EDITOR'S CORNER: How Likely Is a Clash Between NATO and Russia?

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, thoughts have swirled around the possibility of the bloody conflict spilling over into neighboring NATO countries. If it were to happen, what would it look like? What shape would a conflict between Russia and the defensive alliance take?

In this blog post, we take a closer look at the core principles outlined in NATO's Articles 4 and 5. Following that, we delve into an analysis of Russia's losses and current capabilities. Finally, we assess the probability of escalation and examine the potential scenarios in which the conflict might unfold.

NATO'S ARTICLES 4 AND 5

In essence, NATO, which stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established in 1949 as a defensive alliance with a core belief: an attack on one member country constitutes an attack on all members. Consequently, if a country faces military incursions or conflicts, all member states commit to uniting in its defense. This fundamental principle is encapsulated in the renowned Article 5 of the treaty.

Presently, NATO boasts 31 member states, with Sweden's application still pending. The United States of America is the largest member, wielding the strongest army, the largest budget, and the most extensive arsenal in the NATO alliance. As a result, the USA holds a significant influence in determining the success or failure should any NATO member invoke Article 5.

Now, let's delve into the specifics of Article 5. But before doing so, it's essential to examine Article 4:

"The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the Parties is threatened."

The crux of Article 4 is that, before Article 5 can be invoked, all member states must convene to decide whether it is acceptable to call upon Article 5 and declare a state of war. This unanimous agreement among NATO member states serves as a crucial initial barrier for any country facing an ambiguous attack or an event deemed insignificant.

Assuming an event successfully passes the scrutiny of Article 4, let's now explore the provisions of Article 5:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently, they agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked. This assistance includes taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the necessary steps to restore and maintain international peace and security."

From a technical standpoint, if a NATO country is attacked and successfully clears Article 4, all other member countries are obligated to come to its defense under Article 5. However, the nuance lies in phrases such as "...by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." This implies that each member state has the autonomy to decide the nature of its support, be it financial aid, military assistance, or the deployment of armed forces to the attacked member state.

Consequently, if an attack is deemed less than critical, each member country might find itself in a position similar to Ukraine, where aid is dispatched, but tangible military assistance is withheld. Reasons for such restraint could range from the fear of casualties to a lack of capability to contribute armed forces for another country's defense.

While membership in NATO is undoubtedly advantageous for a country, it's essential to consider other ways Russia could exploit member states, fostering discord, dissent in the population, and even a potential breakup of the NATO treaty.

RUSSIA IS NATO'S BIGGEST THREAT IN 2024

Numerous influential figures have echoed the concern that Russia is emerging as NATO's primary threat in the East, with China closely shadowing in relation to the Taiwan situation. How valid is this assertion?

Russia has a track record of testing the boundaries of the Northern Treaty Alliance without fully crossing the line. While past incidents were either overlooked or resolved through diplomatic channels, there is growing anxiety that such provocations could intensify, occurring with increased frequency and raising the risk of miscalculation and miscommunication. These incidents might include a plane encroaching too close to a hostile country's airspace, a diplomat or politician making an ill-judged statement, Russia consistently engaging in hostile rhetoric against the West and NATO, or an unfortunate accident that, under different circumstances, could have been avoided.

The primary concern among NATO allies centers on the potential for Russia to initiate a kinetic war or incursion, thereby triggering Article 5. We will examine these potential scenarios shortly. For now, it is worth noting that if Russia were to launch an attack on NATO presently, their diminished military capabilities would likely prove inadequate against the robust response that NATO would mobilize.

The most plausible scenarios involve Russia attempting alternative methods to target European countries, such as employing hybrid warfare tactics, which have already been observed. These tactics include activities such as the illegal movement of refugees across borders, cyber attacks, potential assaults on critical infrastructures (such as damaging the underwater sea cables and pipelines, or running reconnaissance over these areas), heightened espionage, fostering societal divisions through protests or terrorist attacks, and inciting violence and disruptive acts with involvement from local actors.

RUSSIA'S LOSSES IN UKRAINE AND CURRENT CAPABILITES

Russia continues to hemorrhage manpower in Ukraine, with recent estimates indicating a staggering 700 to 900 Russian soldiers perishing daily and many more sustaining injuries. This translates to a monthly loss of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 men, a void being filled by the ongoing conscription efforts. Essentially, as previously discussed, Russia is engaged in a stalemate strategy of replacing its losses without augmenting the overall number.

Despite this attrition, Russia still possesses a significant reservoir of potential manpower. Initial estimates put active personnel at 1.32 million, with a reserve force of 2 million. In a move to bolster their forces, Putin signed a decree in December 2023 to increase active personnel by 170,000 individuals, marking a 15% surge.

Moreover, Russia maintains a formidable arsenal in air and sea defense, largely untapped in the conflict with Ukraine. However, the Russian Armed Forces have not emerged unscathed, suffering considerable losses. While specific figures on material losses fluctuate, the predominant casualties include armored combat vehicles, artillery, and tanks. Some experts posit that it may take a decade for Russia to fully recover from the setbacks incurred in this war.

SO, HOW CAN RUSSIA ATTACK NATO WITH SUCH A DECIMATED FORCE?

The significant error the West might make presently is underestimating Russia. Many global leaders initially believed that Vladimir Putin wouldn't be foolish enough to initiate a war with the West, a war he would presumably never emerge victorious from. However, this perception is swiftly evolving. Numerous experts are now discussing the possibility of a war involving Russia and various target countries, such as the Baltic states, Poland, or Finland, within the window of 2025 to 2030.

While Putin likely comprehends that a full-scale war with NATO is strategically hypocritical, smaller incursions and regional conflicts remain within the realm of possibility. Essentially, Russia's objective seems to be the fragmentation of NATO and the European Union into individual states. The strategy involves exploiting a scenario where one member country, under what they interpret as an Article 5 action, is attacked, and the other allied nations opt for peace instead of assistance. This would convey the message that NATO is ineffective, and member countries won't honor the agreement.

However, gauging the likelihood of a NATO country deviating from its commitment is challenging. NATO's Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, has consistently conveyed the message that in the face of any Russian threats, it's a collective response — one for all and all for one, defending every inch of NATO territory, regardless.

The only instance when Article 5 was invoked was after the September 11 attacks, with allied nations supporting the U.S. by sending troops and weapons.

Anders Puck Nielsen, a military analyst based in Denmark, outlined several interesting scenarios that could happen between Russia and NATO in a recent video about a war between the two entities. In his view, Russia might attempt a local territorial dispute, such as attacking parts of Finland, like Lapland, or trying to seize the Suwalki Gap in Poland. The latter, though a small incursion, could yield significant gains for Russia, creating a land connection between Kaliningrad and Belarus, strengthening military presence and defenses in the region.

Another potential strategy involves Russia seizing island territories belonging to Finland or Sweden, like the Åland Islands or Gotland Island. This move would strategically allow Russia to control the Baltic Sea and its corridor.

Hybrid warfare tactics, previously mentioned, remain a potential threat, ranging from mild to severe. These tactics operate in a "grey area," making it challenging to attribute them to Russia or label them as acts of war. If escalated, hybrid warfare could involve Russian-backed terrorist attacks cropping up across Europe, impacting major cities and inflicting significant human casualties. Such attacks might be orchestrated by state actors, making it difficult to directly link them to Russia. 

CONCLUSION

The future appears precariously poised on the brink of a potential conflict between Russia and NATO. The pivotal determinant of whether this unfolds rests heavily on the outcome of the ongoing battle between Ukraine and Russia. Ensuring Ukraine's triumph is imperative for the West; failure to do so leaves the actions of Russia uncertain, with potential repercussions echoing beyond Ukraine's borders. Adding to the complexity, China observes attentively, gauging the West's response and anticipating similar reactions in the event of a Taiwan invasion.

In navigating these tumultuous waters, there appears to be no recourse but to cripple Russia on multiple fronts — financially, militarily, and on the global stage. While this approach risks fostering bitterness and radicalization among the Russian populace, potentially laying the groundwork for future hostilities with NATO, it remains a crucial short-term strategy. 

The more damage inflicted on the Russian army, its resources, and infrastructure by Ukraine, the longer Russia's recovery will be delayed. This strategic delay could provide the necessary window for the West to awaken to the gravity of the situation, prompting a concerted effort to rebuild depleted military forces and transition to a wartime-oriented economy, focusing on replenishing military stocks. The urgency lies in seizing this opportunity to fortify and prepare for the challenges that the evolving geopolitical landscape presents.