英国正面临数十年来“最危险”的时期。

德国正在为可能发生的俄罗斯袭击做好医院准备。德国总理弗里德里希·默茨警告说，在“捍卫我们大陆的自由与和平”方面，正处于“决定性时刻”。

就连以中立著称的瑞士也采纳了一项新的国家安全战略，要求增强抵御武装攻击的能力和韧性。

与此同时，唐纳德·特朗普总统突然宣布在波兰建立永久性美军基地的计划取得了进展。两周前，他派遣中央情报局局长执行一项秘密任务，警告莫斯科不要攻击北约领土。

大西洋两岸的国家似乎都对俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京可能很快将战争扩大到乌克兰以外感到担忧。

美国本周初见识到了这种威胁。

联邦检察官指控五人涉嫌与俄罗斯情报部门合作，参与策划在全球范围内（包括美国境内）的袭击和谋杀。检察官还指控该网络指使他人袭击欧洲国家的民用和军事基础设施。

这些指控符合欧洲多年来面临的更广泛的威胁模式：网络攻击、破坏、纵火、无人机袭击以及针对关键基础设施的攻击。上个月，德国指责俄罗斯对一处民用机场发动了无人机袭击。

北约面临的战略挑战是，俄罗斯可以在不明确跨越常规战争门槛的情况下开展此类行动。

驾驶无人机进入北约空域，扰乱机场，破坏基础设施，通过犯罪网络实施谋杀——所有这些都是可以否认的“灰色地带”行动。

普京利用含糊其辞和否认作为武器，试探北约的决心，同时他也意识到北约在如何最好地应对，或者是否应该应对的问题上存在分歧。

但如果普京决定更进一步呢？

苏瓦乌基地堑提供了一个答案。

这是波兰和立陶宛之间大约 65 英里长的边界，也是北约波罗的海三国（立陶宛、拉脱维亚和爱沙尼亚）与北约其他成员国之间唯一的陆地连接。

设想这样一种危机：俄罗斯（或许与白俄罗斯合作）将兵力部署到走廊的某个区域。这并非像坦克开进波兰那样，对北约国家进行公开入侵。如果普京发表任何声明，他会声称这是一次有限的入侵，并且俄罗斯并不寻求局势升级。

俄罗斯还会通过非官方渠道声称，北约的回应可能会引发核战争。

其目的与其说是为了突破北约的波罗的海防线，不如说是为了彻底破坏北约及其共同防御承诺。

32个北约国家会为了收复一小块领土而同意与俄罗斯开战吗？美国总统会为了立陶宛问题冒着与核大国冲突升级的风险吗？德国和法国会吗？

谁也无法断言，这正中普京的下怀。

今年，北约秘书长马克·吕特被问及一项模拟俄罗斯对苏瓦乌基走廊发动类似攻击的军事演习。他的回应是，北约定期进行此类演习，一旦发生攻击，必将遭到毁灭性打击。

普京相信他吗？鉴于华盛顿与其最亲密的盟友（包括加拿大）关系紧张，或许并不相信。

乌克兰给欧洲人上了一堂现代战争残酷的课。

各国需要的不仅仅是军事物资。它们还需要能够抵御攻击的电网、能够处理大规模伤亡的医院、冗余的通信系统、运转良好的交通网络以及能够在持续压力下运作的政府。

最重要的是，他们需要能够吸收成本而不崩溃或分裂的社会。

格列布·加拉尼奇/路透社

本周，北约公开发布了国家韧性的最新要求，涵盖了从政府和能源供应的连续性到食品、水、医疗保健和通信等各个方面，尤其是在“危机和冲突”期间。

北约官员正在研究乌克兰如何在俄罗斯持续攻击下维持基本公共服务的运转。

这是一个非同寻常的转变。乌克兰不再只是接受北约的教训——北约也在向乌克兰学习。

这样做，该联盟的目的不仅在于承诺对侵略行为进行毁灭性回应，更在于向普京表明他的侵略行为不会得逞。

准备工作本身就成为威慑的一部分。这也是本周新闻头条铺天盖地的原因之一。

欧洲的紧迫感背后也存在一个美国因素。

美国同时在欧洲部署兵力，在中东与伊朗作战，并在印太地区遏制中国。防空力量、海军力量、情报平台和日益减少的弹药不可能同时出现在所有地方。

特朗普为加强北约做了很多工作，但他对北约共同防御条款的承诺尚不明朗。

俄罗斯在乌克兰问题上仍然深陷泥潭。但普京并不需要再次发动像乌克兰那样大规模的入侵来挑战北约。他可以逐步升级局势：先是破坏活动、网络攻击、暗杀阴谋、无人机或导弹袭击，然后发动有限的军事行动，以此来试探北约是否依然言行一致。

Damian Lemanski/Bloomberg/Getty Images

扪心自问，特朗普会为了苏瓦乌基地堑这块土地与俄罗斯开战吗？美国人会做好应对这种局面的准备吗？答案显而易见。

仅此一点就足以削弱威慑作用。

冷战结束后的三十年间，欧洲各国的战备能力逐渐衰退。战争风险似乎遥不可及。军费开支和征兵预算大幅下降。民防体系也成了历史的遗迹。人们普遍认为，一旦发生紧急情况，美国会挺身而出。

欧洲正在为战争做准备，因为其领导人越来越意识到一个令人不安的事实：威慑取决于普京的想法，而美国对不断扩大的战争的反应是不确定的。

白俄罗斯在苏瓦乌基山口附近举行的演习引发了人们的担忧，因为尽管俄罗斯在乌克兰遭遇困境，但其威慑力已经减弱。

防止战争扩大的最佳方法是让普京相信战争会失败。

从目前欧洲各国首都正在采取的紧急行动来看，人们越来越担心他可能持有相反的观点。