Could a War With Russia Erupt in Europe in the Coming Years?.

NATO officials and defense analysts are increasingly discussing the possibility of a major war in Europe within the next few years. Russia’s ongoing militarization, hybrid attacks, and long-term force buildup have reignited concern about the continent’s security trajectory.

Across Europe’s defense ministries, the once-unthinkable question is now being asked quietly but consistently: could the continent be heading toward a new war with Russia? Recent developments, from large-scale mobilization drills inside Russia to permanent troop placements in Belarus, have reshaped NATO’s threat assessments. European security officials note that Moscow’s defense industry is now operating at wartime tempo, while its forces continue to conduct provocative exercises near alliance borders. Though no single action confirms imminent conflict, the steady pattern of preparation suggests that the risk of war in the next few years can no longer be dismissed.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

As NATO increases readiness and tensions persist, experts question whether Europe could face a major conflict with Russia in the near future. (Picture source: Army Recognition Group)

The possibility of a large-scale war in Europe is no longer a distant strategic abstraction. In defense ministries across NATO’s eastern flank, the phrase “major conventional conflict” has quietly returned to war planning documents. There is no formal declaration, no countdown clock, but the indicators are unmistakable: Russia is preparing for the unthinkable.

From airspace violations over the Baltic to pipeline sabotage in the North Sea and electronic warfare attacks targeting Scandinavian GPS systems, Moscow is steadily pushing the boundaries of provocation. At the same time, its military-industrial complex is operating at wartime tempo. State-owned defense firms in Tula and Kazan are running three shifts a day. Mobilization drills are now routine across western Russia. And in Belarus, Russian troops are not merely rotating through; they are entrenching.

For decades, NATO’s posture has been built on deterrence through superior force, advanced technology, and alliance cohesion. But deterrence is a dynamic equation. And when one side becomes bolder, faster, and less risk-averse, while the other grows politically fragmented and industrially sluggish, the balance begins to tilt.

What’s taking shape now is a scenario that military leaders feared, but policymakers downplayed: the emergence of a credible window in which Russia could strike first, strike fast, and leave NATO scrambling to respond.

A Wider Conflagration: The Shape of a New Axis

A war in Europe may not remain a regional affair. Increasingly, Moscow appears to be laying the groundwork for a broader strategic bloc of authoritarian states, one capable of stretching NATO across multiple theaters and breaking Western cohesion.

Iran, already deeply integrated into Russia’s defense supply chain, has moved beyond drone deliveries. It now provides instructors, munitions, and technical assistance to Russian forces. Tehran’s leadership, emboldened by Western hesitation in the Middle East, sees value in drawing NATO deeper into a multi-front crisis.

North Korea’s military support to Russia has expanded in volume and scope. Ammunition transfers, artillery shells, and even ballistic missile cooperation have been documented. Pyongyang has made clear that if the West is distracted in Europe, it may seek opportunities to challenge the balance on the Korean Peninsula.

China remains the most ambiguous and most consequential actor in this unfolding alignment. Officially neutral, Beijing continues to publicly distance itself from the war in Ukraine. But behind the scenes, its defense cooperation with Russia has widened. Joint naval patrols, space-based intelligence sharing, and synchronized strategic messaging suggest a quiet solidarity. If Russia moves against NATO, China may not join militarily, but it could exploit the distraction to pressure Taiwan or destabilize U.S. influence in the Indo-Pacific.

Together, this informal axis does not yet operate as a unified command. But it represents a coalition of converging interests, one that views Western alliances not just as opponents, but as obstacles to be tested, undermined, and, if necessary, confronted.

NATO and the U.S.: Dominance on Paper, Risk in Reality

For NATO, the challenge is not simply about firepower. It is about time. Russia holds the geographic and initiative advantage. It can mobilize faster, strike closer, and exploit terrain where NATO’s forward defenses are thin or politically constrained. The alliance, though larger and better resourced, must still reach consensus among 32 capitals before it acts decisively.

The United States remains NATO’s central pillar. But its forces are stretched across the globe, committed in Europe, focused in the Pacific, and still entangled in Middle East deterrence operations. A war in Europe would force Washington into a strategic triage: surge forces across the Atlantic or hold them back for a potential second crisis elsewhere.

For now, NATO retains superiority in almost every conventional metric, including personnel, aircraft, naval power, and defense spending. But superiority alone does not ensure deterrence. What matters now is readiness, responsiveness, and resolve. And on those fronts, Russia is not standing still.

Personnel and Mobilization: NATO’s Depth vs Russia’s Proximity

NATO fields an estimated 3.4 million active military personnel, supported by an additional 2 million reservists. Russia, Iran, and North Korea collectively muster about 3.3 million active troops, but with far higher concentrations near the European theater.

Russia and its allies benefit from conscription systems and centralized mobilization models. North Korea fields the world’s fourth largest standing army, while Iran operates the IRGC and regular military in parallel. Although not formally allied, their joint support to Russia in Ukraine has proven operationally significant.

NATO, by contrast, depends on volunteer forces, often stationed far from likely flashpoints. The Suwałki Gap, Kaliningrad, and Belarus remain critical vulnerability zones.

Ground Forces: Mass vs Modernization

Russia is estimated to maintain 2,000 to 5,000 deployable Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), including T-72B3, T-80BVM, and the more modern T-90M. However, thousands more remain in long-term storage, often in degraded condition. North Korea can contribute thousands of outdated tanks, while Iran provides artillery and drones.

NATO’s tank fleet is more modern and better maintained. The U.S. alone operates 4,650+ M1A2 Abrams, Germany has ~300, including Leopard 2A5, 2A6, and 2A7s, and Poland is expanding rapidly with U.S. M1A2 Abrams and South Korean K2 tanks. The total alliance fleet is estimated at 11,000–12,500 MBTs.

Yet Russia compensates with sheer artillery volume. According to IISS, Moscow continues to produce artillery shells at a rate five times higher than NATO, aided by Iranian and North Korean munitions.

The U.S. Armed Forces operate more than 4,650 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks across active and reserve units. (Picture source: U.S. Department of War)

Airpower: Technological Dominance vs Saturation Strategy

NATO air forces outnumber Russia’s nearly 4 to 1 in total aircraft, and field over 600 fifth-generation fighters, including F-35s and F-22s. The U.S. Air Force and Navy alone deploy more than 2,000 fourth- and fifth-gen aircraft.

Russia operates around 1,500 combat aircraft, including Su-35S, Su-34, and Su-30. While capable, these aircraft lack stealth, and the Su-57 fleet remains limited (<50 units). However, Russia has increasingly adopted mass drone usage—with Iranian Shahed-136 and Mohajer-6 drones forming the backbone of long-range attrition.

Air denial is where Russia counters NATO’s edge. Its A2/AD bubbles—formed by S-400/S-500 SAMs, electronic warfare, and hypersonic missiles—pose real risks to NATO air operations over Kaliningrad, Belarus, and Crimea.

Naval Power: Global Control vs Coastal Denial

NATO’s navies, led by the U.S., field 2,700+ warships, including 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and over 140 submarines. Russia's navy counts around 420 ships, including 60 submarines, but is largely constrained to regional operations in the Arctic, Baltic, and Black Sea.

Iran and North Korea add regional naval threats with fast attack craft, missile boats, and diesel-electric submarines that could tie down U.S. assets in other theaters, particularly the Persian Gulf and Yellow Sea.

NATO's ability to control sea lanes globally gives it a decisive edge, but Russia's submarine presence near NATO chokepoints creates strategic ambiguity—especially in the North Atlantic.

Defense Spending and Industrial Output

NATO outspends Russia roughly 10 to 1, with over $1.38 trillion in combined annual defense spending. The U.S. alone accounts for ~$850 billion. Russia’s official defense budget hovers around $110–140 billion, but analysts suspect real expenditures are higher.

Yet spending doesn't tell the whole story. Russia’s military-industrial complex has shifted into wartime mode. NATO’s peacetime procurement system has struggled to keep pace with Russia’s munitions and artillery shell production, particularly as Ukraine consumes Western stocks.

Note: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated in 2025 that “Russia produces in three months what the alliance produces in a year,” referring to artillery shells.

Final Assessment: Can NATO Sustain the Edge?

While NATO holds the advantage in quantity, technology, and economic power, that edge erodes if it fails to act early and cohesively. Russia and its strategic partners are betting on asymmetry, mass production, and early escalation to disrupt NATO’s response timelines.

In the event of a high-intensity European conflict, the alliance's survival hinges not just on hardware but also on strategic clarity, unity, and readiness to mobilize under fire.