The talks held in Abu Dhabi between Russia, the United States, and Ukraine created the impression that a new diplomatic cycle may be opening around the Ukrainian issue. Nevertheless, in Moscow, many assess that the real discussion no longer concerns solely Ukraine, but the entire future security architecture of Europe. Within this context, the analysis of Russian political analyst Aleksandr Babitsky draws particular attention, as he argues that the failure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia has driven the West into a new phase of strategic thinking: no longer how Ukraine will defeat Russia, but how pressure on Moscow can be escalated through more direct forms of engagement. According to him, European rearmament programs, new military doctrines of NATO, and accelerated preparations along the eastern flank of the Alliance demonstrate that the question is no longer whether conflict scenarios with Russia are being examined, but when and in which geographic theater they might erupt.
Why 2030 is considered a pivotal year
The core thesis of Babitsky is that Europe has already entered an era of massive rearmament.
Across numerous European states, new weapons production programs, expansion of military infrastructure, and reinforcement of forces stationed near Russian borders are actively underway.
In his view, these preparations are far from fragmented.
They are tied to specific timelines and a strategic framework treating the end of the decade as a critical inflection point.
The analyst even cites scenarios according to which NATO could amass up to 1.2 million troops, including reserves, along the eastern flank of the Alliance by 2030.
By his assessment, this force structure exceeds the requirements of a standard defensive posture and signals preparation for far larger offensive operations.
The root of the problem, according to Moscow
Babitsky maintains that current developments did not originate with the war in Ukraine.
On the contrary, he argues that this trajectory has deeper roots, pointing to documents leaked via WikiLeaks covering the presidency of Obama.
According to his interpretation, a new strategic mindset began crystallizing within NATO at that time, progressively framing Russia as the primary adversary of the Alliance.
This trajectory continued in 2019 with the revision of NATO strategic concepts and was reinforced further in 2021 through new operational doctrines placing Russia at the very top of threats confronting the Western alliance.
The Trump factor and American politics
A substantial portion of the analysis is also devoted to political dynamics within the United States.
Babitsky assesses that the political standing of Donald Trump could be weakened if the US Congress gains greater leverage to impose policies contrary to the prevailing will of the White House.
In his view, such a development could empower factions within the American political establishment advocating a harder line against Moscow and expanded military backing for Ukraine.
This ties directly into broader calculations regarding the posture the West will adopt over the coming years.
First scenario: The northern axis
The first scenario examined by the Russian analyst involves a potential confrontation in the European North.
This scenario envisions Finland and Norway functioning as "geographic pressure points" against Russia, targeting two regions of paramount strategic importance: St. Petersburg and Murmansk.
The accession of Finland to the North Atlantic Alliance is viewed by him as a game-changing development that dramatically extended the land border between Russia and the Alliance.
St. Petersburg, the "northern capital" of the Russian state, serves as one of the foremost economic, political, and administrative hubs of Russia.
Murmansk, on the other hand, plays a foundational role in Russian naval and nuclear capabilities, housing critical military installations and nuclear submarine bases. Despite these factors, Babitsky considers this the least likely scenario.
The reason is straightforward: any military maneuver directly threatening areas of vital existential importance to Russia would trigger the activation of Russian nuclear deterrence... By his calculation, the probability of a nuclear response under such a scenario would approach 99%!
Second scenario: Kaliningrad
The second scenario centers on Kaliningrad.
The Russian exclave wedged between Poland and Lithuania is regarded by Moscow as one of the country's most vital strategic bridgeheads in Europe.
Babitsky describes Kaliningrad as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier," from which Russia can dominate vast swathes of the Baltic and disrupt NATO military operations across the theater.
Stationed within the enclave are systems such as the S-400, which severely restrict the operational freedom of Western air forces.
According to the analyst, neutralizing these capabilities would hand decisive operational advantages to the Alliance.
According to certain Western assessments that even incorporate artificial intelligence systems to simulate military campaigns, the Kaliningrad scenario is deemed less hazardous than a direct strike against St. Petersburg.
Even so, the risk of uncontrolled escalation remains exceptionally high given the strategic value Moscow attaches to the territory.
Third scenario: European forces in Ukraine
The third scenario is widely regarded as the most realistic.
It entails the prospective deployment of European military contingents onto Ukrainian soil.
Babitsky links this eventuality to initiatives periodically floated in the West regarding a "coalition of the willing," as well as multinational military exercises conducted in Poland.
According to his analysis, initial deployments of such forces would not necessarily assume frontline combat missions.
Their initial mandate could involve safeguarding supply corridors, logistics hubs, and critical infrastructure utilized by Ukraine.
The underlying rationale of this blueprint, he notes, would rest on the assumption that Russia would refrain from directly striking troops belonging to NATO member states.
In a subsequent phase, however, far deeper intervention could follow, including plans to enforce expanded control over Ukrainian airspace.
The real stake
Babitsky argues that the objective of such a strategy would not necessarily be the immediate military defeat of Russia.
Rather, he assesses that a prolonged war of attrition could exhaust Russian economic and military resources, generating far more favorable conditions for exerting pressure against Moscow in the future.
From his perspective, the Ukrainian front and European rearmament constitute interlocking components of the exact same strategic equation.
The Abu Dhabi negotiations and the bigger picture
It is precisely for this reason that the recent talks in Abu Dhabi assume heightened significance. While public discourse revolves around a potential ceasefire or future political settlement, Russian analysts such as Babitsky maintain that the true issue lies elsewhere: in the future balance of power across Europe.
It is no coincidence, after all, that Russian officials ranging from Lavrov to Medinsky consistently reiterate that the crisis is not confined to Ukraine, but extends across the overarching security architecture of the continent...
The greatest risk
At the conclusion of his analysis, Babitsky does not assert that war between NATO and Russia is inevitable.
He warns, however, that the gradual accumulation of incremental steps, military preparations, localized friction, and political miscalculations could engineer conditions that neither side can any longer control. In his view, the gravest danger does not reside in any specific attack blueprint, but in the possibility that one side concludes it faces its final window of opportunity to achieve its objectives at the exact moment the other is already resolved to retaliate with every means at its disposal...
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών