Imagined threat: How Europe learned to manufacture enemies from Israel

The rhetoric of “existential threat” has become the dominant currency of political legitimacy in both Israel and Europe. In Israel, this rhetoric is deeply entrenched—a well-documented doctrine of “permanent war” that frames every adversary as an existential danger requiring eradication rather than negotiation or a possible settlement. In recent years, Europe appeared to have adopted the same Israeli playbook, with leaders warning of an imminent Russian attack on NATO territory despite their own intelligence agencies admitting they see no evidence of such a threat. This is not paranoia; it is a calculated rhetoric, deliberately cultivated by warmongering politicians who benefit from sustaining a permanent threat – real or imagined – whether in Israel, Europe, or anywhere else.

The most striking recent exposure of this manufactured threat came not from Moscow, but from a NATO member state on the front line. On 30^th September 2026, Lithuanian Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevičius stated plainly after meeting NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Brussels: “Is there any proof, real proof intelligence services are providing, something on the table, that Russia is getting ready for something? And there is actually none.” If any country had reason to sound the alarm, it would be Lithuania due to its bordering of the Russian territory. Yet its prime minister explicitly warned against exaggeration, stating: “You can’t exaggerate and say, Oh, something is happening in the upcoming months or weeks.” When a leader of a frontline state with Russia is publicly dismissing the narrative of an imminent Russian attack, the question becomes unavoidable: who benefits from insisting otherwise?

Israel’s playbook: The doctrine of permanent war and victimhood

Israel’s use of the existential threat narrative is not a reaction to genuine peril but a deliberate strategy. To justify its open-ended military occupation, aggressive and expansionist agenda, Israeli leaders for decades played the victimhood card that it is being under constant existential threats, invoking the Holocaust and the spectre of annihilation.

Imagine how this playbook is blatantly applied, Israeli leaders, after committing a genocide and almost totally destroying Gaza, still say about dangers and threats coming from Gaza.

In both southern Syria and Lebanon, Israel occupies vast areas of both countries while still pretending to be under the threat and danger.

Israeli Army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has framed the current confrontation as a “decisive battle” against existential threats that emerged after 7^th October, opening the door to continuous fighting that will not stop until the “imagined threat” to the security establishment disappears. David Barnea, while in power as Mossad chief, similarly re-proposed the goal of “overthrowing the Iranian regime” as an existential imperative.

This doctrine serves multiple functions. Domestically, it suppresses any discussion of political alternatives or peaceful settlements, and allows to move ahead with its expansionist agenda in the region, making war the only option on the table.

Externally, it exploits Europe’s guilt over the Holocaust to extract unconditional support for such policies, with Netanyahu claiming Israel is defending “Western civilisation” against “evil regimes.”

The result is a permanent rhetoric that legitimises aggression as self-defence and portrays Israel as a victim.

Europe follows: The Russian threat that isn’t

Over the past years, it became clearer that Europe adopted this same tactic toward Russia. In mid-September, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told parliament that intelligence assessments suggest Russia may be preparing a drone or missile attack on NATO territory in the near future. However, he did not identify the intelligence services behind his assessment, according news reports. French President Emmanuel Macron backed Tusk’s assessment, calling the warnings “sound and well documented,” and convened an emergency meeting in Paris to discuss “the threat.”

Yet the evidence for this imminent threat is strikingly thin. A senior EU official, speaking anonymously, stated in August 2026 that “European intelligence services generally do not currently see the risk of a Russian attack on European countries, and this assessment has not changed.” The official added that regarding potential threats to NATO members, “we see nothing indicating that anything is currently being prepared.” Estonian Foreign Ministry Secretary General Jonatan Vseviov went further, criticizing what he called “panic on social media.” These official denials are not isolated remarks; they reveal a systematic effort by certain European circles to cultivate a state of enmity with Russia and to keep the narrative of an imagined threat alive on the table—not because the threat is real, but because it serves their political agenda.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly denied any intention to attack Europe. “I want to emphasise once again: we are not preparing any military action against Europe, we have no such plans. Most importantly, there is no reason to do so.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also dismissed the warnings as “alarmist stories” that “of course have nothing to do with reality.”

The function of manufactured threats

Why would European leaders manufacture a threat that their own intelligence services say does not exist? The answer lies in the same functions the tactic serves in Israel, which is to advance a political agenda over any other one, domestic control, military budgets, and justification of aggressive policies.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico warned in September 2026 that some Western politicians are trying to provoke a direct NATO-Russia conflict after their strategy of defeating Moscow via Ukraine failed, calling it a “deadly danger.” The logic is clear: when military and political strategies fail, a new threat must be invented to justify continued militarisation and the suppression of any opposition.

Europe’s adoption of Israel’s playbook is not merely an imitation; it is a shared strategy of governance through permanent emergency. Both Israel and Europe have found that an imagined enemy is more useful than a real one. A real enemy can be negotiated with, contained, or defeated. An imagined enemy is eternal, requiring eternal vigilance, eternal militarisation, and eternal obedience.

The danger of this approach is not just that it manufactures war. It also manufactures the conditions for the erosion of democracy. When every critic becomes a potential traitor and every question becomes a security threat, the space for genuine political debate collapses. The playbook that Israel perfected in its treatment of Palestinians — dehumanisation, permanent emergency, and the criminalisation of dissent — is now being applied to Europe’s relationship with Russia. A stark example on this imitation was documented in early October when Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken publicly claimed that Russian drones had been detected over Belgian military barracks, presenting it as proof of Russia’s hostile intentions. However, the Belgian public broadcaster VRT investigated and found that the drones never existed. The report revealed that Francken had invented the threats to obtain additional budget funds for his ministry.

While a genuine conflict and dispute do exist between Europe and Russia, Moscow has consistently called for dialogue to resolve their differences. It did so in the context of the war in Ukraine, only to find that Zelensky was provoked – or perhaps even ordered – to reject a negotiated settlement and to continue his endless war with Russia. This serves the interests of some European circles and leaders who persist in portraying an imagined Russian threat, revealing themselves as warmongers as their Israeli counterparts; more committed to prolonging the conflict than to seeking its settlement.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.