Is Europe really going to war with Russia, or are we just talking ourselves into war like in the run up to the Iraq conflict in 2003? The media is full of banner headlines warning that Russia is getting ready to invade “any moment” as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy tours the world desperately trying to drum up support of what is widely expected ot be a brutal winter for Ukraine.

Senior politicians like Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and French President Emmanuel Macron have both gone on record this month warning that Europe needs to get ready for a direct conflict with Russia the number of arson and sabotage incidents do appear to be rising as drones increasingly cross the board into EU territory.

But is an attack really that close? More sober analysis warns that hyping the threat runs the danger of starting a war that no one intended to fight in the first place. That is what happened with Iraq.

Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack detailed how the Iraq invasion grew from a policy choice into military mobilisation thanks to a feedback loop of fear and rhetoric, while very little changed on the ground. After 9/11 America wanted revenge and began to hunt for a villain. The political atmosphere was intense and Afghanistan got the blame, but Iraq quickly came into focus, despite playing no role in the terrorist attack on New York 25 years ago this month.

Woodward traces how regime change became policy, how Dick Cheney and Doland Rumsfeld pushed the issue, and how intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction was turned into the justification for an invasion.

Russia’s threat of attacking Nato is WMD all over again. There is actually very little evidence that Russia preparing for war. The Guardian ran a story this week headlined: “European spy chiefs warn Moscow is planning more decisive action against Nato”, citing the hawkish warnings from Macron and Tusk. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, a well-known Russia hawk, has been pouring petrol on the fire saying on September 21 that if Russia attacks, the Euro Nato response would “not just be defensive; it would offensive.”

That’s fighting talk.

But in the same piece, the Guardian interviewed actual security professionals who downplayed the risk. “We don’t see indications of an imminent attack,” Normunds Mežviets, the director general of the VDD, Latvia’s state security service told The Guardian at the agency’s headquarters in Riga.

Security analysts at the China-Russia Report also dismissed the possibility of an attack because the practical problems it throws up.

“Russia’s ability to plan and execute a hybrid operation without substantial advance detection by Western (or PRC) intelligence services is highly doubtful,” the CRR said in its most recent note. “The Baltics’ own intelligence chiefs are themselves sceptical of an imminent hybrid contingency. In addition, the PRC, unlike in the run-up to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, does not show signs of preparing the information environment. Finally, if Putin were going to escalate directly against the Nato alliance, risking a conventional military conflict with the world’s most powerful military alliance, why would he initiate a contingency before mobilization?”

There has been a lot of speculation that Putin might call a full mobilisation after the Duma elections finished this weekend, but until he does that he simply doesn’t have the men to fight on two fronts.

Milblogger Clement Molin made the same point: with 90% of Russia’s troops committed to the Ukraine war, the danger of an attack on Europe only becomes possible if the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) defence collapses freeing up Russia’s forces for other duties.

But the media hype remains relentless. In the run up to Iraq war, the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was hyped to the max – from “dual-use pipes” to Colin Powel waving phials of anthrax around at UN security council meetings. Eventually, an attack was launched by the “coalition of the willing" (sound familiar?) which quickly discovered the WMD troupe was a hoax. Yet the hype started a disastrous eight-year war costing trillions that destroyed a country and killed 100,000-200,000 people.

Woodward described the way these things work. Egged on by a political agenda, the politicians issue calls for action and the whole “something must be done” agenda kicks in. Plans are drawn up. “Preparations” are begun. Troops are moved around and hold “preparatory” military exercises. And new weapons are ordered. But these are real military assets being moved and pointed at the opponent – in this case Russia. Naturally, Russia will respond. During the Cold War a whole ballet of military choreography was developed as missile deployment was as much a language as it was a threat. In this increasingly toxic environment, the current moves are widely reported and only add fuel to the fire.

The bomb in a bag at Leipzig-Halle airport is a good example. It was taken as a demonstration of Russia’s escalating hybrid war against Europe. It was found on the tarmac next to a Ukrainian Antonov cargo plane that had been full of French ammunition on its way to Kyiv.

From the Russian perspective that is seen as a legitimate military target. What has changed this year is, having run its own stockpiles into the dirt, Europe is increasingly manufacturing arms and ammo on EU territory to supply Ukraine – something the Kremlin says moves Europe from “supporting” Ukraine to becoming an “active participant” in a war against Russia. The Leipzig bomb is the Kremlin pushing back at growing volumes of materiel made in Europe on its way to the wheatfields of the Donbas. But from the European perspective, this bomb is an encroachment on EU sovereign territory and another step closer to an Article 5 triggering attack on Europe. As far as Brussels is concerned it is still only supporting Ukraine not attacking Russia.

But this clash of views creates a descending slippery spiral of action, reaction, accusation and response. Ukrainian defence firms launch JVs with European companies under the Danish model. A German firm launched the production of drones for Kyiv. The Russians put a bomb on the ground in Leipzig and fly drones over Romania and Lithuania. The US opens a new military base in Poland. The Finns and Estonians build fortifications along the Russian border. Russia builds 10 new drone launch pads on the other side that can hit any target in Europe. The circle is already turning.

A hybrid attack is the spark that could light the fuse. According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) database the number of hybrid attacks are rising: three in 2022, 12 in 2023, 34 in 2024. Since the escalation started in August there have been 26 suspected hybrid attacks in just the last six weeks. But Russia was only formally blamed for two of those and in the most serious cases – explosive devices found in German substations at Jänschwalde, Bergheim, Dormagen and Graustein – local police have arrested Daniel V., 48, a German climate activist from Gevelsberg.

So, why is there so much hype about an imminent war now? As IntelliNews reported yesterday, the current around of hyperbole coming from both sides is almost certainly similar to the last round ahead of the Ankara Nato summit in July, when a coordinated “Ukraine has reached a turning point” campaign was orchestrated between Bankova, Ukraine’s presidential administration, Brussels and the Nato leadership. Going into the summit it was already clear the AFU was running dangerously low on air defence interceptors and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was asking for more money and missiles.

He didn’t get them at the Turkish summit and now the need is even more pressing. The first snow will arrive in Kyiv in little over a month when the heating season starts. Russia has already destroyed two thirds of Ukraine’s generation capacity and is now systematically destroying Ukraine’s retail infrastructure as well targeting petrol stations and trains more recently. On the first of September, Russia’s high command announced it was restarting the mass destruction of Ukraine’s energy sector and will attempt to plunge the whole country into freezing darkness just as the temperatures plunge. In the last week, Zelenskiy has called for an energy sector ceasefire deal or face like-for-like retaliation, but the Kremlin has ignored him.

As IntelliNews reported, the Ukrainian president is starting to sound desperate as time is running out. To add to his headaches, Ukraine is also running out of money with a $27bn hole in its defence budget that it can’t fill. The Minister of Finance warned last week that Bankova may not be able to pay soldiers’ salaries just as winter starts. But the recent German regional elections and rising attacks on Ukrainian refugees in Poland show Ukraine fatigue is rising so squeezing even more help out of Brussels is become increasingly difficult. At Zelenskiy last meeting with Trump, the US president offered to send Ukraine “some” interceptors every month, without putting a figure on that.

An “enemy at the gate” message is very useful for focusing governments on the need to come up with the goods in Ukraine’s time of need. But the problem with this strategy as it comes with real military preparations and Russia is taking those seriously. And if no one is ready to backdown it could spiral out of control.

Will that happen? The Trump administration stepped back in to ceasefire negotiations this month, sending US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kuchner to Moscow and Kyiv, but that trip has amounted to nothing. After the US took itself out of the game following the start of Operation Epic Fury in February, there was a brief attempt to find a European interlocutor, but that failed. Currently the EU has no one who is, or can, talk to the Kremlin at all.

This article originally appeared in Editor’s Picks, a free daily email digest of bne IntelliNews’ best stories from the last 24 hours. Sign up for free here.

https://to989.infusionsoft.com/app/form/editors-picks-subscribers