By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In an interview with Sky News, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed concerns that Vladimir Putin might attack a NATO country within five years to test the alliance. Zelenskyy viewed plans for NATO members to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 as slow, warning that Putin could have a new army ready by 2030. He also highlighted the potential for reduced aid to Ukraine due to Middle East tensions and noted that Russia is still able to access components for missiles from countries including the UK. While acknowledging that Ukraine’s NATO ambitions aren’t possible currently, Zelenskyy emphasized the need for negotiations, although he avoided addressing potential land concessions.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy says Putin could attack a NATO member ‘within 5 years’ to test the alliance, and that’s a statement that certainly gets your attention. The idea that Russia might deliberately pick a fight with a NATO member, not to win, but simply to see how the alliance reacts, is a chilling thought. The underlying implication is a calculated risk – a gamble to expose any weaknesses or divisions within NATO, perhaps paving the way for more aggressive actions down the road.
The immediate reaction is a mix of incredulity and concern. Many people naturally find it hard to believe that Russia, currently bogged down in a costly and difficult war in Ukraine, would willingly open another front. The military capacity, the manpower, the resources – all seem stretched to the limit. Some might even laugh, suggesting that Russia barely has the strength to attack a plate of borscht, let alone a NATO member. However, we can’t simply dismiss the statement.
The question of Putin’s health and longevity comes up immediately in such discussions, a reality that colors all speculation about Russia’s future. There’s the widely circulated information about his health issues, which may or may not be entirely accurate, alongside the possibility that he might not be around in five years, which is crucial to consider. Even if he does, his ability to make aggressive decisions, or the willingness of those around him to do so in his stead, needs to be assessed. Then there are also whispers of the influence of family, as well as his own historical legacy.
Thinking about the state of Russia’s military capacity is also a key consideration. Russia’s performance in Ukraine has revealed vulnerabilities, and it would be a significant undertaking to reconstitute forces to a level that could confidently take on NATO. It’s easy to be critical of the fact that they can’t seem to make significant progress in Ukraine. If Russia’s objective were limited, perhaps probing the borders, or a few strategically placed cyber attacks, it might be more likely. They would be looking for the weakest link in the NATO chain.
But what exactly would such a “test” look like? A full-scale invasion seems unlikely, given the risks, and of course it will not involve any nuclear option. As the old saying goes, “they can’t take Ukraine, how can they take on NATO?” More likely, it might involve asymmetric tactics – cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, support for extremist groups, or even covert operations on the border. One thought is that a play for a small piece of the Baltic states could test NATO’s resolve, though any attack would need the Ukraine war to stop first. Perhaps, as the comments suggest, Russia could test the alliance’s reaction in a territory like Svalbard.
There’s also the economic angle to consider. Could Russia be trying to drag out the conflict in Ukraine to drain the West’s resources? This is also a possibility. This might be done in order to increase their own geopolitical leverage.
Then there are the political factors. Zelenskyy’s statement could be an attempt to rally support, especially if he perceives a waning interest in continued support for Ukraine. He might be trying to remind the world of the ever-present threat, and also, remind them of how vital the continued support is. In the long term, the future leadership of Russia will need to be considered, especially if the United States decides to withdraw, or if China fully backs Russia.
Ultimately, assessing Zelenskyy’s statement boils down to recognizing that Putin is nothing if not a calculated risk-taker. Even a probing attack, designed not to win, but to test the alliance, could have devastating consequences. The war in Ukraine has made it clear that complacency is not an option. While it’s easy to dismiss the idea as hyperbole or alarmism, the possibility of Russia attempting to test NATO within the next five years – however remote – warrants careful consideration.