Lavrov Says NATO Outlived the Cold War as Europe Cites Russia Threats

Lavrov’s message at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok was that NATO lost its original rationale when the Soviet Union collapsed. The response from Brussels was the opposite: European and NATO leaders argued that Russia’s conduct, particularly its war against Ukraine and alleged operations beyond the battlefield, demonstrates why collective defence and cooperation remain essential.

Lavrov’s case: NATO should have ended with the Warsaw Pact

Speaking on the sidelines of the forum on September 3, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said NATO should have dissolved after the Soviet Union’s collapse, just as the Warsaw Pact did. Instead, he said, the alliance was seeking new pretexts to prolong what he called its “artificial existence.” 4

That argument treats post-Cold War NATO activity not as defensive adaptation but as institutional self-preservation. In this framing, the alliance needs recurring threats and new missions to justify its continued role.

Why the Arctic featured in Russia’s argument

Lavrov extended that critique to the far north. In an article published before the forum, he characterized NATO activity in the Arctic as a direct threat to Russia’s security and said intensified military preparations increased the danger of a direct armed confrontation. 1

The immediate focus was Arctic Sentry, a NATO mission launched in February 2026 to strengthen the alliance’s presence in the High North. 1 For Moscow, the deployment was presented as evidence that NATO is militarizing a strategically sensitive region near Russia rather than reducing tensions.

These are Russia’s stated assessments of the mission, not an agreed account of its purpose or effects. The larger significance is political: the Arctic is now part of the same security argument Russia applies to NATO activity elsewhere in Europe.

Brussels’ answer: Russia is the reason for greater vigilance

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte responded from Brussels with a fundamentally different diagnosis. Their position was that Russia’s war against Ukraine and a growing range of security incidents are increasing risks for Europe—not validating the case for a weaker NATO.

A focal point was the attempted attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany. The German government concluded that Russia was responsible for an attempted drone attack at the airport in August, saying those involved acted on behalf of Russian state agencies. 20

Von der Leyen said Germany had identified Russia as behind an attempt to attack cargo planes at Leipzig/Halle, describing it as an operation using military-grade material and carried out by Russian operatives on EU soil. She called it a new escalation on European soil. 33

That attribution remains disputed. Russia denied involvement in the Leipzig incident. 34

Rutte, meanwhile, said Russia had become increasingly reckless during its war against Ukraine, citing drones and missiles entering allied airspace along NATO’s eastern flank and what he described as malign activity targeting NATO territory. 42

Two incompatible explanations for the same security environment

The exchange captures the core divide in Russia–NATO relations:

• Russia’s argument: NATO expansion, deployments and military preparations—especially in regions such as the Arctic—are producing insecurity and raising the risk of confrontation. 14
• The EU and NATO argument: Russia’s war against Ukraine, cross-border airspace risks and alleged hybrid operations are driving the need for deterrence, resilience and allied cohesion. 203342

That divide matters because neither side treats the other’s military posture as neutral or precautionary. Each presents the other’s actions as the central source of escalation.

What the Leipzig case signaled politically

For European leaders, the Leipzig allegation was not only an isolated security case. It was presented as part of a wider challenge to European security and an argument for maintaining support for Ukraine.

Von der Leyen said that pressure and intimidation would not cause Europe to reconsider that support; instead, she said, the effect was to strengthen her resolve. 33 Reuters also reported that she pledged increased pressure on Russia, including possible new sanctions, following Germany’s attribution. 35

The reported €70 billion figure for allied equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine was not independently confirmed in the supplied primary material, so it should not be treated here as a verified NATO commitment.

Bottom line

Lavrov portrayed NATO as a Cold War institution trying to justify itself through new threats, with Arctic Sentry offered as a prominent example. European and NATO leaders countered that Russia’s war and alleged operations in Europe are precisely why the alliance’s security role remains relevant.

The result is a confrontation that is no longer framed only around Ukraine or NATO’s eastern flank. It now spans Arctic posture, European airspace, critical infrastructure and allegations of hybrid attacks—making both sides’ competing threat narratives more consequential. 12033