By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis warns that Russia’s hybrid attacks against NATO, encompassing sabotage, cyberattacks, and assassination attempts, “look like war.” He stresses the urgent need for NATO to establish clear red lines and define retaliatory measures to deter further aggression. Landsbergis expresses concern that NATO’s current response is insufficiently swift and decisive, potentially emboldening Russia. He suggests that a sufficiently severe hybrid attack could even trigger an Article 5 response.
Read the original article here
Russia’s increasingly aggressive actions against NATO are undeniably escalating, and the current strategy of drawing red lines without enforcing them is proving ineffective. It’s time for a decisive shift. The situation has moved beyond subtle skirmishes; Russia’s actions constitute a hybrid war, and we must treat them as such. The sheer number of “red lines” already drawn and subsequently ignored has rendered the concept meaningless. The constant, blatant disregard for previously established boundaries is a demonstration of Russia’s contempt for international norms and our perceived weakness.
The suggestion of a “new deal” – Russia withdrawing troops from all areas outside its internationally recognized borders or facing removal by force – is a drastic but potentially necessary measure. Giving a clear, short ultimatum, followed by swift, decisive action if it is ignored, could be the shock needed to recalibrate Russia’s calculations. The current approach of appeasement only emboldens Russia, allowing them to continue their slow erosion of stability and international law. Pussyfooting around will only invite more aggressive behavior.
Some propose more unconventional responses to counteract Russia’s actions. Seizing Russian assets, like ships and cargo, under dubious pretexts – for example, citing “environmental concerns” – is one such approach. While unconventional, such actions could serve as a form of economic warfare, forcing Russia to reassess the cost-benefit ratio of its current strategy. The idea of “piracy” of Russian resources might be deemed controversial, but, considering the ongoing attacks, the current rules-based order has obviously failed to deter Russia. We must, therefore, consider alternative approaches.
The concern that a lack of response will inevitably lead to a full-blown war is very real. However, a carefully calibrated escalation, demonstrating resolve, might serve as a de-escalation tactic. Russia knows that NATO isn’t looking to attack, but that doesn’t mean we should passively accept aggression. The strategy of consistently failing to enforce red lines has only given Russia more leeway. We must demonstrate a willingness to follow through on our threats to avoid becoming a paper tiger.
The concept of “red lines” is losing its efficacy. The sheer quantity of lines already crossed, without any meaningful consequences, has undermined their credibility. Perhaps a new, more impactful approach is needed. This might involve focusing on tangible actions rather than symbolic declarations. The suggestion of a “fuchsia line,” to indicate a shift away from the seemingly impotent red lines, underscores this need for a symbolic change in approach.
Beyond military actions, there are other options. Deporting all untrustworthy Russians from Western countries is a drastic measure, yet one that reflects the level of threat Russia currently poses. Similarly, confiscating Russian-owned property could put significant economic pressure on Russia and individuals complicit in the ongoing aggression. These aren’t merely symbolic actions but could represent a significant shift in policy.
More direct and forceful countermeasures need to be taken to curb Russia’s activities and deter future aggression. Patrolling critical infrastructure, sinking ships violating international waters, cutting Russia off from the internet, establishing no-fly zones, and declaring GPS jamming and hacking as acts of war are all potential responses. These actions, while significant, are measured responses to Russia’s ongoing hybrid war, aiming to establish clear consequences for its behavior. While annexing Kaliningrad is a drastic proposition that risks major conflict, it’s another option that shows the desperation many feel to find ways to curtail Russian influence.
The current approach of inaction or tepid response only invites further aggression from Russia. A firmer, more unified stance is needed to deter further escalation and potentially avert a larger conflict. To reiterate, the current situation is not merely a series of isolated incidents, but a full-fledged hybrid war, requiring a robust and unified response from NATO. The alternative is a slow slide toward something much worse. The time for half measures is over.