The Kremlin has dismissed fresh warnings from Poland that Russia could imminently attack a Nato member state, with the spokesman Dmitry Peskov branding such claims a manifestation of “Russophobia” and “rampant militarism”. Speaking on Wednesday, Peskov refused to engage substantively with the assertions made by the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, in an interview with the Financial Times, instead portraying them as part of a broader European trend towards confrontation. Tusk’s remarks, which echoed similar alerts from Baltic and Nordic capitals, reflect a deepening unease along Nato’s eastern flank that Moscow is preparing for a wider conflict beyond Ukraine.

Viewed from Warsaw, the threat is immediate and existential; viewed from Moscow, it is a pretext for further western military build-up. Peskov’s dismissal fits a consistent pattern: President Vladimir Putin told Tucker Carlson in February that Russia had no intention of attacking Nato, a claim that western intelligence agencies have repeatedly questioned. The Kremlin’s response was not limited to the rhetorical.

In a separate intervention, Peskov warned that Europe was “again drawing a dividing line” and that Russia must be ready—militarily, economically, and in terms of its strategic aims in Ukraine. The language, measured but pointed, signals that Moscow sees no room for détente. Analysts in London note that such framing serves a dual purpose: it consolidates domestic support for the war effort while shifting blame for escalation onto the West.

Yet the Kremlin’s posture is not entirely one of defiance. On the same day, Peskov acknowledged that one of the two Nord Stream pipelines—the undamaged string of Nord Stream 2—remains technically ready to resume gas deliveries to Europe. He added, however, that European Union sanctions made any resumption politically impossible. “How can we see prospects if they have forbidden it?” he asked, pointedly.

The observation carries weight: the sabotage of the pipelines in September 2022, still under investigation, severed a key energy link between Russia and Germany, and Berlin has since refused to authorise the intact line. From Brussels, the logic is clear—energy dependence on Russia is a strategic vulnerability, not a bargaining chip. The technical readiness of the pipeline is therefore irrelevant without a political shift that currently shows no sign of materialising.

Looking ahead, the Kremlin appears to be calibrating a dual-track strategy: maintaining maximalist rhetoric to justify its war aims while leaving a sliver of economic pragmatism open, should European resolve falter. But as winter approaches and European storage levels remain high, the leverage Moscow once held over gas has evaporated. The more immediate question is whether Tusk’s warnings—dismissed so briskly in Moscow—will accelerate Nato’s defensive planning, or whether they will be absorbed into the wearying background noise of a conflict that has already reshaped the continent’s security architecture.

For now, the dividing line, as Peskov himself conceded, is being drawn anew. The only uncertainty is where it will settle.