Title:
Escalatory Rhetoric in a Multipolar World: The Kremlin’s Response to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s Wartime Preparedness Remarks (December 2025)
Abstract:
This paper analyzes the diplomatic and strategic implications of the Kremlin’s public condemnation of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s remarks in December 2025, in which he stated that NATO must prepare for a conflict with Russia on a scale comparable to that endured by prior generations during World War II. By characterizing Rutte’s statements as “irresponsible” and historically ignorant, the Russian government reaffirmed its narrative of Western hostility and NATO expansionism as the primary drivers of geopolitical tension. Drawing on official statements, historical context, and strategic doctrine, this paper examines the rhetorical strategies employed by the Kremlin, assesses the broader trajectory of NATO–Russia relations, and situates the reaction within the framework of information warfare and deterrence signaling. Ultimately, the analysis concludes that the exchange reflects a deepening rift in Euro-Atlantic security perceptions and raises concerns about the normalization of apocalyptic discourse in international relations.
- Introduction
In December 2025, a speech delivered by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Berlin ignited a sharp diplomatic reaction from Moscow. In his address, Rutte warned that “we are Russia’s next target” and urged member states to prepare for a war “on the scale our grandparents or great-grandparents endured.” Responding the following Sunday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the remarks as “irresponsible” and accused Rutte of historical amnesia regarding the devastation of World War II. This exchange, while framed within a familiar pattern of mutual recrimination, marks a significant moment in the evolution of NATO–Russia relations, characterized by increasingly belligerent rhetoric and a growing risk of strategic miscalculation.
This paper presents a comprehensive academic analysis of the incident, contextualizing Rutte’s speech and the Kremlin’s rebuttal within the broader arc of post–Cold War security dynamics. It explores the use of historical memory as a political instrument, evaluates the strategic messaging from both sides, and investigates the implications for deterrence, alliance cohesion, and conflict prevention. The study is based on primary source documents, official transcripts, and scholarly literature on strategic communication, crisis escalation, and Russian foreign policy.
- Contextual Background: Deterrence, Rhetoric, and Historical Memory
The discourse surrounding war preparedness is not new in international relations, but it has gained particular urgency since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. NATO, initially cautious about direct confrontation, has progressively shifted toward a posture of long-term deterrence and forward defense. This shift has been marked by increased military spending, enhanced troop deployments in Eastern Europe, and a renewed emphasis on conventional and nuclear readiness.
Rutte’s remarks must be understood against this backdrop. As the fourth NATO Secretary General since the onset of the Ukraine war, Rutte has signaled continuity in alliance policy while also pushing for greater strategic clarity. His invocation of World War II was likely intended to underscore the gravity of the current threat and rally public support for prolonged defense commitments. However, such references to total war carry symbolic weight, especially in Europe, and are interpreted differently across national and cultural contexts.
For Russia, World War II—known domestically as the Great Patriotic War—is not merely a historical event but a foundational pillar of national identity. Victory in 1945 is commemorated annually with elaborate ceremonies, and President Vladimir Putin has consistently used the narrative of defending Russia from Western encroachment through the lens of WWII sacrifice. The state’s official historiography positions Russia as the primary liberator of Europe and a victim of Western betrayal, particularly in the post-Soviet era.
Thus, when Peskov accused Rutte of “forgetting what World War II was actually like,” he was engaging in what scholars term mnemonic diplomacy—the strategic deployment of collective memory to delegitimize opponents and justify one’s own actions (Müller, 2002; Assmann, 2011). By framing NATO’s leadership as historically uninformed, the Kremlin positioned itself as the guardian of true historical consciousness, contrasting Russian solemnity with Western recklessness.
- Analysis of Rutte’s Speech: Strategic Intent and Public Messaging
Rutte’s address in Berlin on December 10, 2025, was delivered at a gathering of European defense ministers and civil society representatives. Central to his message was the argument that the era of limited, hybrid warfare was giving way to the potential for large-scale conventional conflict. Citing intelligence assessments of Russian military modernization—including advances in hypersonic missiles, electronic warfare, and non-nuclear strategic systems—Rutte asserted that NATO must “prepare not just for the next crisis, but for the last war.”
Key elements of Rutte’s rhetoric included:
Temporal framing: By referencing “grandparents and great-grandparents,” Rutte evoked the generational trauma of WWII and linked it to contemporary security challenges.
Existential framing: The declaration that “we are Russia’s next target” implied an inevitable progression from Ukraine to direct confrontation with NATO.
Mobilization imperative: The speech was designed to galvanize political will, particularly in countries with historically neutral or pacifist traditions (e.g., Germany, the Netherlands).
While Rutte did not advocate for offensive action or preemption, the tone was unmistakably alarmist. From a strategic communication perspective, this constitutes deterrence signaling through escalation dominance—the idea that demonstrating resolve and readiness can prevent aggression by raising the perceived cost of conflict (George & Smoke, 1974).
Critics, however, have argued that such rhetoric carries significant risks. As Snyder and Diesing (1977) observe in Conflict Among Nations, escalatory language can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially when received by an adversary already predisposed to perceive existential threats. In this regard, the Kremlin’s reaction may not have been purely performative but a reflection of genuine alarm within Russian strategic circles.
- The Kremlin’s Rebuttal: Dismissal, Deflection, and Defensive Posturing
The Kremlin’s response, delivered by spokesperson Dmitry Peskov in a televised interview with state journalist Pavel Zarubin, followed a well-established pattern of reactive diplomacy. The core arguments advanced were:
Rhetorical dismissal: Describing the allegations of Russian aggression toward NATO as “nonsense.”
Moral indictment: Accusing Rutte of irresponsibility and historical ignorance, particularly in invoking WWII.
Defensive justification: Reiterating that Russia is reacting to NATO expansion and Western sanctions, not initiating conflict.
Peskov’s statement—“They have no understanding, and unfortunately, Mr. Rutte, making such irresponsible statements, simply does not understand what he is talking about”—was carefully calibrated to serve multiple audiences:
Domestically, it reinforced the state narrative of Western hysteria and moral decay, bolstering regime legitimacy.
Internationally, particularly among non-aligned states, it portrayed Russia as the victim of NATO warmongering.
Within elite security circles, it reinforced the need for continued military preparedness and ideological vigilance.
Notably, the Kremlin did not offer alternative scenarios or propose confidence-building measures. This absence of de-escalatory gestures suggests a hardening of Russia’s strategic posture, consistent with its withdrawal from key arms control agreements and its suspension of participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE).
- Information Warfare and the Instrumentalization of History
One of the most salient features of the exchange is the instrumentalization of historical trauma. NATO’s invocation of WWII serves to unify member states around a shared past of liberation and sacrifice. Conversely, Russia’s invocation of the Great Patriotic War emphasizes victimhood, resilience, and the defense of sovereignty against foreign invaders.
However, as scholars of memory politics have noted, such narratives are often selective. Russia, for instance, tends to downplay its own expansionist actions in 1939–1940 (e.g., the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the invasion of Poland and the Baltics), while emphasizing its role in defeating Nazi Germany (Applebaum, 2012). Similarly, Western references to WWII often omit the complexities of wartime alliances and post-war settlements that contributed to the Cold War divide.
In the current context, these selective histories are weaponized. Rutte’s appeal to ancestral suffering may resonate with European publics, but in Russia, it is interpreted as a provocation—especially given the Kremlin’s frequent accusations that NATO countries glorify Nazi collaborators in the Baltics and Ukraine.
This competition over memory is not merely symbolic. As Olick and Robbins (1998) argue, collective memory functions as a form of soft power that shapes identity, legitimacy, and strategy. In the absence of diplomatic engagement, such mnemonics increasingly substitute for dialogue, entrenching adversarial narratives.
- Strategic Implications: Escalation Risks and Deterrence Dilemmas
The Rutte–Peskov exchange exemplifies what scholars call the spiral model of conflict (Jervis, 1978): actions taken by one side for defensive purposes are perceived as offensive by the other, prompting countermeasures that further heighten tension.
NATO’s perspective: Preparing for large-scale war is a prudent response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and hybrid threats across Europe.
Russia’s perspective: NATO’s military buildup and rhetorical escalation constitute an existential threat, justifying maximalist defense policies.
This dynamic creates a feedback loop in which deterrence strategies increasingly rely on worst-case assumptions. The danger lies in the normalization of war talk—a process by which references to total war become routine in political discourse, eroding the psychological and institutional barriers to actual conflict (Lebow, 2010).
Moreover, the reliance on historical analogies introduces cognitive bias. The WWII analogy, while emotionally potent, may be strategically misleading. Unlike the 1930s and 1940s, today’s potential conflict would unfold in a multipolar world with nuclear deterrence, cyber warfare, and economic interdependence acting as both constraints and accelerants.
- Diplomatic and Normative Consequences
Beyond the immediate strategic implications, the incident highlights the erosion of diplomatic norms in great power relations. The absence of direct communication channels between NATO and Russia—following the suspension of the NATO-Russia Council’s activities in 2022—means that public statements often serve as the primary mode of interaction.
This performative diplomacy, conducted through media briefings and speeches, lacks the nuance and ambiguity necessary for crisis management. Misunderstandings are more likely, and face-saving compromises become difficult to achieve.
Additionally, the invocation of total war undermines efforts to establish rules of the game in modern conflict. If both sides believe the other is preparing for World War III, adherence to international humanitarian law, arms control norms, and crisis communication protocols may degrade under the strain of perceived existential threat.
- Conclusion
The Kremlin’s denunciation of Mark Rutte’s wartime preparedness remarks in December 2025 is more than a routine diplomatic spat. It reflects a profound and dangerous divergence in strategic narratives between NATO and Russia. While Rutte sought to underscore the urgency of defense preparedness in the face of Russian aggression, the Kremlin interpreted the speech as evidence of Western warmongering and historical illiteracy.
This paper has demonstrated that both sides are engaged in a broader contest over meaning, memory, and legitimacy—one in which rhetoric is not merely commentary but a strategic instrument. The use of World War II analogies, while powerful, risks distorting contemporary realities and escalating tensions.
Moving forward, the international community must recognize that words have consequences. Diplomacy cannot be outsourced to televised soundbites. Re-establishing communication channels, revitalizing arms control dialogues, and promoting historical literacy are essential steps toward de-escalation.
As the world enters a new era of strategic competition, the normalization of apocalyptic discourse must be resisted. The ghosts of the 20th century should serve as warnings, not blueprints.
References
Applebaum, A. (2012). Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944–1956. Doubleday.
Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge University Press.
George, A. L., & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. Columbia University Press.
Jervis, R. (1978). “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
Lebow, R. N. (2010). Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations. Princeton University Press.
Müller, J.-W. (2002). Memory and Power in Post-War Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. (1998). “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices.” Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 105–140.
Snyder, G. H., & Diesing, P. (1977). Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton University Press.
Primary Sources:
Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, Interview with Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya 1, December 14, 2025.
Mark Rutte, Speech at the Berlin Security Conference, December 10, 2025.
Reuters News Agency, “Kremlin slams NATO’s Rutte over war remarks,” December 14, 2025.
Keywords:
NATO, Russia, Mark Rutte, Dmitry Peskov, deterrence, strategic communication, historical memory, Great Patriotic War, World War II, information warfare, security dilemma, rhetorical escalation, Moscow, Kremlin