George Beebe: NATO Lost Ukraine & Europe Prepares for War

George Beebe, former Director for Russia Analysis at the CIA, warns that the war in Ukraine has reached a critical stage, and Western leaders are increasingly panicking because the course of the war is contradicting the narrative that Russia is being strategically defeated. Ukraine is under growing pressure on the battlefield, particularly through Russia’s expanding air campaign. This creates both military and political problems for European governments that have invested heavily in a strategy toward Russia that is increasingly difficult to sustain.

European governments are also facing domestic political consequences. Across Europe, there is growing dissatisfaction with policies toward Russia, Ukraine and European security. Rather than confronting the possibility that these policies have failed, political leaders may be tempted to shift attention toward the prospect of a larger confrontation with Russia.

Europe Is Not Prepared for War

A direct conventional war between Europe and Russia would expose serious European military weaknesses. European countries lack sufficient ground forces and possess major gaps in logistical capabilities, transportation, air defence and battlefield intelligence. Much of Europe’s military infrastructure has depended heavily on the United States, particularly for intelligence and targeting.

If the United States stayed out of a conventional European war with Russia, Europe would face substantial military disadvantages. If the United States became directly involved, however, the danger would be fundamentally different because a direct NATO-Russia conflict could quickly become nuclear. Such a conflict would be extraordinarily destructive and would have no winners.

The idea that Russia is preparing to attack NATO is therefore misplaced. Russia has sought to avoid a direct conflict with NATO while fighting Ukraine, and European leaders should be trying to prevent escalation rather than encouraging rhetoric that could contribute to it.

The Missing Diplomatic Off-Ramp

There are potential off-ramps, but they require addressing the issues that Russia considers the underlying causes of the war. An unconditional ceasefire does not resolve these issues. Russia is unlikely to accept a ceasefire that freezes its battlefield disadvantages while Ukraine continues receiving weapons, rebuilding its forces and preparing for another conflict.

A sustainable settlement would require a broader discussion of European security, Ukraine’s future military alignment and the rights of linguistic and religious minorities. Ukraine and the West would have to make concessions, while Russia would also have to make concessions. The central problem is that there is currently little willingness to negotiate those compromises.

The Russian position is that ending the war requires a comprehensive peace settlement addressing what it considers the root causes. Continuing to provide Ukraine with targeting information, drones and missiles for attacks deep inside Russia while insisting that Russia must simply accept these attacks creates an escalation cycle rather than a path toward peace.

The Risks of Further Ukrainian Defeat

The longer the war continues, the greater the possibility that Russia’s demands will increase as its battlefield position improves. If Russia gains full control of Donbas, it may have greater incentives to seek additional territorial gains, potentially including areas such as Zaporizhzhia, Kherson or even Odesa.

At the same time, creating a fundamentally unstable Ukrainian state would also create serious problems for Russia. A failed or unstable Ukraine could generate security problems that spread into Russia and Europe. Russia would also remain confronted by a hostile and rearming Europe, leaving its broader European security concerns unresolved.

For these reasons, expanding the war indefinitely would not necessarily be Russia’s preferred outcome. A stable settlement could offer advantages that continued confrontation does not.

The Russia Trap

The central argument is that the West has misunderstood the nature of the conflict. The prevailing approach treats Russia as an expansionist power that can be deterred through increasing military pressure. But another possibility is that the conflict represents an escalating security spiral in which each side interprets the other’s actions as threatening.

In that situation, increasing deterrence can produce further escalation. More weapons, military deployments and aggressive rhetoric can lead Russia to respond, which then produces additional Western measures.

Avoiding such a spiral requires diplomacy rather than simply increasing military pressure. The objective should be to understand the security concerns and red lines of both sides and find compromises that prevent them from continually crossing those red lines.

The danger is that Western policy intended to deter Russia could instead be worsening the underlying security problem. The consequences would extend beyond Ukraine to European security as a whole. The essential task is therefore to reconsider the assumptions driving the conflict and pursue a comprehensive settlement before escalation produces a direct confrontation between Russia and the West.