What if Russia wins? Professor Carlo Masala investigated this scenario. ‘In Europe we think that democracy will always remain’

In the early morning hours of March 27, 2028, the inhabitants of the Estonian city of Narva on the Russian border are awakened by explosives. Two Russian brigades penetrate the city. The surprise attack encounters little resistance and the attackers receive help from groups of citizens, who received weapons from the Russian government months ago. Within a few hours the city is conquered and Russian trolls on social media are busy spreading the hashtag ‘Day of Return’.

Europe and NATO are in turmoil. The war in Ukraine ended only recently after years of, bloody battle. Finally, Europeans thought, peace returns. And now this. How should the West respond to this Russian pin prick? Will NATO activate Article 5 of his Charter, which Estonia is now in? Or does the US government, as a leader of the alliance, prefer not to risher a Third World War for an unknown and insignificant town far away?

Defense specialists use fictional situations as described above, to output scenarios and determine strategies. The German political scientist Carlo Masala, professor of international politics at Bundeswehr University Munich, took in his recently published essay If Russia wins. A scenario The city of Narva and the year 2028 as a starting point for describing a perfect storm on the European continent. We have become used to it, thinking that « everything will be fine at the end, » writes Masala. But what if that is not the case?

What if Russia wins?

« My book starts deliberately at the end of the war in Ukraine. We would like to think that when the war has ended, everything will be okay again. But then the danger has not gone. On the contrary. Putin wants to put the West on the test and the steadfastness of NATO tests. If NATO responds, he can easily withdraw his army. If she does not do anything, then Navo then does not do Navo, then Navo then does not do Navo, then Navo then does not do Navo, then Navo does not do anything then. She is dead to defending the territory of her member states. « 

The American Foreign Minister, Marco Rubio, has recently once again assured Europe that the US will respect Article 5 and that Europe can rely on the US. Do you believe Him?

« That is what President Trump says. But they have not clearly specified that commitment. Their words seem to refers to security guarantees in a nuclear attack than with a conventional one. The American Minister of Defense Pete Hegseeth clearly said on 13 February that the US was no longer the primary conventional security guarantee for Europe. China is the first priority for the US, then the defense of American territory is the turn of the Europeans. « 

It is unclear how a Russian attack will turn out, you write.

« That’s right. There are no concrete indications that Russia wants to take a town like Narva or an island. We know that Putin is out to dissolve the European safety structures, and that only one NATO member state is needed to prevent Article 5 to prevent it from the Navo-Lid State, who has recently been redeemed with a US President) territory.

Is the West naive?

« We were naive and we are still on some points. In Germany, France and Italy, the Russian disinformation has been incredibly successful. A large part of the population still believes that Russia has only defended itself, that Ukraine has slaughtered Russians in the Donbas and that Putin does not destroy the Russian, but just the Russ. For years, if not for decades, see the recent German elections.

You warn that Europe has little time to put its defense in order. What do you think about the debate about that?

« The French President Macron recently said that it will take five to ten years for Europe to have its own defense policy. I think it is earlier ten years. But if you consider – and that is what many secret services claim – that Russia will have enough forces to attack NATO in the next four to five years, then we will not have ten, but only four years old, will be our defense on the defense. recognized. « 

You write that Putin believes that dictatorships always win from democracies, where politicians have to leave the field every few years. Is the democratic model weak?

« Democracy in itself Is not weak. On the contrary, democracies have won the two major conflicts of the twentieth century: the fight against fascism and those against communism. That succeeded because they were willing to defend themselves and they had a long breath. European societies now seem to be the victim of their own success. Whether in the Netherlands, Germany or Italy, the previous generations grew up with safety, stability and increasing prosperity.

« But we forget that democratic forms of government can also be threatened from the inside. Europeans seem to think that their democracy will always exist. That there will always be elections, freedom of the press and an independent judiciary. This is because we have not experienced anything substantial in the last 80 years that our democracies have been weakened from the inside.

Or to the United States.

« Also a good example. If we do not regain our will to defend our democracies, not only with weapons but also broader, we have a problem. That is why a resilient society is also so important. Social societies must be much more aware that democratic forms of government are in danger and must be defended. »

According to Masala, in their communication with citizens, Western countries should mention the dangers that can break down democracies from within. According to him, there is currently a more urgent and greater danger than in the chance that they will end up in a conventional or nuclear war with Russia.

What do you think that communication should you look like?

« Governments must show leadership and take the lead by talking to their population. They have to do it differently than they are used to. Politicians like to call that citizens do not have to worry and that they will arrange things. Instead, they can better say: there is a danger, we can get that under control, but not without your help. With such words you get further.

« In Germany, so far only Minister of Defense Pistorius has talked about that Russian war threat. But I think a Minister of Defense is the wrong person to say something like that. People think: well, he just wants more money for his army. The prime minister, the Ministers of the Interior, Justice and Public Health – and actually should be conjured up all over Europe. errand. »

Nevertheless, many citizens exists that the biggest threat is a conventional war, in which Russia comes to occupy our country.

« That is incorrect. It shows how important it is that governments emphasize that they will do everything to prevent such a war. This can be done by giving Russia the signal that we are so strong and united that it is not worthwhile to attack us.

« Rather than keeping us busy with something like that, we should focus on the fact that Russia is already in two wars: one in Ukraine and one against European society. The latter is used with the help of disinformation, espionage, sabotage and support for extremist parties. »

Recently the Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovjov said that Germany wants to attack Russia in 2029. Your scenario that Russia could attack Europe around 2028 will already be reversed

« The Russian propaganda is all about. The drama is that many people believe such things, also with us. »

In your scenario, Putin will retire and put a young, modern successor forward to mislead the west

« I always try to move into the thinking of leaders. How does a Russian head of state work if he is planning something? Suppose there is a truce in Ukraine. If I was the president of Russia who had just waged a war, I would have been having a while to keep the question about the western division, or that the Russian society would not get stated, or that the Russian was not going to get stated in the Russian division, or that it was not going to get stated in the threat, or that it was not going to get stated in the threat, or that it was not going to be the way to get the Russian division stated or that it was going to get stated in the threat, or that it was not going to get stated in western division, or that the Russian division will get stated or that it will get stated in the threshing, or that it was not going to get stuck in western threats or that the Russian division will get stated or that the Russian division will get stood out, or that it would be the way to get stood in the thruss’s division. is to spend so much money on Defense and whether that money cannot be spent better on other things.

« The danger with successors is that people think: oh well, let’s wait for a moment, perhaps he is not that bad. Such an attitude threatens to cancel out all the efforts to reinforce us. I wanted to make it clear that if Russia keeps hiding, the discussion about the need for strong defense will flare up again. We must avoid that. »

Did Russia not already won the war?

« With the recent turn in the US Ukraine policy, Russia is indeed about to win this war. If Trump sees the Russian demands on the preservation of occupied area, negotiations on the European safety structure and a normalization of economic relations, that is a Russian victory. And we seem to be fast on it. »

Is Mark Rutte in your eyes the right person to lead NATO?

If I am honest, I was not very enthusiastic when he got the job. Mr. Rutte became NATO chef, because he gained the impression of him in Trumps first term.

« But now Trump makes doubt about the enforcement of Article 5 and other things happen that NATO weakens. And that while Rutte was recently in Washington to tell Trump how great he is. The idea that Rutte has an influence on Trump, because he had a personal bond with him in the past is a estimation error. No Navo-Leader, because such a navo leader »

To share

Mail the editors