By John Q. Hosedrinker 
European nations are experiencing a surge of hybrid attacks, encompassing airspace violations, GPS signal disruptions, and suspicious drone activities, with Russia being implicated in several incidents, including the recent sabotage of a rail line in Poland. EU officials and NATO have responded by expressing concerns over the growing threat to critical infrastructure and have begun deploying military assets, like jets and anti-aircraft systems to frontline states. Foreign ministers are slated to be briefed on the escalated threat, and some officials have warned of potentially devastating consequences and urged for more decisive countermeasures. According to some experts, Moscow’s testing of the alliance is likely to persist regardless of the outcome of current diplomatic efforts in Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Russia ‘prepared to take enormous strategic risks’ to test NATO, top Swedish general warns, and it’s a statement that certainly gets the gears turning, doesn’t it? It’s like we’re watching a high-stakes game of chicken, and the stakes are, well, pretty much everything. The general’s warning isn’t just a casual observation; it’s a stark assessment of the current geopolitical climate, a climate where Russia seems willing to push boundaries and test the resolve of the Western alliance.
The core of the concern seems to be that Russia is willing to take actions that could be interpreted as acts of aggression, or at the very least, provocations. The unspoken question is, why? One possible explanation is that Russia is trying to gauge NATO’s reaction, to see how far they can go before the alliance truly responds. They might be probing for weaknesses, looking for fissures in the unity of the member states. Are they assessing whether certain nations would balk at the prospect of a full-blown war, leading to a fragmented response that Russia could exploit?
This idea that Russia is willing to “take enormous strategic risks” suggests a calculated approach, not a reckless one. It implies that the Kremlin has a specific set of objectives in mind and is willing to accept a certain level of risk to achieve them. The risks they’re willing to take may involve covert operations, cyberattacks, or even military actions on a limited scale. The intent is not necessarily to start a large-scale war, but to destabilize, divide, and ultimately weaken NATO’s resolve.
Of course, the elephant in the room is Ukraine. Russia’s actions there have demonstrated a willingness to flout international norms and to use military force to achieve its goals. Some believe that the “success” Russia has seen in Ukraine, however limited, has emboldened them to test the waters elsewhere. They may perceive NATO as a paper tiger, more bark than bite, and believe they can get away with more than previously thought. The war in Ukraine has shown the world the limitations of Russia’s military, yet it has also shown the willingness to use its military, not only against Ukraine, but against the rest of the world as well.
This is where the concept of “brinksmanship” comes into play. It’s the art of pushing a situation to the edge of disaster to force a desired outcome. Russia may be using this tactic, hoping to intimidate NATO into making concessions or changing its policies. This could involve threats of escalation, such as the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons or the targeting of critical infrastructure.
The issue of Trump’s potential return to power is also interwoven here. Some feel Russia is trying to accelerate its expansionist goals before the political landscape shifts again. Russia might see a window of opportunity, a period of perceived weakness in the West, and are looking to exploit it.
Given the current political climate, one scenario that is often discussed is a more covert operation, akin to the 2014 annexation of Crimea. The idea is that Russia could instigate unrest in a city with a Russian majority in the Baltics, for example. Russia could use a variety of covert tactics, to test the resolve of NATO countries, and to see if the cost of an open war would be too much for NATO members to handle.
If they were to attack a Baltic state, they would be attacking NATO directly. There would be no more conversation.
The implication here is that NATO needs to be prepared for all eventualities, not just traditional military threats. This would involve strengthening defenses, improving intelligence gathering, and ensuring that all member states are on the same page regarding their response to any potential aggression. It’s a complex and multifaceted challenge, but one that NATO must be ready to face.