It is always interesting to listen to the President of Finland, Alexander Stubb. He writes and speaks about the fateful issues of our time in a way that deepens the understanding of what is going on in Europe and the whole world, but sometimes he seems a little fond of his own horses. He pushes the thesis that Europe exaggerates the threat from Russia a notch too far.
Recently, Stubb declared that he has seen no evidence that Russia is preparing another military attack in Europe. "As commander-in-chief in Finland, I have access to all relevant information and I simply see no evidence of any kind of imminent Russian attack," Stubb claimed in an interview with American Fox News, which Ekot then reported on. "Take a sauna and relax," Stubb urged his European colleagues.
That is strange advice. Because although Stubb is hopefully right that there is no imminent danger of a new more extensive Russian military attack in Europe, we can all follow the reports of the increasingly intense so-called hybrid war. Last week, Romania and Moldova were hit by drone attacks, and two national intelligence agencies – the US CIA and Denmark's FE – warned that such attacks are about to escalate.
Moscow, of course, denies that Russia is behind the swarm of drones in Europe, but such statements are patently false
Moscow, of course, denies that Russia is behind the swarm of drones in Europe, but such statements are patently false. Some of the flying objects – including the drone discovered at Leipzig airport in early August, which was full of explosives – have been found to be Russian. According to a study by IISS, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, published this summer, it is "highly likely" that Russia is behind the wave of drones in Europe.
The aim is, of course, to spread fear and confusion among European citizens. The EU must be weakened and divided and the support for the government in Kyiv called into question. In this way, Russia will first win the war in Ukraine and then continue to try to restore its former power. In other words, it is not at all time for Europe's politicians to relax. The drone attacks lead to a diffuse and unpleasant concern, and so far the reactions have been too weak and fragmented. Exaggerating the immediate threat from Russia is of course foolish, but what actually exists calls for a more forceful and united European response.
The "drone wall" that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised a year ago also seems to have gotten stuck in the usual mess of national contradictions and ambiguities about the overlapping responsibility for Europe's defense that rests with the member states, NATO and the EU. The conclusions of a current report from ECFR, the European Council on Foreign Relations, are disappointing and suggest that national attempts to build anti-drone systems have so far worked best. Poland and Estonia are among the countries that have come the farthest, and in order to move forward as quickly as possible, the EU should give financial support to such national projects, ECFR believes. The report author also calls on EU member states to share their experiences and learn from each other on how attacks targeting civilian infrastructure can be met and managed.
The aim is, of course, to spread fear and confusion among European citizens. The EU must be weakened and divided and the support for the government in Kyiv called into question
Other things can also be done. When the EU's defense ministers met in Brussels on September 28, the Commission's latest proposal was discussed, which states that the EU should establish a new regulatory framework reminiscent of NATO's Article 4, which gives the defense alliance's member countries the right to call a crisis meeting in the event of an ongoing security threat. For the EU, such an arrangement would complement Article 42.7 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which deals with the fact that the Union's member states must give each other support and assistance in the event of an armed attack.
Much would be gained if the EU countries inform each other and try to coordinate their reactions to the Russian drones. At the same time, it is quite depressing that a new regulatory framework is needed for the member states to do something as obvious as trying to cooperate against attacks that are so clearly aimed at the whole of Europe. It would also be liberating if EU leaders spoke plainly about what Russia is up to. Sweden's outgoing but still serving foreign minister Maria Malmer Stenergard (M) has pointed out that the murky concept of "hybrid attacks" does not describe what the threat from the Russian drones is about - and that is certainly true. It would be much better to call the attacks what they are: Hostile attacks.
So Europe's politicians should not listen to Alexander Stubbs' call and take it easy in the sauna, because they have a lot to do. The EU's division and inability to speak with one voice on the Russian drone attacks is not reassuring, but worrying.
