How the Kremlin Might Test NATO’s Collective Defense: A New Perspective

A commentary published by RUSI explores how the Kremlin could test NATO’s collective defense through sub-threshold operations, targeting vulnerabilities across land, air, sea, cyber, and even cognitive domains. It delves into potential scenarios where Russia might exploit ambiguity and deniability to challenge NATO without triggering a direct military response under Article V. While the analysis is comprehensive, it primarily focuses on traditional and emerging methods of irregular warfare. However, a broader perspective reveals that the Kremlin’s strategy might also aim to exploit NATO’s internal cohesion as a critical vulnerability.

Beyond Tactics: NATO’s Unity as a Target

While much attention is given to physical and cyber domains, the real test for NATO may lie in its political and strategic cohesion. The Kremlin has long sought to exploit divisions within the alliance, leveraging disinformation campaigns, political polarization, and economic dependencies to weaken collective resolve. This approach aligns with Russia’s historical emphasis on psychological and cognitive warfare, as highlighted in the RUSI commentary.

Key Areas of Vulnerability

1. Political Polarization
   The rise of populist movements and diverging national interests within NATO member states provide fertile ground for Kremlin influence. For instance:

• Disinformation campaigns could exacerbate divides over issues like defense spending or support for Ukraine.
• Polarized domestic politics may lead to delays or reluctance in invoking Article V during a crisis.

1. Economic Dependencies
   Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, though reduced in recent years, remains a lever of influence. Economic pressures could be used to sow discord among member states, particularly those more vulnerable to energy disruptions.
2. Strategic Ambiguity
   The Kremlin’s preference for “gray zone” tactics—such as sabotage or cyberattacks—creates dilemmas for NATO. Ambiguity over whether an act constitutes an “armed attack” under Article V could paralyze decision-making and expose fractures within the alliance.

A Different View: Testing NATO’s Credibility Through Inaction

Rather than focusing solely on direct provocations, the Kremlin might also test NATO by creating situations where inaction undermines its credibility. For example:

• Localized Proxy Conflicts: Encouraging separatist movements or insurgencies in areas adjacent to NATO borders could force the alliance into a difficult position—intervene and risk escalation or stand aside and appear weak.
• Hybrid Threats Without Attribution: Coordinated cyberattacks on critical infrastructure or disinformation campaigns targeting elections could destabilize member states without clear attribution to Russia, complicating NATO’s response.
• Targeting Non-Members: Aggression against non-NATO states like Moldova or Georgia could serve as indirect tests of NATO’s willingness to uphold regional security.

The Role of Strategic Patience

The RUSI commentary suggests that Russia may require time to rebuild its military capabilities post-Ukraine before launching significant tests. However, this period of “strategic pause” could be used to refine hybrid warfare techniques and deepen divisions within NATO. By keeping tensions simmering through low-level provocations, the Kremlin can maintain pressure while avoiding outright conflict.

What Can NATO Do?

To counter these strategies, NATO must prioritize:

1. Strengthening Political Cohesion: Regular consultations and transparent communication among member states can help mitigate internal divisions.
2. Enhancing Hybrid Warfare Readiness: Investing in counter-disinformation campaigns and cyber defenses will be crucial in addressing non-traditional threats.
3. Clarifying Article V Thresholds: Establishing clearer guidelines for responding to sub-threshold attacks can reduce ambiguity and improve decision-making.
4. Engaging Non-Members: Supporting vulnerable non-NATO states through partnerships and capacity-building initiatives can deter aggression and reinforce regional stability.

Not only countering threats but increasing unity and cohesion

While the RUSI commentary provides valuable insights into how the Kremlin might test NATO’s collective defense through irregular warfare, it is equally important to consider the broader geopolitical strategy of exploiting internal divisions within the alliance. The real challenge for NATO lies not just in countering physical threats but in maintaining unity and resolve in the face of complex, multi-domain challenges orchestrated by an increasingly adaptive adversary.

How Russia and China silently are changing the global security architecture can be found here.