A Russian Strike “Smaller Than War”: Putin’s Test May Tear NATO Apart
Moscow does not need to launch a wide-scale war against the North Atlantic Alliance to test its cohesion; a sabotage operation, a cyberattack, or a limited ground incursion may suffice to raise the most critical question: Will the United States and Europe move together to defend a small state on NATO’s eastern flank?
This is the scenario outlined in recent U.S. intelligence assessments, which suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin may seek to execute a limited move against a NATO member in the coming years, aiming to test the alliance’s unity without igniting a comprehensive military confrontation.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the scenarios range from a large-scale cyberattack and sabotage operations to interventions carried out by irregular forces, up to a limited ground incursion on the alliance’s eastern flank.
Nicholas Williams, a former senior NATO official, argued that the U.S. assessments offer nothing new regarding Russian capabilities, noting that Moscow can disrupt NATO countries through cyberattacks, sabotage, and interference without necessarily prompting a full-scale military response from the alliance.
Williams, who served for decades in the British Ministry of Defence, told Sky News Arabia in an exclusive interview: “Whether Russia actually intends to test NATO’s cohesion is a separate matter and is much harder to assess.”
He pointed out that Putin has so far been careful to keep the war in Ukraine within Ukrainian borders, resisting Russian calls to target NATO logistical centers in response to Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.
Williams believes this caution stems from Putin’s belief that his forces can still achieve gradual progress in Ukraine. However, he warned that the equation could change if European support enables Kyiv to intensify its strikes against Russian territory and energy infrastructure.
He added: “Putin may find himself more inclined to use disruption and sabotage against individual NATO member states to test the alliance’s solidarity and send a warning about the consequences of supporting an escalation of Ukrainian attacks.”
The danger of this scenario lies in the possibility that any Russian move would be designed to remain below the threshold that would prompt NATO members to quickly activate Article 5, which considers an attack on one member as an attack on all.
NATO maintains that cyberattacks and large-scale hybrid operations can amount to an “armed attack,” but decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, with the consent or request of the targeted state for collective action.
This gray area gives Moscow room to test the speed and scope of the response, particularly if the attack causes limited damage or if the perpetrator cannot be definitively identified.
Heather Conley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, stated that the critical question would concern the U.S. response, noting that one of Moscow’s objectives is to undermine NATO’s credibility and attempt to drive a wedge between Washington and its European allies.
She added: “One of NATO’s greatest challenges has always been how to respond to an attack that falls below the threshold of Article 5. So far, allies have preferred not to escalate.”
Conley cited the cyberattacks Estonia faced in 2007, when Tallinn chose to manage the crisis without pushing for the activation of Article 5.
Western scenarios focus on the Baltic states or Poland as potential targets for any limited Russian move, given their location on the alliance’s eastern flank and their role in supporting Ukraine.
Intelligence agencies do not treat these scenarios as confirmed information about a Russian decision to go to war, but rather as assessments of probabilities that could rise if Putin faces a military or political dilemma in Ukraine and needs to achieve an external gain or weaken Western support for Kyiv.
Lithuania has also recently warned of the possibility that Moscow might resort to disinformation operations using Ukrainian drones it has captured, while the Kremlin has rejected these allegations and described Western warnings as an attempt to justify increasing its military presence near Russia, according to Reuters.
Thus, the most critical test is not NATO’s military capability to repel a limited incursion, but its political ability to make a swift and unified decision. Moscow’s success in sowing division between Washington and Europe, even without gaining control of territory, could deliver the victory it seeks: demonstrating that the Alliance’s guarantees are stronger on paper than in the first real test.
