In one of the most memorable scenes in “The Godfather,” Don Vito Corleone gathers the heads of New York’s crime families to make peace and secure the return of his son Michael.
“But I’m a superstitious man,” he tells them.
He warns that if Michael should suffer some supposedly random misfortune—an implausible suicide, a fatal accident or even a bolt of lightning—”then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room…”
RUSSIA PREPARING HYBRID ATTACKS ON NATO’S EASTERN FLANK, INTELLIGENCE WARNS
The message was unmistakable: Do not hide an attack behind coincidence, an intermediary or a carefully manufactured lack of proof. Whatever disguise is chosen, I will know where it came from, and I will hold the responsible people accountable.
It is time for NATO and the European Union to adopt what might be called the Godfather Test.
If a drone mysteriously crosses into the territory of an Eastern European country, we should presume Vladimir Putin is responsible.
If a power cable is severed beneath the Baltic Sea, we should presume Vladimir Putin is responsible.
If a government network is crippled, a weapons factory explodes, a railway system is disrupted or a political figure suddenly becomes the beneficiary of a sophisticated disinformation campaign, we should presume Vladimir Putin is responsible.
Putin can then prove that he was not.
This reverses the way the West has traditionally approached such events. Our democracies are built upon the presumption of innocence. It is one of our most important values, and it must remain inviolate when we administer justice to individuals through our courts.
But Vladimir Putin is not a defendant standing in an American courtroom. Russia is not entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, a jury of its peers or an endless international discovery process before the West acts to defend itself.
We have no obligation to presume that the Kremlin is innocent while it is accorded some imaginary form of geopolitical due process. Yet that is effectively what we have been doing. Russia exploits our own system of innocence until guilt is proven, turning one of democracy’s greatest virtues into a strategic vulnerability.
I’M PRESIDENT OF ONE OF AMERICA’S MOST RELIABLE ALLIES. HERE’S HOW WE STAND UP TO RUSSIA
The Kremlin understands that Western governments are reluctant to act without evidence that can be publicly disclosed and defended beyond a reasonable doubt. So Russia structures its operations to ensure that such evidence will rarely exist—or cannot be revealed without compromising intelligence sources and methods.
Putin forfeited the benefit of the doubt long ago.
He forfeited it through the invasion of neighboring countries, the use of proxies and cutouts, cyberattacks, political interference, assassinations, sabotage, energy coercion and an endless stream of denials that collapses under scrutiny only after the damage is done.
A government that repeatedly commits arson should not be treated as an innocent bystander every time smoke rises from another building.
GERMANY BLAMES RUSSIA AFTER EXPLOSIVE-LADEN DRONE FOUND NEAR UKRAINIAN CARGO PLANES AT MAJOR AIRPORT
For years, Russia has operated inside the gray zone between peace and open warfare. Its actions are designed to be damaging enough to weaken its adversaries but sufficiently murky to prevent a decisive response. Moscow uses anonymous hackers, commercial vessels, intelligence operatives, fabricated local movements and supposedly independent criminal organizations. It obscures responsibility, demands impossible standards of proof and then ridicules the West for its uncertainty.
The tactic works because we allow it to work.
Every incident is treated as an entirely new mystery. Governments open investigations, consult experts, compare intelligence and debate attribution. Months pass. The public loses interest. Allies disagree over whether the evidence clears some arbitrary threshold. Russia denies everything, and the matter quietly disappears.
By then, the Kremlin has already moved on to its next operation.
NATO ALLY POLAND WARNS RUSSIA, BELARUS PUSHING ILLEGAL MIGRANTS TOWARD ALLIANCE — AND THE US
Our excessive caution does not make us judicious. It makes us predictable. Putin knows that unless he launches a conventional attack with Russian flags flying from every tank, NATO will argue with itself over whether he was really responsible. That hesitation is not an unfortunate side effect of his strategy. It is the central objective.
The West must reverse both the presumption and the incentive.
When suspicious acts of sabotage or destabilization threaten NATO or EU countries and bear the hallmarks of Russian activity, Moscow should be treated as responsible unless persuasive evidence demonstrates otherwise.
REPORT WARNS RUSSIA USING SHADOW FLEET TO PROBE NATO DRONE DEFENSES
And each event should be met with an asymmetric ratcheting up of the costs imposed on Russia.
If the Kremlin damages a cable, we need not damage a Russian cable. If it attacks a government computer network, we need not attack an identical network in return. Symmetrical retaliation allows Putin to calculate the price in advance and treat it as merely another cost of doing business.
Our response should instead occur in an area Putin values, at a time of our choosing and at a cost greater than the benefit Russia obtained from its original attack.
TRUMP PUSHED NATO TO SPEND BIG — NOW COMES THE HARDER QUESTION: CAN EUROPE ACTUALLY FIGHT?
That might mean quietly disabling a Russian military capability, compromising an intelligence network, obstructing a revenue stream, exposing hidden assets, disrupting sanctions evasion or increasing the effectiveness of Ukrainian operations. The precise response should depend upon the circumstances, but the governing formula must be simple: every act of Russian mischief leaves the Kremlin worse off than it was before.
Nor should we feel compelled to announce what we have done.
RUSSIA THREATENS STRIKES ON UK MILITARY TARGETS, ‘CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES’ OVER UKRAINE
Russia does not hold a press conference after every cyberattack, act of sabotage or covert operation. Neither should we. There is no strategic virtue in providing Putin with a detailed accounting of our capabilities, methods and decision-making.
We should be as quiet about our response as Russia is about its attack.
Putin should know that a price has been paid, but he need not always know precisely when, where or how it was imposed. Uncertainty has been one of his most effective weapons. It is time for the West to use uncertainty as well.
NATO’S EASTERN FLANK RACES TO REARM AS TRUMP PRESSURE EXPOSES WESTERN EUROPE’S DEFENSE GAP
This does not mean responding impulsively to every electrical failure, industrial accident or unexplained drone. Intelligence still matters. Judgment still matters. Allied coordination still matters. The presumption should be strong, not mindless.
But we must stop requiring courtroom-grade proof before defending countries and institutions that are not courtrooms. National security decisions have always been made using intelligence assessments, patterns of conduct, capabilities, motives and probabilities. Absolute certainty is rarely available—and insisting upon it simply gives the aggressor a veto over our response.
Some will object that this creates a risk of miscalculation. Of course, it does. But our present policy creates a much larger risk: that Putin will continue escalating because he believes the West is institutionally incapable of responding to anything short of a full-scale invasion.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Deterrence is not achieved by proving responsibility to a mathematical certainty months after every attack. It is achieved by convincing an adversary beforehand that his actions will carry consequences.
Europe has spent decades constructing elaborate legal and diplomatic processes while Putin has spent those same decades learning how to manipulate them. He understands that democratic governments fear acting on incomplete information. He therefore ensures that the information will always be incomplete.
We should stop rewarding him for his craftsmanship.
The presumption should now be simple. If serious misfortune befalls one of the countries in Putin’s sights—through a drone, a cyberattack, a mysterious explosion, a damaged pipeline or some other extraordinarily convenient accident—we are going to blame the man in the room who has repeatedly threatened us, attacked his neighbors and perfected the art of deniable aggression.
Then we will respond asymmetrically, quietly and with enough force to ensure that the next act of mischief costs him even more—even if we fail to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” hurdle.
