NATO Adopts Aggressive Posture as EU Escalates War Rhetoric

In barely a year, the discourse of Brussels and NATO has already shifted toward a state of “total readiness”—a full war mode that many observers see as disproportionate to the actual threat landscape. But recent comments to the Financial Times by Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, Chair of NATO’s Military Committee—endorsing the possibility of striking “strategic targets” abroad to safeguard allied security—mark a qualitative leap in the alliance’s confrontational narrative. In practice, such statements legitimize potential offensive actions that Russia could easily interpret as direct escalation.

In fact, Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, reacted on Monday saying Dragone’s remarks are “an extremely irresponsible step, indicating the readiness of the alliance to continue to move toward escalation.” Zakharova added “These statements should be viewed as a deliberate attempt to undermine ongoing efforts aimed at resolving the Ukrainian crisis.” Indeed.

The shift is not confined to the military sphere. The EU is amplifying this posture through public campaigns that foster a sense of imminent conflict, ranging from recommendations to prepare emergency kits to the reinstatement of conscription in multiple member states.

This is not speculation but policy already in motion. Several EU governments are restoring or considering the reintroduction of mandatory military service. Croatia has already reintroduced it; Germany is debating its return with a target of recruiting 80,000 soldiers by 2029; Denmark has extended the duration of service and will make it compulsory for women beginning in 2026; and Italy is studying the reimplementation of conscription nearly two decades after abolishing it. Poland, meanwhile, obliges all men over 19 to undergo military fitness tests, laying the groundwork for large-scale conscription. This domino effect does not stem solely from a sober assessment of external threats but from a political climate that Brussels is actively shaping, sustained by a narrative of urgency that normalizes wartime-style measures.

At the same time, the European Commission is promoting increasingly alarmist public communication. Crisis Management Commissioner Hadja Lahbib recently urged Europeans to prepare a 72-hour survival kit in case of conflict, while Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared in her State of the Union address that “Europe is at war.”

What stands out is that such declarations do not reflect diplomatic reality: Russia has not declared war on the EU, nor are there signs that an attack on European territory is imminent or even a realistic scenario. What these proclamations do reveal is an attempt to strengthen a political narrative portraying the Union as a threatened, mobilized, and unified bloc facing an external enemy—all while overlooking the fact that the war in Ukraine, the only conflict directly affecting the continent, still lacks any coherent EU-led strategy for resolution.

Behind this drift toward militarization lies a clear political component. Brussels is grappling with a cycle of internal crises that undermine its leadership capacity: a migration policy that fails to convince either governments or citizens, growing economic pressure on households and businesses, and corruption scandals that have weakened institutional credibility. Emphasizing a war narrative operates as a smokescreen that diverts attention from these unresolved issues. It is telling that, while citizens are being told to prepare for a hypothetical conflict, the EU has been unable to assume a relevant diplomatic role in the Ukrainian crisis or to ensure that sanctions against Russia produce their intended strategic impact.

Militarization also raises economic and demographic concerns. The return of conscription could remove thousands of young people from the labor market at a moment when Europe faces severe demographic decline—a problem the EU has long attempted to offset through migration policies. Reintroducing mandatory service risks strains an already weakened labor market. At the same time, rising military expenditure is diverting resources from key areas such as social policy, civil infrastructure, and family support. Rather than strengthening the EU, such measures may deepen its structural weaknesses.

Cavo Dragone’s comments on the possibility of preemptive strikes may become a central justification for expanding military budgets and opening new arms-production lines. This rhetoric also cultivates a psychological climate of exception among the population, which is gradually acclimating to scenarios and vocabulary once considered unthinkable. The escalating spiral—NATO hardens its stance, the EU echoes it, and national governments tighten their policies—creates an environment in which militarization ceases to be extraordinary and becomes the norm.