Reference News Network, July 18 report - The U.S. "National Interest" bi-monthly website published an article titled "Europe's Choice: Deterrence or Balance?" on July 16, authored by Matthew Blackburn and Alina Khamatdinova. The following is a compilation of the content:

On European security issues, the two sides in the debate have more to learn from each other than they imagine.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte insists that Russia is NATO's "most significant and direct threat," and calls for a "significant increase" in defense spending. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas claims that Russia has a long-term plan for "aggression" against Europe. German Chancellor Scholz says that Russia is waging a "hybrid war" through disinformation and sabotage, and has already attacked Europe.

This is the view of Fiona Hill, a renowned defense and security expert and co-author of the recent British "Strategic Defense Review." She claims that Russia has already declared war on the UK. Hill's statements have drawn criticism, with some publishing an open letter in The Guardian, accusing her of using "wrong premises" and "lack of evidence," exaggerating the Russian threat.

Although this opposing debate is limited and superficial, it reflects mainstream divisions among experts regarding the Ukraine war and how Europe should respond.

One side is the "deterrence faction." They see Putin as "the only war monger in Europe." Naturally, the deterrence faction supports Hill's argument: Russia's ultimate goal is to become a "military hegemon controlling the entire Europe." They believe that the West previously underestimated the Russian threat, failed to invest in defense and build a reliable "hard deterrence," which was a major mistake. They say that Europe must learn from this, mobilize social and economic power, and establish a reliable deterrent against Russia.

The other side is the "balance faction," which advocates easing the conflict through diplomatic means and new agreements recognizing the balance of power. They argue that the West bears some responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict because it ignored Russia's security concerns about NATO expansion. According to this interpretation, NATO accepting Ukraine's membership would completely break the balance of power, giving the West an absolute advantage.

The balance faction also believes that some Western actions hinder diplomatic solutions and prolong the war. In their view, the war's continuation does not align with what is generally considered the interest of Europe. They criticize NATO's "failed" strategy and call for a change of course.

The "deterrence faction" and the "balance faction" have diametrically opposed views on the war. Their moral narratives about the conflict are also entirely different. The deterrence faction often sees the balance faction as appeasers ready to make concessions to Russia. Conversely, the balance faction sees themselves as moderate "doves," opposing the radical and reckless "hawks." They accuse the hawks of exaggerating the Russian threat, ignoring the risk of escalation, and labeling all diplomatic efforts as "appeasement." The balance faction believes that NATO's "open door" policy has brought war rather than peace, and therefore must be abandoned.

The deterrence faction and the balance faction both have blind spots. The deterrence faction usually sets the starting point of the Ukraine conflict at 2022, basically not acknowledging any Western responsibility. They reject strategic empathy and do not ease Russia's concerns about Western intentions. By portraying Russia as a survival threat, they reduce diplomatic space and increase the risk of confrontation.

Conversely, the balance faction often focuses only on the West's "belligerence," but rarely considers the worst-case scenarios. They also seem to ignore the necessity of European unity and the need to secure the best possible deal for Ukraine.

In the end, the two sides focus on different things. The deterrence faction is concerned that appeasing Putin will damage Western credibility and undermine the international order. The balance faction is concerned that exaggerating the Russian threat will continuously escalate the security dilemma, leading to direct war. Can we not acknowledge that both sides' concerns are valid? If the goal is lasting peace rather than permanent conflict, should not Europe re-balance its approach of deterrence and appeasement towards Russia? (Translated by Guo Jun)

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7528323617038287423/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude below using the [upvote/downvote] buttons.