The Pentagon has urged European Nato allies to moderate their public warnings about the threat posed by Russia, raising fresh questions over Washington’s approach to European security as fears of a wider confrontation with Moscow continue to grow.
Officials from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were reportedly told to exercise restraint during bilateral discussions with American counterparts, Reuters said, citing people familiar with the conversations.
It remains unclear whether similar messages were delivered to other European governments.
The intervention highlights a growing tension within the Western alliance over how openly governments should discuss the Russian threat, with Washington apparently concerned that increasingly forceful European rhetoric could undermine efforts to prevent escalation.
A Pentagon spokesperson declined to address the specific allegations, saying: “Private conversations between allies remain private, so we will not comment on these claims.”
Among the American officials involved was Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary of defence for policy, Reuters reported.
Read more related news:
Expert fears UK and Europe ‘will wake up only after capitals are hit’ then ‘it’s too late’
Streeting warns Britain faces unprecedented risk of war with Russia
Zelensky warns UK act now ‘before it is too late’ in a blunt message to Healey over defence plans
One source said Pentagon officials had taken issue with European leaders portraying Russia as increasingly desperate and strategically weakened by its failure to achieve its objectives in Ukraine.
Colby reportedly urged one Baltic official to avoid “provoking” Moscow, citing remarks by European leaders describing Vladimir Putin as being “cornered like a rat”. Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal had used that description in late September.
Another European official, describing the tone of Washington’s message, said: “We’re helping you. The Americans are on your side. Just don’t shout. Don’t make a fuss.”
The apparent request exposes a difficult strategic calculation for European capitals. Some Western officials believe aggressive public language risks providing the Kremlin with justification for further escalation. Others argue that governments must be frank about the danger to persuade voters that stronger defence spending and greater military readiness are necessary.
The disagreement comes as Russia continues its war against Ukraine and European intelligence agencies warn that the threat extends beyond the battlefield.
On October 29, Putin claimed that European countries were “preparing for war” with Russia, insisting that Moscow was ready for a conflict but did not want one.
Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service has separately reported that Russia is considering the possibility of a direct conflict with Europe among its military scenarios through 2045. Its assessment includes scenarios involving northern Europe, Poland and the Baltic states.
Denmark’s defence intelligence service warned in September of a “small but growing risk” that Russia could launch a limited military operation against one or more Nato countries bordering its territory.
Meanwhile, intelligence chiefs from the Czech Republic, Latvia and Sweden have warned that Russian sabotage operations across Europe could intensify in the coming months.
Ukraine’s military intelligence agency has also accused Moscow of instructing its intelligence services to increase activity in EU and Nato countries, with the alleged objective of undermining support for Kyiv and weakening the alliance.
For the Baltic states, which share borders with Russia or its ally Belarus, the warnings are not abstract geopolitical calculations. Their security depends heavily on Nato deterrence and the credibility of the alliance’s collective-defence commitments.
The Pentagon’s reported intervention therefore presents European governments with a dilemma: how to communicate the seriousness of the Russian threat without fuelling the very escalation they are seeking to prevent.
But with Moscow continuing its war in Ukraine and European intelligence agencies warning of possible sabotage and military provocations, keeping the rhetoric down may prove easier than containing the underlying danger.
Leave a Comment