I watched a news broadcast from Europe where the commentator said, “the US president has given Europe permission to shoot down Russian aircraft.” I stopped, wondered “wtf” and replayed it. Why on earth would ANY European country need — or care — whether a US president gave them “permission” to shoot down an intruder who violates sovereign air space? Here’s the point: they don’t BUT have been behaving like they do for a decade. There is one exception. (sort of). Turkey, a NATO member but not strictly speaking European, showed Russia that they were serious. On 24 November 2015, a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian Su-24M near the Syria– Türkiye border. The Su 24 violated Turkish airspace by about 2 kilometres for about 17 seconds. It had been warned ten times over the previous five minutes. The vaunted Russian “elite” crew ejected safely but the pilot was killed by Syrians.

The Russians bloviated for a couple of days, rattled sabres, recalled their ambassador and then abruptly shut up and NEVER did it again.

A European said Si vis pacem, para bellum. (If peace is wanted, prepare for war.) Sound familiar? It should. It was written by the fourth-century Roman author Vegetius in his work Epitoma Rei Militaris. The adage has stood the test of time, but practically every generation of political leadership seems to need to relearn this truism. One country does seem to understand it: Switzerland. No one has even attempted to attack the Swiss in half a millennium.

So, why have the Europeans been so reluctant to bare their teeth? Partly because they believe strongly in a rules-based order and feel that international diplomacy must take precedence over violence (or the threat of violence). This attitude is intelligent, commendable and works well when dealing with rational international actors. History shows clearly that it is an abysmal failure when dealing with psychopathic narcissists as was ably demonstrated in the 1930s and as we are seeing again today.

What is the stated risk? Clearly, Europe did not (and does not) want to risk war with Russia. That made complete sense before Russia invaded Ukraine. It makes no sense today. The analysts in practically all European (and NATO) countries for decades had built a picture of a deadly Russian Bear. But what does the world have to fear from a country that has an economy smaller than that of Mexico (and shrinking rapidly) and an inability — irrespective of how big the military is — to launch any military operations beyond company level? In 2021 the Russians were seen as having the 2^nd most powerful army in Europe; they do not even have the 2^nd most powerful army in Ukraine!

I know what many will be thinking. What about the risk of nuclear war? By some peoples’ count, the Russian president and his foreign minister have threatened nuclear war over 25 times in the last five years. They may be violent psychopathic narcissists, but they are not nihilists or suicidal. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in his address to the UN General Assembly this week spoke truth to power: If Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it will eventually attack the remainder of Europe. The Baltic and Scandinavian countries have awoken early to this threat. Poland is a half-step behind, but the senior members of the EU and NATO seem to still be dithering.

I am not a warmonger. War is ALWAYS the last and the worst option. Always. But Vegetius was right 17 centuries ago. No one needs to attack Russia, but NATO and the EU can take a lesson from Türkiye. Russia has been warned and warned and warned again. The next airspace incursion by the Russians needs to be shot down, even if (especially if) it is a manned aircraft.

In 1989 Robert Fulghum published All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. It was a short book filled with timeless home truths and one that has endured and is taught by every parent to a child when they encounter a bully at school is that you must not be cowed by a bully. Stand up for yourself and the bully will back away.

Time for Europe to bare its teeth.