The war in Ukraine has entered a volatile new phase. In a bold escalation, Ukrainian drones struck deep into Russian territory, damaging or destroying multiple strategic bombers, including the Tu-95MS and Tu-160—cornerstones of Russia’s long-range nuclear and conventional strike force. While the material losses are significant, the symbolic damage may be greater: The illusion of Russian homeland invulnerability has been shattered. In the aftermath, President Vladimir Putin has vowed a decisive response—one that will test not only Ukraine’s resilience but the resolve and clarity of the transatlantic alliance.

Yet the moment also underscores a geopolitical reality that must no longer be deferred: while the United States remains committed to NATO and Ukraine’s sovereignty, the burden of leadership in the European theater must increasingly shift to Europe itself. As Washington reorients its strategic posture to counter the growing threat from China, European powers must rise to meet the responsibilities of defending the continent’s security architecture.

Deterrence Shaken, Global Order Tested

Ukraine’s strike into Russia’s strategic interior marks a decisive inflection point. What was once a regional conflict characterized by slow attrition evolved into a test of 21st-century deterrence. The success of the operation undermines Moscow’s credibility, revealing that even nuclear power can be strategically embarrassed and militarily exposed.

For the Kremlin, the cost is more than operational, it is reputational. Putin must now reassert control to demonstrate that Russia remains a dominant power. His calculus is not merely about regaining battlefield initiative; it is about restoring the fear that once kept both Ukraine and NATO hesitant.

But fear is fading. Ukraine’s boldness, underpinned by increasingly capable Western support, reveals the evolving nature of modern warfare. This transformation holds important lessons—not only for Moscow, but for Brussels.  

Putin’s Options, Europe’s Stakes

Putin has a range of retaliation options. A conventional missile barrage on Ukrainian command centers or drone facilities is likely. It would be a direct demonstration of power yet also risks escalation. More significant for Europe, such strikes would invite deeper commitments—both financial and military—from NATO nations whose defense stockpiles and readiness are already strained.

Putin may also turn to cyberwarfare, targeting Ukraine’s infrastructure or the supply chains supporting it through European territory. While this may offer him plausible deniability, it also poses a direct threat to European economic and digital systems. Moreover, asymmetric retaliation may not satisfy the Kremlin’s demand for public vengeance.

More dangerous is strategic nuclear signaling—redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus or conducting military exercises designed to heighten fear and uncertainty. These moves are aimed less at Ukraine than at Western capitals. Europe must be prepared to respond not only diplomatically, but by reinforcing its own deterrent capabilities.

The most provocative path would be an attack on Western ISR assets—such as drones or satellites—seen as enablers of Ukraine’s strike. If such a strike were directed at U.S. systems, NATO unity would be tested. But if it were aimed at European platforms, it would signal Moscow’s willingness to fragment allied resolve and exploit hesitancy in capitals like Berlin or Paris.

The Imperative for European Leadership

For over two years, the United States has carried the heaviest share of Ukraine’s defense. American intelligence, logistics, and weapons systems have enabled Kyiv to survive and innovate. But with China’s ambitions growing in the Indo-Pacific—and Taiwan under increased pressure—Washington must now recalibrate its global posture. Strategic bandwidth is finite.

That means Europe must assume a leading role in the defense of Ukraine and the long-term containment of Russian aggression. This is not abandonment, it is burden-sharing. It is the natural evolution of an alliance where threats are increasingly regional, and where European interests are directly at stake. Europe has the economic power, the industrial base, and the moral imperative to sustain Ukraine’s fight. It now needs to show the political will.

This includes scaling up defense production, delivering long-range precision weapons, securing supply corridors, and investing in cyber resilience. European NATO members must also build contingency plans for hybrid threats and be ready to defend against retaliatory strikes that may target critical infrastructure. Leadership cannot be subcontracted across the Atlantic indefinitely.

Washington’s Role: Anchor, Not Atlas

As Europe steps forward, the United States must remain the strategic anchor—deterring escalation, sustaining transatlantic cohesion, and maintaining forward posture where it matters most. But it can no longer be the exclusive engine of European security. The rise of China demands a generational pivot in American defense strategy, one that prepares for high-tech competition, gray zone conflict, and regional deterrence across the Indo-Pacific.  

This rebalancing does not diminish America’s commitment to NATO. Rather, it reinforces the alliance’s core principle: collective defense through shared responsibility. In this new phase of conflict, Europe’s credibility is on the line as much as Russia’s.

Conclusion: A War for the Future of the Order

Putin’s retaliation, whatever form it takes, will be a response not only to a tactical loss—but to a deeper erosion of the fear-based order he once imposed. The West’s response must be calibrated, credible, and coherent. But it must also be rooted in strategic reality: that the United States cannot shoulder every theater simultaneously.

Ukraine’s courage has opened a window for Western resolve. It is now Europe’s task to step through it—arming for peace, preparing for deterrence, and proving that democracy on the Continent is defended not by slogans, but by readiness and resolve.

What comes next is not just about Ukraine. It is about who will define the next chapter of world order, those who threaten it by force, or those willing to defend it with strength.

Mr. Maginnis is the President, Maginnis Strategies, LLC, a retired US Army officer and the author of a dozen books to include Preparing for World War III: A Global Conflict That Redefines Tomorrow.

Image: Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.