Hidden Forces – "Why Europe Must Prepare to Go It Alone"
Podcast: Hidden Forces
Host: Demetri Kofinas
Guest: Carlo Masala, Professor of International Politics, Bundeswehr University, Munich
Episode Date: January 26, 2026
Overview
This episode features a compelling discussion between Demetri Kofinas and Carlo Masala, focusing on the urgent security challenges facing Europe in the event of declining American support for NATO, the risks of Russian aggression, and the essential question: Can Europe defend itself if left to "go it alone"? Drawing on scenarios from Masala’s book, If Russia Wins, they delve into possible Russian strategies to test NATO’s commitment, the fragility and future of the security architecture, and the alarming consequences of Western complacency.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. The Core Scenario in "If Russia Wins"
[02:56–19:15]
- Masala’s book opens with a future scenario (March 27, 2028): Russian forces seize the Estonian city of Narva and a sparsely populated Estonian island, directly challenging NATO’s Article 5 commitment.
- The scenario is not a strict prediction but a thought experiment to demonstrate how Russia might "test" NATO at its perceived vulnerable points—cities with significant Russian-speaking minorities or “soft underbellies."
- Quote:
“The Russians just have to put NATO on a test and to see whether NATO is willing to invoke Article 5.” (Masala, 06:20)
- Quote:
- Cites military intelligence from 2024 indicating Russia could have a military strong enough by 2029 to plausibly threaten a NATO state.
Why Narva?
- Chosen for illustrative purposes—it has a large Russian-speaking population and proximity to Russia, providing Moscow a plausible "minority protection" pretext.
- “Narva is just to illustrate something we know from the Russians... the possibility to put NATO on the test.” (Masala, 07:09)
2. The Scenario’s Mechanics and Russian Strategy
[09:38–19:17]
- The narrative begins after a "Peace of Geneva" ends the war in Ukraine on Russian terms, emboldening Moscow.
- Russia sees NATO as the primary barrier to reviving its influence and thus targets NATO’s credibility, not territory per se.
- Adds complexity with the election of a new, charismatic Russian president generating confusion in the West over Russian intentions.
- Mirrors Cold War confusion over Gorbachev vs. previous Soviet leaders.
- Russia adopts the 1936 Rhineland Remilitarization as a model—a limited, high-risk/provocation operation to test enemy resolve.
- Multi-domain distractions are part of the strategy:
- Russian paramilitaries instigate migrant flows from Africa to distract Europe.
- Chinese crisis in the South China Sea to draw off US focus.
- Quote:
“… paramilitary units in Africa pushing people to the Mediterranean coast… Europe is going to be distracted from the eastern flank.” (Masala, 13:10)
- Russians occupy Narva, claim protection of their minority, and communicate willingness to use “all means necessary”—including nuclear weapons—if NATO responds.
- Quote:
“The Russian ambassador makes it very clear that Russia is willing to protect Narva by all means necessary, which also means the use of nuclear weapons.” (Masala, 16:14)
- Quote:
3. Testing NATO’s Resolve & the Fragility of Article 5
[16:52–19:17]
- Depicts a split NATO: some members favor forceful response; others are reluctant, fearing escalation over a “tiny place in Estonia.”
- Ultimately, NATO fails to invoke Article 5 in the scenario; alliance credibility collapses.
- Quote:
“… NATO doesn’t invoke Article 5, which basically means NATO will not react to that... and then I think I just say something about the last chapter...” (Masala, 17:48)
- Quote:
- Closing with a callback to a real Putin-Xi exchange, ending with:
"The Russian president says to the Chinese president, things are moving faster than they did over the past century. And the Chinese president answers by saying, yes, and we are in the driving seat, or we are driving that." (Masala, 18:42)
4. The Russian Threat: Beyond Just Putin
[19:27–22:19]
- Masala intentionally replaces Putin with a new leader in his scenario:
- Adds narrative freshness.
- Highlights that Russian aggression is a broader regime strategy, not uniquely Putin’s.
- Echoes Western misreadings of Gorbachev in the mid-80s.
- Quote:
“It’s the regime who has this kind of neo imperial ambition.” (Masala, 20:15)
5. Russia’s Goal to Destroy NATO: Evidence and Motivations
[22:19–28:19]
- Russia has consistently communicated, in diplomatic notes and public statements, its aim to push US forces out of Europe and to roll back NATO’s footprint to pre-1997 levels.
- The goal is not annexation but political domination (“near abroad” policy).
- The demand for a new European security architecture underpins Russian foreign policy, stretching back to Yeltsin—pre-dating Putin.
- “… Even Yeltsin wanted to have the control over these areas… This goes even back to the Soviet Union.” (Masala, 24:23)
- Inner regime critiques of Putin have primarily come from hawkish, nationalist directions.
6. The Critical Role of US Commitment to NATO
[28:19–32:18]
- European defense is not viable without US military engagement, particularly for large-scale conventional defense and nuclear deterrence.
- Russian calculations of attacking or testing NATO hinge on perceptions of American disengagement.
- Quote:
“If there is the perception in Moscow that the US is no longer committed to NATO… the chances will increase that Russia might seize the opportunity.” (Masala, 30:34)
- Quote:
- Notably, Western intelligence indicates Russian elites no longer uniformly believe in Article 5’s credibility.
- [30:34]: German intelligence reports "indications" that Moscow would like to test NATO’s resolve, suggesting a growing window of opportunity.
7. China, Russia, and Multi-domain Pressures on the US
[32:18–38:19]
- Russian and Chinese interests may overlap in weakening US global reach, but China does not necessarily want the US entirely out of Europe (would free up US to focus on Asia-Pacific).
- “...Wherever the US Is distracted from the Indo Pacific or Asia, this is something the Chinese do support actively.” (Masala, 33:48)
- The ongoing war in Europe and instability in the Middle East distract and consume US resources, which indirectly benefits Beijing.
- China is Russia’s most significant war enabler via technology transfers and continued oil purchases.
8. Liminal & Low-Threshold Warfare—Already Reality?
[38:19–42:49]
- Russia wages two “wars”: kinetic (Ukraine) and non-kinetic (sabotage, intimidation, hybrid attacks) across Europe.
- Real-world examples: cable cuts in the Baltic, drone incursions, arson of weapons factories, assassination attempts, airspace violations.
- These actions aim to intimidate, sow doubt in NATO guarantees, and encourage passivity in supporting Ukraine.
- Quote:
“I would say the Russians are waging right now two wars. The one is with kinetic means in Ukraine, and the other one is with non kinetic means against most of the European societies.” (Masala, 39:16) - Masala fears reality may be outpacing his scenario—confidence in NATO’s unity is already undermined.
9. Is NATO Already Damaged? The Rhineland Analogy
[42:49–44:20]
- The stakes for Russia: the potential collapse of NATO as a credible defender would be worth enormous risk.
- “The gains of destroying NATO would be huge for Russia.” (Masala, 44:20)
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- On Russia’s objectives:
"Russia's goal is actually to destroy NATO and to make sure that US forces are out of Europe..." (Masala, 05:49) - On hybrid warfare:
“…the Russians are waging right now two wars. The one is with kinetic means in Ukraine, and the other one is with non kinetic means against most of the European societies.” (Masala, 39:16) - On NATO’s vulnerability:
“If NATO doesn't react, then they would stay and NATO would be dead. That's basically the scenario.” (Masala, 16:00) - On the cost of US disengagement:
“Right now and in the foreseeable future, a Europe which can't rely on a US engagement… won’t be able to defend itself against any Russian aggression because there is a huge capability gap…” (Masala, 29:15) - Reflecting real leadership doubts:
"We have indications… that they are circles in Moscow who do not believe in Article 5 any longer and they would like to test it." (Masala, 31:12) - On the dangers of Western complacency:
“By not playing tough on Russia after 2014… showed to Putin that he can get away with those things.” (Masala, 50:16) - Real-life dialogue echoed in fiction:
“Putin said to Xi, history is moving faster than the past 100 years. And Xi answered, yes, and we are in the driving seat.” (Masala, 18:42)
Timestamps for Important Segments
- [03:40] – Why the Narva scenario? Russian “soft underbellies” and the minority protection pretext.
- [09:38] – Detailed scenario of Russian incursion; “Peace of Geneva”; context of a weakened Europe.
- [13:10] – Russian and Chinese multi-domain distractions.
- [16:14] – Russians signal willingness to defend their actions with nuclear weapons.
- [17:48] – NATO debates Article 5, splinters, and fails to respond.
- [19:59] – Why portray a leadership transition in Russia’s top office?
- [22:19] – Russia’s goal: US troops out of Europe, rollback to 1997 security order.
- [29:15] – Europe’s dependence on US military and nuclear security.
- [30:34] – Western intelligence warnings of Russia’s faith in NATO’s deterrence weakening.
- [33:48] – China’s interest in US distraction and Eurasian instability.
- [39:16] – Russian low-threshold warfare; real-world incidents in Europe.
- [42:49] – Is the alliance already compromised? The significance of the Narva scenario.
- [44:20] – Russia’s possible calculation: immense gain in breaking NATO.
Tone and Style
Masala is analytic yet direct, engaging the audience as if briefing policymakers but with the urgency of a public intellectual warning citizens about slow-moving, existential threats. Kofinas’s tone is probing and occasionally skeptical, pushing for clarification and exploring realpolitik beneath surface narratives.
Final Thoughts
This episode is a sobering look at the vulnerabilities within the European security framework, underscored by plausible scenarios for Russian "tests" of Western resolve and a clear-eyed assessment of the dangers posed by both external aggression and internal complacency. It provides historical parallels, real evidence of current hybrid tactics, and underscores the stakes if the US disengages. The podcast serves as a call to critical thinking about security, alliance politics, and the perils of wishful thinking.
For listeners interested in further analysis, challenges to these ideas, and a deeper dive into Europe’s defense dilemmas and the political will to sustain deterrence, the discussion continues in Hour Two for premium subscribers.