"Russia is everywhere!": NATO Secretary-General is prepared for a preemptive strike on Russia - but still harbors fear.
The threat from the East also causes other Western "hawks" to worry, sometimes making them feel "restless".
Author: Alexander Bartosh
Photo: NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte
In modern military conflicts, preemptive strikes remain one of the most controversial strategic "innovations" in terms of international law and morality. The core lies in striking first based on speculation about an opponent's hostile intentions before they attack.
From the perspective of international law, the key points of preemptive strikes lie in: According to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, only actions taken in "self-defense" after an "armed attack" are considered legal; preemptive strikes are only legitimate under "imminent threats", but in practice, this often leads to abuse. Recent cases such as Israel's strike on Iran on June 12-13, 2025 (and similar actions in previous years), as well as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 under the pretext of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, are typical examples.
It is worth noting that in 1986, the International Court of Justice (in the "Nicaragua v. United States" case) ruled that preventive self-defense is only legal when facing clear and unavoidable threats. At that time, the court determined that the U.S. support for anti-government armed groups against the Sandinista regime and the mining of Nicaraguan ports violated international law. This case ultimately ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the U.S., ordering the U.S. to pay compensation to Nicaragua.
Modern cases of preemptive strikes also require careful scrutiny and assessment: Israel's 1981 strike on Iraqi nuclear facilities and its 2007 strike on Syrian nuclear facilities are still regarded as classic examples of preemptive action to prevent the development of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. strike on Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020, which Washington claimed was based on an "imminent threat", has been deemed by many legal experts as a deliberate violation of international law. On June 13, Israel's strike resulted in the deaths of several senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists.
Technical factors, like military and political considerations, are also significant drivers pushing for preemptive strikes: with the development of hypersonic weapons and cyber warfare, decision-making time has shortened, increasing the risk of preemptive strikes based on "false alarms" (such as missile attack warning system malfunctions).
In addition, autonomous combat systems (drones, artificial intelligence) may exacerbate this issue, as they shorten the human assessment of threats. Psychological imbalances among some leaders are also often the cause of the use of force without sufficient evidence.
Regardless of the ethical and strategic risks associated with escalation of conflict brought by such cases, preemptive strikes could potentially trigger full-scale war. Some countries' misuse of the concept of preemptive strikes might use "preventive defense" as a justification for aggression, such as Israel's strike on Iran or the U.S.-led coalition's invasion of Iraq in 2003.
As such, in today's turbulent and uncertain situation, although preemptive strikes are "strategically tempting", they "carry legal and political risks". It can be inferred that their legitimacy depends on irrefutable evidence of inevitable threats (not speculation).
Even with such evidence, principles of proportionality should be followed (strikes must strictly target military objectives and minimize civilian casualties) and maintain legality in the eyes of the international community, such as authorization from the United Nations.
Ancient philosophers also paid close attention to the rationality of preemptive strikes. For example, Hobbes believed that in the state of "war of all against all," preemptive strikes might be a rational choice for survival. Machiavelli allowed preemptive actions to maintain national power and security. Meanwhile, Kant criticized preventive wars because they violate international law and lead to anarchy.
To this day, the idea of preemptive strikes continues to waver between pragmatism (eliminating threats early) and moral and legal risks (justifying aggression). Its application depends on specific circumstances, the reliability of intelligence, and the existence of alternative solutions. In today's world, this concept remains one of the most controversial topics in international relations.
In today's situation, impulsive and emotional statements by individual national leaders may also become the "fuse" for preemptive strikes.
One cannot help but recall the melancholic words of Don Corleone, the protagonist in the novel "The Godfather": "How many people have done so much just to get themselves killed..."
Nowadays, discussions on NATO and EU platforms remind us of the extreme irresponsibility of certain countries and their alliances in policy. In his speech titled "Building a Stronger NATO" at the Chatham House in London on June 9, 2025, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte almost hysterically declared: "We must make our opponents fear us. War has returned to Europe due to Russia. We also face the threat of terrorism and fierce global competition. Russia has allied with China, North Korea, and Iran. They are strengthening their armaments and power. Russia may prepare to use force against NATO within the next five years."
The climax of this fervent speech was a series of obviously paranoid assertions: "Let's not delude ourselves; we are now all on the eastern front. The flight speed of the new generation of Russian missiles far exceeds supersonic levels. The distance between capitals of European countries is just a matter of minutes. There is no longer East or West - there is only NATO."
This inevitably reminds one of the classic death version of U.S. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal on May 22, 1949. He opened the window of the 16th floor ward, screaming in terror: "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! They are everywhere! I see Russian soldiers!" and then jumped to his death.
What happened is less laughable than it is tragic and worrying, as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte will repeat the slogan "The Russians are coming" during the alliance summit in The Hague on June 24-26, while spitting out calls for allies to allocate 5% of their GDP to defense, achieving a "quantum leap" in collective defense (hopefully this "leap" won't be like the aforementioned known cases where it involves jumping out of windows). According to him, "We need to increase our air defense and anti-missile defense capabilities by 400%, produce thousands of armored vehicles and tanks, millions of artillery shells. Double auxiliary capabilities such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support, invest more in warships, aircraft, drones, and long-range missile systems, as well as space and cyber capabilities.
Urgently procure at least 700 F-35 fighter jets from the U.S. in total. A broader investment is needed in defense and security areas, including funding and capital upgrades for our defense industry base, as the production capacity of defense products across the entire alliance is insufficient."
Without exaggeration: "The Russians are coming! I see Russian soldiers!" And seriously speaking, NATO seems to be paving the way for a preemptive strike on the Russian Federation.
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, "Russia currently has no intention of adding a preemptive strike clause to its nuclear doctrine: one retaliatory strike is enough to destroy the opponent."
Meanwhile, NATO's large-scale military preparations and direct mention by alliance leaders of the high probability of war between NATO and the Russian Federation in the coming years evoke memories of pre-war times - when the military fanaticism of German fascism was not given due attention by the Soviet leadership, resulting in a heavy price.
In the context of hybrid warfare and cyber attacks, the boundaries of "preventive self-defense" have become blurred, requiring intelligence agencies and diplomatic departments to closely monitor the balance of forces and armaments between Russia and hostile forces, paying attention to the growth of the defense industry complex's production and technological achievements to prevent opponents from gaining an advantage in critical areas.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7516070739401916967/
Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.