On August 25, CIA Director John Ratcliffe paid an unexpected visit to Moscow, where he met with several senior Russian military officials and intelligence chiefs. The reason for the visit remained unclear, fueling widespread speculation on social media.
Eleven days after Ratcliffe’s trip, Jared Kushner, son-in-law of President Donald Trump, and Steve Witkoff traveled to Moscow. It was announced that they had been dispatched by the US president to explore ways to end the war in Ukraine. The American delegation held a three-hour meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, after which presidential aide Yuri Ushakov stated that the talks had been frank and straightforward.
According to Ushakov, Putin reiterated Russia’s non-negotiable conditions:
1. Ukraine must not join NATO.
2. Ukraine’s military capabilities must be reduced.
3. Territories currently under Russian control must be permanently incorporated into Russia.
4. Europe’s security arrangements must be restructured in a way that accommodates Russian interests.
The American envoys returned without any tangible results, or even an agreement on a roadmap to end the war.
Shortly afterward, NATO member states met in Copenhagen, Denmark, on September 18. The alliance announced several decisions, including raising military readiness for deterrence and collective defense and strengthening intelligence and technological cooperation, particularly to counter highly likely cyberattacks.
The visit by the American envoys may have reflected the US President’s desire to end the war in Ukraine and secure a major foreign-policy achievement ahead of the US midterm elections. Yet such an accomplishment is unlikely to significantly influence American voters, prompting questions about the real motives behind the initiative, especially as many Europeans remain deeply suspicious of Putin’s intentions.
A former senior US military official argues that Putin’s conditions effectively signal that he is not interested in a negotiated settlement. Rather, he seeks a complete Ukrainian surrender before coming to the table. While Putin does not appear eager for direct confrontation with the United States, he believes Washington is bogged down in a costly and seemingly endless conflict in the Middle East that has drained substantial resources and military equipment. Any confrontation with Russia, therefore, would impose enormous military and economic costs on the United States.
As for NATO’s other members, particularly the European countries, the Russian president has never concealed his dismissive view of them. He is well aware of their economic difficulties and the political and social turmoil many of them are experiencing.
For that reason, according to the former official, there is a serious possibility that Putin could undertake a “major” action that would bring the war with Ukraine to an end while cementing Russia’s position in Europe as a regional power that cannot be ignored.
When asked what he meant by a “major move,” the source replied that the limited use of a nuclear weapon remains within Russia’s capabilities. This possibility, he said, is well understood in military circles in Washington and across NATO capitals. In his view, this was the primary reason behind Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow: to deliver a direct warning that any such “major” move, or any attack against a NATO member state, would inevitably trigger a confrontation with the United States. The negative Russian response was reflected in the outcome of the subsequent Kushner-Witkoff mission.
Today, Europe is experiencing a level of anxiety not seen since the 1940s, when World War II broke out. Observers note that the continent was the epicenter of two world wars during the last century. Tensions are further aggravated by the rise of far-right political parties that have reached power in Hungary, Italy, and Finland, as well as the growing strength of Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France. These developments evoke memories of the rise of Nazi and fascist movements during the 1930s.
The Latvian president recently warned that Europe and NATO are unprepared for the rapid evolution of drone and missile warfare. He argued that many countries could struggle to repel even a limited Russian attack because of insufficient air defenses and shortages of Patriot missile systems.
Most analysts do not expect Moscow to launch a full-scale invasion. Instead, they envision sporadic missile and drone strikes that Russia could characterize as accidental incidents. Such actions would test NATO’s cohesion, particularly the credibility of Article 5, while discouraging Europeans from continuing their support for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, defensive measures are expanding across Europe.
Finland has raised the age limit for military reservists to 65 and is working toward building a force approaching one million personnel. Along with Latvia and Lithuania, it has also withdrawn from the treaty banning anti-personnel land mines.
The Baltic states are constructing fortifications and anti-tank barriers along their borders with Russia and Belarus as part of a broader “Baltic Defense Line.”
Poland is seeking to build an army and reserve force totaling around 500,000 personnel and is developing its “Eastern Shield,” equipped with surveillance systems and anti-drone defenses.
In Germany, authorities are identifying locations suitable for use as shelters for around one million people while preparing plans to move NATO forces eastward in the event of a major confrontation.
Sweden has distributed a civil-defense guide to its citizens explaining how to respond to crises and air raids. Denmark has expanded military conscription to include women and increased the length of service from four months to eleven.
France has likewise issued guidelines encouraging citizens to stockpile essential supplies and protect themselves from radiation exposure.
Britain is reactivating its emergency contingency plans, known as the “War Books,” while strengthening the protection of energy infrastructure, water supplies, telecommunications systems, and undersea cables. The country is also preparing for cyberattacks and supply disruptions, easing the recall of former military personnel, and boosting production of weapons, drones, and ammunition.
The European Union has advised its approximately 450 million citizens to maintain enough food, water, medicine, and cash to survive for at least 72 hours. It is also encouraging the creation of reserves to cope with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats.
There has been no confirmed deployment of nuclear weapons in Finland, Estonia, or Poland. However, these countries have signaled openness to such a possibility.
European governments insist that these measures are intended solely for deterrence and preparedness. Yet the expansion of conscription, the construction of shelters, the reintroduction of land mines, and discussions about hosting nuclear weapons raise an unsettling question:
What do European governments know, or fear, that they are not fully telling their citizens?
