Lavrov Says NATO Should Have Dissolved. Europe Says Russia Is Proving Why It Hasn’t.

Russia and NATO are offering fundamentally opposing accounts of Europe’s security crisis. At the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argued that NATO lost its original purpose when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact collapsed. In Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen argued that Russia’s conduct—including its war against Ukraine and alleged hybrid activity in Europe—has made collective defence and continued support for Kyiv more urgent.

Lavrov’s case: NATO outlived the Cold War

Lavrov said NATO should have dissolved after the Soviet Union’s collapse, just as the Warsaw Pact did. Instead, he described the alliance as searching for new justifications to extend what he called its “artificial existence.”

That argument treats NATO’s post-Cold War activities as the central driver of instability. In this framing, the alliance’s expanding attention to northern Europe and the Arctic is not defensive adaptation but evidence of an organization seeking new missions and new areas of military activity.

Why the Arctic is central to Moscow’s warning

Lavrov separately criticized NATO’s Arctic Sentry operation, launched in February 2026 to strengthen the alliance’s presence in the High North. He said NATO activity in the Arctic posed a direct threat to Russian security and warned that militarisation near Russia’s northern borders could create incidents that escalate into direct armed confrontation with “catastrophic consequences.” 17

The importance of this claim is broader than one mission. It places the Arctic inside the wider Russia–NATO confrontation: Moscow presents the region as another front where NATO military preparations are increasing risk, while the alliance has intensified its northern focus amid heightened tensions with Russia. 17

Brussels’ response: Russia’s actions are the reason for deterrence

Rutte and von der Leyen rejected the idea that Europe’s security concerns are manufactured. In their September 2 Brussels statement, they pointed to Russia’s continuing war against Ukraine, repeated airspace incursions, drones that disrupt airports and interference with critical infrastructure. Von der Leyen said these developments required Europe to reinforce its defence capabilities and continue backing Ukraine.

Their position is that NATO and EU security measures are a response to Russian actions, not a search for a post-Cold War purpose. Rutte said that threats from Russia would not divide the allies or deter their support for Ukraine.

Leipzig/Halle: an alleged hybrid attack becomes a political test

The attempted attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport gave that argument a concrete example. Germany said an explosive-laden drone was found near a Ukrainian aircraft at the airport on August 4, and the government later concluded that those involved had acted on behalf of Russian state agencies. 24

Berlin’s attribution was based on its intelligence and police assessment; it was not an independently adjudicated finding. Russia rejected the allegation, with President Vladimir Putin saying Germany had fabricated the evidence. 47

Still, the case mattered politically. German officials said the drone configuration, components, explosives and detonator resembled elements known from earlier Russian hybrid operations and Russia’s war against Ukraine. 12 For European leaders, that was presented as evidence that the conflict’s security effects extend beyond the battlefield in Ukraine.

Ukraine aid is part of the message

The policy consequence of this disagreement is continued military and financial support for Ukraine. NATO allies pledged €70 billion in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine in 2026. The European Commission also said it had disbursed €3.47 billion under the defence component of its Ukraine Support Loan in July, aimed at urgent needs including air defence.

Rutte and von der Leyen’s message was therefore both defensive and political: pressure, alleged sabotage and intimidation would not end assistance to Kyiv.

What the exchange reveals

Lavrov’s statements and the Brussels response show a self-reinforcing strategic dispute. Moscow portrays NATO activity—especially in the Arctic—as hostile encirclement that heightens the risk of confrontation. NATO and EU leaders portray Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and alleged cross-border hybrid operations as proof that stronger deterrence, resilience and support for Ukraine are necessary. 17

The two sides do not merely disagree over individual incidents. They disagree over the basic cause of Europe’s worsening security environment—and that gap makes de-escalation harder, from the High North to European transport and logistics infrastructure.