During his annual press conference on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a missile “duel” with the United States to showcase the capabilities of Russia’s new Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile, claiming it could outmaneuver any U.S. missile defense system. Responding to Western skepticism about the Oreshnik’s effectiveness, Putin suggested that both sides select a specific target—"for example in Kyiv,” he said—to be defended by U.S. missile systems for a live demonstration.
Earlier in the week, Moscow displayed further military bravado when Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov announced that Russia is preparing for a potential military conflict with NATO in Europe within the next decade. He pointed to a new U.S. missile defense base in Poland as well as plans unveiled at the NATO summit to deploy U.S. medium-range missiles in Germany by 2026.

Europe Is Waking Up
Belousov might have also pointed out that Sweden, a country with more than 200 years of military neutrality, officially joined NATO in 2024. Similarly, Finland, which had adhered to a policy of military neutrality since 1948, became a NATO member in 2023. 

The Russian minister might have also highlighted the air base at Romania's Mihail Kogălniceanu Airport, located just 12 miles from the Black Sea coast and 250 miles from Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea. Major expansion efforts on this former Warsaw Pact base began in 2024, with plans to transform it into a military hub larger than Germany’s Ramstein Air Base.

By 2024, twenty-three of NATO’s thirty-two member countries are projected to meet or surpass the defense spending target of at least 2 percent of their GDP. This represents a substantial increase from ten countries in 2023 and only seven in 2022. 

Neither Belousov nor Putin would ever acknowledge that the primary factor behind the West’s recent “encroachment” on Russia is Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and its consistently aggressive posture toward the West. 

West Will Continue Defense Buildup

According to many experts, the measures taken by Russia’s neighbors to bolster their war preparedness remain insufficient. Western Europe is only starting to wake up. While this shift would not happen overnight, the trend appears inevitable and long term. “No major European NATO country has the magazine depth, the combat support, the combat service support to fight a big and long war,” says Bastian Giegerich, head of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Reversing the effects of more than two decades of defense underfunding across Europe will require at least a decade of significantly increased military spending, he concludes.

Regardless of future decisions by the next U.S. administration, European countries find themselves increasingly isolated in the face of a battered but combat-tested Russian military. Europe remains unprepared for the strategic challenges ahead, according to the Bruegel think tank’s report “European Defense Strategy in a Hostile World.” 

This implies that European countries will continue reorienting their economies and policies toward strengthening defense capabilities, Moscow’s rhetoric notwithstanding.
Germany’s defense spending has emerged as a central issue amid the current political crisis, with debates focusing on the country’s pledge to meet NATO’s target of allocating 2 percent of its GDP to defense. In an unusual shift for Germany, a majority of the population recently voiced support for a substantial increase in military funding.
In September, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius proposed raising military spending from the current 2 percent of GDP to between 3 and 3.5 percent. According to a new poll released by the Koerber-Stiftung Institute, 50 percent of respondents supported Pistorius’ proposal, while an additional 15 percent favored an even greater increase in defense spending. 

Circular Justification
Defense Minister Belousov’s and President Putin’s recent remarks follow a familiar and predictable playbook. Their public statements aim to cast Russia as a defensive power reacting to external threats rather than as an aggressor. Putin frequently repeats the line, “We didn’t start this war, but it is our job to end it,” a phrase he notably borrowed from Volodymyr Zelensky’s 2019 inaugural address
Putin consistently avoids calling his actions in Ukraine a war, referring to them instead as a “special military operation.” In his narrative, terms like “war,” “aggression,” or “blitzkrieg” are reserved for describing the actions of others—particularly the West. He even claimed that “the West’s economic blitzkrieg failed,” turning the language of aggression outward.
According to Putin’s framing, Russia’s objective is to “end the war,” and in pursuit of this, he will continue waging the so-called special military operation until its goals are achieved—a circular justification that keeps the conflict ongoing on his terms.

Victims of Self-Justifying Narratives

The interplay of war threats and military escalation has evolved into a self-perpetuating cycle, fueled by Russia’s aggressive posturing and the West’s defensive buildup. Moscow frames its actions as defensive responses to external provocations, while European nations rush to bolster their military capabilities after decades of defense underfunding.
Some experts warn that this escalating cycle of threats undermines the already fragile global nuclear non-proliferation regime, raising the specter of a new nuclear arms race. In fact, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s SIPRI Yearbook 2024, such a race is already underway, with nuclear-armed states and technologically advanced nations increasingly turning to nuclear weapons as key components of their strategic planning.

As both sides deepen their strategic commitments, the potential for miscalculation grows. Russia’s continued reliance on threats and military demonstrations as instruments of policy serves to justify Western expansion of military infrastructure—the very development the Kremlin claims to be resisting. In this dynamic, deterrence and provocation feed off one another, locking both sides into a spiral of militarization. This is how rhetoric turns into reality, how words create war. 

Unless meaningful dialogue resumes or new security frameworks emerge, the vicious cycle of war threats and war preparations will persist, driven less by genuine necessity and more by narratives designed to legitimize confrontation.

The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.