news

Western officials fear Putin is preparing to escalate beyond Ukraine. Bild and The Telegraph outline possible Russian moves against NATO.

Source: Meduza

Fears are increasingly being voiced in the West that Vladimir Putin does not want peace talks and is planning another escalation, not only in Ukraine but against NATO countries as well. Sources for The New York Times say that the Russian president has set a goal for 2026 of “the collapse of NATO and the E.U. from within.” Bloomberg sources close to the Kremlin say that Putin is considering intensifying ballistic missile strikes or even, as a last resort, using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Zelensky’s office believes Moscow may be preparing a new offensive on Kyiv and Chernihiv. This week, CIA Director John Ratcliffe unexpectedly visited Moscow for the first time since the war in Ukraine began. According to one theory, his mission was to warn the Kremlin against attacking NATO countries. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he sees signs that an escalation is being prepared, and that the next seven to eight months could be critical for the security of both Ukraine and the wider European region. Germany’s Bild and Britain’s The Telegraph described largely similar potential scenarios of overt or covert Kremlin aggression against NATO and the European Union.

Bild’s list

Underwater attack

Russia maintains specialized units and submarines capable of striking critical infrastructure on the seabed, including electrical and internet cables, pipelines, and other maritime installations. A coordinated attack on several of these targets at once would disrupt communications, energy supplies, and trade — and pinpointing the source of the sabotage quickly would be extremely difficult.

The Narva scenario

For years, experts have not ruled out that Narva, the Estonian city on the border with Russia, could see a repeat of the covert operation the Kremlin carried out in Crimea in 2014. Armed men without insignia — the so-called “little green men” — would suddenly appear in the city, stoke unrest, and back separatist activity, while the Kremlin denied any involvement to the end.

Aggression in the Baltic Sea

Gotland, which belongs to Sweden, and Finland’s Åland Islands have repeatedly figured in possible military scenarios. Seizing Gotland would threaten control over one of the Baltic Sea’s most important transportation hubs. Experts say a sudden Russian strike to deploy air defense systems and anti-ship missile complexes there is entirely plausible — a move that could significantly complicate NATO’s ability to move troops into the Baltic states.

Arctic alarm

Another potential flashpoint is the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean. It falls under the sovereignty of Norway, a NATO member, but an international treaty gives it special status — allowing Russia to conduct economic activity there, including at its own settlement, Barentsburg. Experts fear the Kremlin could manufacture a crisis on the archipelago by accusing Norway of violating the treaty and moving to seize strategically important sites. Svalbard lies several hundred kilometers from the Kola Peninsula, home to key assets of Russia’s Northern Fleet, including its sea-based nuclear deterrent.

Baltic nightmare

The Suwałki corridor, a narrow, 100-kilometer (62-mile) strip of border between Poland and Lithuania, is considered the most vulnerable point and the most likely site of a direct clash between Russia and NATO. Belarus lies on one side of the corridor and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad on the other. A rapid Russian push from Belarus toward Kaliningrad would cut the Baltic states off from the rest of the European Union’s territory.

The Telegraph’s list

The “Crimean scenario”

The Telegraph writes that a Kremlin attack on neighboring NATO states modeled on the annexation of Crimea is the option most widely discussed among those Vladimir Putin is considering. The scenario envisions “activists” — undercover Russian agents — organizing protests over fabricated persecution of the ethnic Russian minority in cities such as Estonia’s Narva and Latvia’s Daugavpils. Under cover of these “protests,” Russian troops without insignia would cross the border and seize key cities. NATO would find itself in a bind: is this a Russian attack, or an expression of street democracy? While the alliance hesitates, Russia would send in troops to “maintain peace.” The trouble with this scenario is that the same trick is hard to repeat. “If equivalents to 2014’s mysterious Crimean ‘little green men’ appear on the streets of Narva, they will simply be shot dead,” The Telegraph writes.

Direct attack on a neighboring state

This is the worst-case and least likely scenario. It would unfold as a simultaneous invasion from Belarus and the Kaliningrad region sealing off the Suwałki corridor, combined with a Russian airborne landing on Sweden’s Gotland. Russian forces would cut the three Baltic states off from the rest of NATO by land and by air, while Russian drones destroyed isolated Baltic and allied forces and Russian troops raced toward Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius. Russia expert Mark Galeotti says extensive preparation has gone into this scenario: “If Russian troops roll over the border into Estonia, everyone knows the drill.” NATO forces would strike back at the invading Russian troops, with NATO air and missile forces hitting their rear units.

The raid

This scenario exploits a moment of uncertainty. A Russian helicopter makes an “emergency landing” at the border with Kaliningrad, citing engine trouble, and Russia sends an unarmed “rescue team” into Polish or Lithuanian territory to retrieve the crew. Even a quick withdrawal would demonstrate Russia’s ability to penetrate NATO territory with impunity. There are many variations on this “lost helicopter” scenario, including incidents that have already occurred in which missiles and drones “accidentally” fly over Ukraine and crash in Poland, Romania, and Moldova. Through these episodes, Russia signals that it could inflict more serious damage, while trying to instill fear in Western politicians and chip away at their support for Ukraine.

False flag

Experts say the Kremlin is stockpiling captured or downed Ukrainian drones for use in a future provocation designed to look like a massive Ukrainian air strike on Russia that failed, with the drones coming down on front-line territory. Poland, where anti-Ukrainian sentiment is already rising, could be a tempting target for such a strike. The scenario is more plausible than the Narva scenario and could produce the desired political effect, though it is unclear how Russia could use it to undermine NATO.

Sabotage in Europe

The Kremlin has already shown it can carry out sabotage across Europe, often choosing targets in countries less prepared for it than Russia’s immediate neighbors. The discovery of a drone at Leipzig Airport is one such incident. If Putin is looking for a way to test NATO, the newspaper writes, the next logical step would be an operation that results in casualties, such as derailing a train or bombing a factory. But such operations carry risk, since they could provoke a forceful response. “Say a drone flying in the vicinity of Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle Airport collides with an airliner and creates 200 or 300 civilian casualties on Nato territory. All of a sudden there needs to be a response, a much more vigorous response than any of the responses we’ve seen. Suddenly we have escalation neither side wanted,” says Sam Greene, a professor of Russian politics at King’s College London.

Cyberattack

In theory, systemic cyberattacks can trigger NATO’s collective defense clause. But by their nature they are difficult to trace, and it is unclear what response would be appropriate. A hypothetical attack that knocked out the National Health Service’s blood transfusion computer systems would cost lives, though such attacks do not necessarily have to be fatal — a stock market crash that sows panic, or the shutdown of a key airport, could cause disruption massive enough to affect political decision-making. Experts believe the Kremlin is counting on these attacks not provoking a substantial response.