The hawks on a leash by Nadine Moreau

There is something almost comical about the spectacle of Washington telling Europe to calm down about Russia. For years, American administrations lectured European governments about defence spending, strategic responsibility and the need to stop treating NATO as a comfortable American security blanket. Now that some European capitals are finally discovering the vocabulary of military determination, Washington appears to be asking them to lower their voices. Apparently, Europe should be armed, alert and frightened, but preferably quiet.

Welcome to the Pentagon’s paradox. The reported private pressure on several NATO allies to moderate their rhetoric towards Moscow exposes an uncomfortable contradiction at the heart of the transatlantic alliance. European governments are being encouraged to take responsibility for their own security while simultaneously being warned not to sound too enthusiastic about defending it. Washington wants European military muscle without European political unpredictability. It wants deterrence without the dangerous consequences of actually believing its own slogans.

There is a legitimate strategic argument behind American caution. Nuclear-armed Russia is not an ordinary adversary, and careless language between nuclear powers can create misunderstandings with potentially catastrophic consequences. Military signalling is not a competition in testosterone. A government that threatens more than it can deliver risks undermining its credibility, inviting miscalculation and creating expectations that its armed forces may be unable or unwilling to fulfil.

But there is another side to this story, and it is considerably less flattering to Washington. European governments have spent years watching Russian aggression become an increasingly direct threat to continental security. They have witnessed the invasion of Ukraine, the destruction of cities, the weaponisation of energy, cyberattacks, intimidation and the systematic exploitation of Western hesitation. For countries geographically closer to Russia, particularly those in northern and eastern Europe, this is not an academic discussion conducted over expensive lunches in Washington. It is a matter of national survival.

Telling these governments to moderate their language without offering convincing strategic reassurance is not diplomacy. It is asking them to manage their anxiety for the convenience of somebody else's political calculations.

The real problem is that Washington and European capitals increasingly appear to be playing different strategic games. European leaders need to demonstrate that aggression carries consequences. American policymakers, meanwhile, must calculate escalation risks, domestic political pressures, military commitments and the possibility of being dragged into a confrontation they cannot easily control.

Neither calculation is necessarily irrational. The problem emerges when the two become disconnected. Deterrence depends on credibility. If Moscow believes that European threats are theatrical, it may become more adventurous. If it believes that Washington will restrain its European allies whenever their language becomes uncomfortable, it may conclude that NATO's unity has an invisible ceiling. That is precisely the sort of strategic ambiguity that an adversary can exploit.

Of course, European hawks should also examine their own performances. There is a difference between determination and political grandstanding. Announcing military ambitions without the industrial capacity, ammunition stocks, trained personnel and political commitment to support them is not strength. It is expensive theatre. Europe cannot defend itself through press conferences, dramatic speeches and photographs of leaders standing beside military equipment.

But neither can it defend itself by whispering. The United States must understand that European security cannot remain permanently dependent on the changing moods of American administrations. Washington may wish to avoid escalation today, but European governments must prepare for the possibility that tomorrow's White House will be even less interested in European security. The continent cannot build its future around the assumption that American strategic patience will always coincide with European needs.

There is also a fundamental distinction between avoiding war and avoiding responsibility. The first is an essential objective. The second is a recipe for disaster.

The Pentagon may be right to demand discipline in NATO's public messaging. Military strategy requires sober language, credible commitments and carefully constructed communication channels. But restraint must be mutual, and it must be accompanied by substance: clearer security guarantees, stronger European capabilities, coordinated military planning and an unmistakable understanding that Russian aggression will not be rewarded.

Otherwise, Washington risks creating an alliance in which Europe is expected to provide the soldiers, the money, the geographical exposure and the political consequences, while America reserves the right to decide how loudly everybody is permitted to complain.

That is not burden-sharing. That is strategic babysitting. Ultimately, the question is not whether European leaders should sound more aggressive or more diplomatic. It is whether NATO can maintain a common strategic purpose when its members increasingly disagree about the risks they are prepared to accept.

Russia does not need NATO to collapse. It only needs NATO to hesitate, contradict itself and become increasingly uncertain about what its own commitments actually mean. Europe should not confuse recklessness with courage. But Washington should not confuse silence with stability. And perhaps somebody in the Pentagon should explain one elementary geopolitical truth to the politicians across the Atlantic: you cannot spend decades telling Europe to grow up, then complain when it finally raises its voice.