Hello from London,

Another week, another test from Vladimir Putin. On Friday, NATO forces scrambled to confront Russian fighter jets that had intruded into the airspace of Estonia, a member of the alliance. You might dismiss the incident—which reportedly lasted just 12 minutes—as insignificant. I’d call that a mistake. It follows Russia’s dispatching of military drones across Polish territory, plus a smaller incursion by another Russian drone into Romanian airspace. Mr Putin is ratcheting up provocations against NATO members, while avoiding, so far, any individual incident that is too obviously large and threatening. His actions send a clear message. He is ever more willing to risk confrontation with European powers, to test NATO’s unity and its ability to respond. 

The Estonian incursion is bound to be followed by something else, and probably soon. Last December I stood in the snow on Estonia’s border and heard from security officials how Russia consistently attempts to probe, provoke and harass its smaller neighbour. No one imagines, while the war in Ukraine is going on, that Russia intends outright conflict with Estonia, or NATO, any time soon. But provocations that go unaddressed can help Mr Putin to spread division now—and thus gain long-term benefits. 

This summer I visited a Norwegian Arctic archipelago, Svalbard, and was told of Russian sabotage on infrastructure there. Russian settlers are permitted by an international treaty to live in this corner of NATO land. Back in the cold war, this arrangement was manageable because the settlers, the Soviet government and the West took great care to avoid incidents that could be misread and lead to greater confrontation. In contrast, Mr Putin seems to relish provocations in the hope that he can show the West is weak.  

Apart from the obvious—spending more on defence, daring to deploy their own military resources more forcefully and generally supporting Ukraine much more—what can European powers do to deter Russia? More decisive economic action is one option. As we report in a new article, Russia’s economy may no longer be enjoying the boom of the past couple of years, but it is hardly floundering either. 

Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s refineries and other parts of its oil industry are effective, with reports that Russia may have to limit some exports. The European Commission has just proposed the 19th round of sanctions on Russia. But none of this is, yet, seriously deterring Mr Putin. Europe continues to import nearly a fifth of its gas from Russia, despite a plan to wean the continent off fossil fuels from its eastern neighbour by 2027. As our Charlemagne columnist argues, Europeans lack a sense of urgency about almost anything, whether domestic economic reform or moving fast enough to confront Russia.

This newsletter is reaching your inbox at roughly the same time that Mr Trump is due to speak to tens of thousands of people gathered in Phoenix, Arizona, to mark the life of Charlie Kirk. Kirk was killed while engaging students in debate. Whether or not you agreed with his political views, he promoted the importance of free speech. Last week I asked for your own opinions on the aftermath of Kirk’s death and whether America is strong enough to avoid more political violence. Our inbox is crammed even more than usual with your responses. 

Though many of you are not optimistic about the state of politics today, I’m cheered to see that at least readers of The Economist (whether they lean right or left) are still keen to engage in thoughtful, considerate conversation. Several of you—particularly those watching America from the outside—see the availability of powerful rifles and other weapons as a uniquely American problem. Not everyone likes my views, of course. One correspondent, who signs off as Dochie, suggests “You and the media are the major problem”, spreading misinformation and thus dysfunction in politics. I politely disagree, Dochie, but am pleased you took the trouble to write and engage with me. Julie Joly, who describes herself as the daughter of a Republican, worries about the state of politics, especially the “sycophants who refuse to stand up to the bullying, lies and misguided paths that the top leader is taking”. My residual optimism about Americans, Julie, is that—eventually, if you give people enough time—they will stand up to bullies.

For next week, I’d like your views on a potentially even more divisive question. Britain, Canada and Australia now formally recognise Palestine as a state. Other countries may follow. Is this empty posturing, or will it have an effect? What else, if anything, should outside powers do to help end the violence that Palestinians and Israelis are enduring? Write to me at [email protected].