Putin’s plans for the NATO crisis

 Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin may have decided to go and see whether NATO exists, functions, is resolute and ready to respond. He is reportedly prepared to test whether the Atlantic Alliance is capable of functioning, exists beyond mere theory, or is merely a slogan, a façade. To do so, he might attempt to provoke a country with a cyber-attack or a ground incursion. At that point, what would the other members do? According to US intelligence sources who spoke to the Wall Street Journal, this is precisely what Putin would like to find out. The revelation made to the American newspaper removes one of the certainties that many NATO countries had held – namely, the belief that, as long as he was engaged in Ukraine, Putin would not provoke the members of the Atlantic Alliance. But the war in Ukraine is dragging on, and although the Kremlin leader has decided to fight it until Kyiv surrenders, he recognises that it is dragging on, that Ukrainian drones are becoming increasingly dangerous when they strike inside Russia, and he may attempt to speed things up by uniting and dividing Ukraine’s allies, creating panic, bringing the war to NATO – a conflict that, until now, many have merely studied – and, above all, seeking an answer to the question: does Article 5 really work? 

The Americans are the biggest source of uncertainty; the Russians see them as increasingly inclined towards disengagement, retreating to their arsenals to count their remaining stocks. By targeting NATO, Putin wants to demonstrate that it does not exist, that it does not work; he wants to sow division and is already carrying out trials: the constant incursions by Russian drones into Romania or Poland serve to test reactions and instil fear in the population so that they put pressure on the governments supporting Ukraine. According to an exclusive report in the Wall Street Journal, Putin is making plans to destroy NATO and create the greatest security crisis – and indeed an identity crisis – for the United States’ allies.

The US intelligence warning reported in the newspaper is not an isolated incident. In recent days, Lithuania’s Defence Minister, Robertas Kaunas, warned that Russia might be planning false-flag provocations against NATO countries, particularly the Baltic states. In recent months, Ukrainian drones have crashed in Finland, Croatia, Lithuania and Latvia. These were either navigation errors or deviations caused by Russian electronic jamming, but in more than one instance the crashes have sparked a security debate – entirely domestic in nature and without accusations against Kyiv. However, what the Lithuanian authorities are emphasising is that Moscow could orchestrate dangerous and deadly attacks using Ukrainian drones. Once again, the aim would be to sow division, to test air defences and internal resilience, particularly in neighbouring countries which have so far led the way within the European Union in showing solidarity with Ukraine. By dividing public opinion, Moscow aims to halt aid, create a sense of general danger that would stifle and choke supplies to Ukraine, foster antipathy towards the Ukrainian people (as is happening, for example, in Poland following a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign) and become a problem not only for Kyiv but also for the West’s security architecture.

Putin wants Ukraine; he has no intention of backing down, and the assessment is that the further his objective slips away, the more he may be tempted to provoke NATO. A NATO that remains paralysed in the face of Putin’s attacks, with a frightened and internally divided public, would not survive for many days. But the Kremlin leader has already made many miscalculations, such as expecting to reach Kyiv in three days.

This week, during a meeting of Ukrainian ambassadors, the former Chief of the Armed Forces, Valeri Zaluzhny – now a diplomat in London – said that we should not harbour any illusions: there is no place for Ukrainians in NATO. However, the general also assessed what it means to be part of the Atlantic Alliance today and whether it could actually be beneficial. There are pros and cons: the advantages lie in the high level of military technology available to some countries, which Ukraine lacks; the disadvantages, on the other hand, lie in NATO’s military doctrine, which is considered obsolete. Zaluzhny sees a solution: a bloc-based collaboration that would allow Ukraine and its allies to engage in vital, necessary exchanges, without being bound by Article 5 – which Putin is intent on destroying in order to deprive NATO of its great deterrent potential.