By Matt Underwood Russia’s long-standing pattern of testing NATO’s resolve is deeply concerning. Years of sabotage and attacks, met with insufficient deterrence, indicate a dangerous escalation of the conflict. Appeasement clearly hasn’t worked, and strengthening NATO’s borders alongside fully arming Ukraine is vital. Past incidents, such as the blatant lies surrounding the presence of “little green men” in Ukraine during 2019 talks between Putin, Merkel, and Macron, highlight Russia’s willingness to deceive and its disregard for international norms.
The recent warnings from German intelligence about potential “little green men” deployments are particularly alarming. This tactic, used effectively in Crimea and Donbas, exploits ambiguity to probe weaknesses and challenge international commitments. Russia’s current sabotage efforts in Sweden, targeting infrastructure critical for defending Gotland, underscore the ongoing threat and further illustrate this pattern of testing NATO’s response, even if it is not fully acknowledged as a state of war. The use of such ambiguous tactics is a key element that needs a strong counter.
The question of how NATO should respond is complex. A minor incursion, like the hypothetical seizure of trees in Latvia, presents a difficult dilemma. Would Latvia invoke Article 5? Would NATO’s response be proportionate and serious enough to deter further aggression, or could it embolden Russia to continue using salami tactics to chip away at the Baltics? Failure to react decisively could severely damage the credibility of NATO and the Western alliance system.
Alternatively, the “little green men” might take the form of armed ethnic groups in Russian enclaves within the Baltics, creating new “DPRs” (Donetsk People’s Republics) and further destabilizing the region. This would require a much more nuanced response which is extremely difficult for any defense alliance to coordinate.
The potential for escalation is very real and is a concern for many people. A direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia carries catastrophic risks, but inaction risks even graver consequences. However, the historical failures to deter Russia through appeasement should be a cautionary tale to not repeat the mistake.
The Russian military’s proven inability to effectively challenge NATO head-on raises the question of why this risky strategy is being adopted. The answer likely lies in the inherent advantages such tactics provide: ambiguity, deniability, and the ability to escalate or de-escalate depending on the West’s response. It is a low-risk, high-reward approach to assessing NATO’s commitment.
The responses to such actions need to be much more strategic and effective. Focusing on concrete action and deterrence, rather than just speculation, is critical. The ongoing Russian sabotage efforts in various countries—the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, France, and the Baltic Sea—demonstrate the extent of this covert campaign. A comprehensive list of incidents and effective countermeasures would likely be a crucial tool in planning future responses.
While some argue this is mere clickbait and that a full-scale Russian assault on NATO territory is unlikely, others warn that downplaying the threat is irresponsible. The potential for Russia to exploit vulnerabilities, to create chaos and ambiguity is very real. The situation in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder that Russia is willing to use force, albeit often through proxies, to achieve its geopolitical goals.
The critical issue for NATO is unity and resolve. Any response must be coordinated and decisive, sending an unambiguous message that such actions will not be tolerated. A divided response will only embolden Russia to push further. The ongoing debate about NATO’s efficacy, even questioning its relevance, highlights the critical need for a strong unified front.
The worry is that if Russia is allowed to continue testing NATO’s boundaries without facing severe consequences, it will further erode the alliance’s credibility and embolden Moscow. The potential cost of inaction greatly outweighs the risk of a resolute, united response. History has shown that appeasement of such actors inevitably leads to greater problems.
The concerns are not merely theoretical. The very real possibility of a small-scale, ambiguous incursion designed to test NATO’s resolve demands immediate attention and planning. Any response must be well-coordinated, and decisively executed, sending a clear message that the days of appeasement are over. The stakes are too high for anything less.