The security environment throughout Europe has been irreparably changed since Russia began its large-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. What was initially a catastrophic conflict for one nation quickly became a crisis-defining moment for the whole continent, reshaping how NATO, the European Union, and allied friends think about defense, deterrence, and resilience. As one who has tracked this change over the years, professionally and personally, it’s difficult not to feel the urgency of what’s at risk. This is no longer a local concern—it’s a reckoning moment for the whole of the European security order.
This war did not come out of thin air. Ukraine has been at the intersection of East and West for centuries. Once the Soviet Union’s second-most powerful republic, it has spent the decades since gaining independence in 1991 attempting to walk a line between traditional affinities with Russia and an increasingly strong desire to identify with the West. That precarious balance disintegrated in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine. It was the first time since World War II that a European nation had invaded another’s territory by force of arms, initiating a series of events that would develop into all-out war.
To the Kremlin, Ukraine is more than geography. It has symbolic and strategic importance, inextricably linked to Russian identity and its hopes to be a world power. From Moscow’s viewpoint, observing Ukraine move toward the EU and NATO is an existential threat. Russian President Vladimir Putin has cast the war as a reaction to decades of Western expansion, particularly NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.
In the lead-up to the invasion, Russia called for sweeping security assurances, including a NATO expansion freeze and the removal of U.S. nuclear capabilities from Europe. The West declined, and Moscow reacted the only way it could: with the application of brute power.
What then ensued was an unprecedented NATO reaction. The alliance did not merely utter outrage—it acted. Member nations have orchestrated a wholesale spigot of military assistance, supplying everything from bullets to sophisticated weapons systems and expert training. With different types of support mechanisms, such as special programs for non-lethal assistance and training facilities throughout Europe, NATO has established an environment to support Ukraine’s war effort while bringing it closer to being fully integrated with Westernized military standards. Allied nations alone made tens of billions worth of security aid commitments in the past year, and much more is scheduled to come in the future.
This change, however, isn’t just about Ukraine. NATO itself is being completely overhauled. The deployments of troops have grown drastically, especially on the eastern front, and levels of readiness have risen drastically. Half a million troops are now held at high readiness. Defense spending has also increased. What was previously a target—2% of GDP on defense—is being viewed more and more as a baseline. Some countries are now setting targets at nearly 5% within the next decade. It’s not simply additional troops or improved tanks—it’s about networked air defenses, cyber warfare capabilities, pre-positioned gear, and protecting strategic infrastructure.
But the threat of escalation remains. It’s increasing. Russia has used hybrid warfare instruments in addition to its military incursion: cyberattacks, propaganda, sabotage of the economy—all meant to undermine morale and destabilize life well beyond the battlefield. Civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, finance, and transportation, has been attacked, showing how contemporary warfare has diminished the distinction between the military and civilian spheres. Information warfare now encompasses AI-produced propaganda and fake stories aimed at undermining confidence and driving populations apart.
Maybe the most menacing aspect is the constant threat of nuclear escalation. Experts warn that any number of scenarios—a drawn-out standoff, a sudden increase in tensions—may include nuclear signaling or, in the worst case, partial tactical nuclear use. Such an action would necessitate a reaction, and it could bring NATO into a larger conflict with repercussions no one wishes to contemplate.
In the meantime, the ripple effect is radiating across Europe. The EU has initiated moves to enhance its defense production and strategic autonomy, but the divergence among member states is making the coordination increasingly difficult. Financial pressures from the ongoing subsidization of Ukraine, the difficulty of the migration challenge, and the relentless pressure of disinformation campaigns are putting the solidarity of both the EU and NATO to the test. Old-style security arrangements, such as the OSCE, are finding it difficult to remain pertinent, and the rate of arms accumulation is accelerating.
Witnessed at this juncture is a protracted war, with no easy victory on the horizon—a common perception is that it is the most probable possibility. That translates to constant violence, economic pressure, and political tension throughout the region. The West’s capacity to continue backing Ukraine is related to industrial production capability and the changeable, ephemeral winds of political desire. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Russia can be exhausted but still retains momentum on the battlefield. And while all this is happening, world powers such as China are closely observing, considering their next steps in an ever-fragile world.
One thing is certain: preventing the worst-case scenarios—be it a fractured Europe, a powerless NATO, or something worse—is going to take more than lip service. Ukraine needs to be equipped with what it requires not only to hold on, but to prevail. And for Europe, that means articulating clear objectives, remaining united, and creating the type of long-term resilience that can weather shocks yet to come. The journey ahead will be unclear, but one thing is certain: how this war is concluded will determine the shape of European security for generations to come.