War on the West: Russia’s Provocations Outside Ukraine Demand Action

A New York Post opinion piece argues that Moscow is waging a different kind of war on the West, focusing on psychological and political factors rather than direct battlefield gains. The author contends Russia uses airspace violations and drone incursions to test NATO responses and to undermine allied resolve, while avoiding a full scale clash that could invite a stronger Western counterpunch.

The article notes that every airspace breach consumes Russia fuel and every NATO scramble or emergency meeting costs Western allies heavily in resources and credibility. Moscow is portrayed as choosing a strategy of provoking costly, symbolic moves that compel Western governments to respond while avoiding the kind of deep, kinetic escalation that would define a real battle. In this calculus, Moscow argues that the price of inaction is a larger strategic defeat for the West than any single strike.

The piece describes reflexive control at scale as a central tactic. Moscow designs situations that push Western leaders toward cautious, incremental responses that avoid decisive action but still fracture political consensus. The author argues that the Kremlin prefers nonkinetic pressure, where drones and jets become tools to erode the West from within by feeding the narrative that defending Europe is too costly or too risky. The objective is not to win a war but to win the psychology of restraint and hesitation.

Polls cited in the piece underscore a gap in willingness to fight that Moscow may be exploiting. Gallup figures cited show only about 32 percent of Russians and 41 percent of Americans would be willing to fight for their country, compared with roughly 62 percent of Ukrainians. The European Union average is reported at 32 percent, highlighting a perceived gap in willingness to mobilize in the face of external pressure. The article argues that this psychological terrain is where Moscow believes it can do measurable harm to Western unity and deterrence.

The analysis contends that NATO cohesion, especially on Article 5 mutual defense guarantees, remains the alliance’s most fragile element. If uncertainty around the collective defense pledge grows, the bloc risks fraying into dysfunction. The piece warns that the label hybrid warfare is sometimes misused, but in this view, the West is not seeing a war in the traditional sense; it is witnessing a political and informational contest that Moscow is actively waging. The result, according to the piece, is a Western response that often leans toward condemnation rather than decisive action, which in turn feeds Moscow luridly crafted narratives of being under siege by a hostile West.

Moscow also seeks to normalize a narrative that Russia is already at war with a scheming, ruthless West. The article asserts that any incident in which drones drift into EU airspace is framed by Kremlin-propaganda as evidence that the enemy is at the gates, regardless of the scale of the breach. This framing helps Moscow recast failure in Ukraine into a broader resistance against a NATO alliance that it claims is intrinsically weak. In turn, it creates a face-saving off-ramp for Moscow should economic or political conditions deteriorate, allowing the Kremlin to claim it fought NATO to a draw rather than admit strategic setbacks.

The piece argues that history matters. Seventeen years of Western hesitation under multiple administrations created a vacuum that Moscow has exploited. The author describes Russia as a revanchist state that does not necessarily seek a direct confrontation in Europe, but rather a sustained erosion of Western will and allied resolve. The Kremlin, in this view, measures success not by battlefield outcomes but by the extent to which it can dissuade allies from defending themselves with resolve and urgency.

A noted development cited is Poland’s invocation of Article 4 in response to recent incursions, which the article sees as a potential signal of movement, and it points to public attention sparked by statements from former U.S. President Donald Trump as well as military-focused discussions at the United Nations General Assembly this month. The piece also references remarks by NATO Secretary General and leaders seen in Brussels and Europe as reinforcing the sense that the alliance remains under pressure to prove its reconstituted political cohesion and readiness to act when challenged.

Ultimately, the author argues that restoring peace through strength is the only viable path. The argument concludes with an emphasis on the need for clear, credible Western responses that demonstrate resolve rather than hesitation, particularly in the air and near Europe’s borders. The piece closes by attributing the analysis to Andrew Chakhoyan, a University of Amsterdam academic director who previously served in the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation.