ERR: A U.S. intelligence assessment has been published by The Wall Street Journal, stating that Russian leader Vladimir Putin, whose invasion of Ukraine has stalled, could test NATO in the coming years by attacking one of the alliance's member states. The report mentions both cyberattacks and a limited ground incursion. What should we make of all this?

Rainer Saks: First of all, this is another classic case where anonymous sources have said something, fragments have been written down, but official comments are either unavailable or refused. It is a very broad and diffuse text.

As for these general assessments that Russia "could do something," there is no significant indication behind them that Russia is actually planning to do so. It is a hypothetical assessment that Russia could do this, that or the other. As long as Russia is not planning such actions, publishing assessments like this in the current context actually works very much in Russia's favor. Even the suggested time frame, from this autumn until 2029, is completely absurd.

Russia is certainly not making plans like that.

It is difficult to judge whether this was leaked by the U.S. government or is the initiative of an individual intelligence official. We will not speculate about that, but this is speculation rather than a report based on a concrete intelligence assessment.

The proposed actions — from cyberattacks to a limited military incursion — essentially cover the entire range of scenarios that could theoretically be considered. Therefore, I would not take this at present as a serious warning requiring the rapid implementation of countermeasures.

For example, Russia has been carrying out cyberattacks against NATO member states continuously since at least 2005–2006.

At the same time, NATO countries' responses have so far not been appropriate, because before the invasion of Ukraine, several European countries sought to engage Russia and develop energy cooperation instead. Examples of the kind of situation described in the intelligence report can also be found 15 to 20 years ago, so there is nothing new in it.

At the moment, publishing such a report works more to Russia's advantage, because Russia itself has not directly threatened NATO countries with any military action. Instead, a context is now being created that allows it to manipulate information even more than it has done so far.

In that sense, I think the text published by The Wall Street Journal is extremely foolish.

The article also points to indications that Russia is already testing NATO's response, for example, drones and missiles have fallen on the territory of Romania and Poland. This is presented as one indication that perhaps something is underway.

At the same time, those very countries have themselves said that they do not regard this as deliberate Russian action, but rather as accidental or technical incidents. I cannot say whether the official comments differ drastically from what is actually happening.

This is, of course, a problem because while active warfare is taking place in Ukraine, the possibility of, for example, Ukrainian drones ending up in allied territory or being shot down there is indeed an elevated risk.

There are only two main scenarios under which Russia would begin testing NATO's unity.

The first is that NATO has completely fallen apart internally. Although NATO's unity has suffered in several respects recently, there is no full political unity and there are sharp disagreements between different member states, it cannot be said that there is no unity at all. I would not yet go so far as to claim that NATO's collective defense has therefore been called into question.

The domestic political problems of member states and NATO's internal weakening are, in fact, the most likely scenario that could lead to a military confrontation between Russia and a NATO member state. At the moment, however, that process is clearly not advancing rapidly.

The second theoretical possibility is that if Russia truly decides to attack NATO militarily, it would first have to reorganize its forces. For such an attack — or even a test — to be genuinely supported, Russia would most likely have to carry out a mobilization. To some extent, that is theoretically possible after the State Duma elections, because the forces fighting against Ukraine have been unable to achieve success, and according to the Russian General Staff's calculations, there are too few troops.

In a situation where a full-scale war is still being fought in Ukraine, launching a new war against an even stronger opponent would, in my view, require Russia to declare martial law and carry out full-scale mobilization. That is something without which I do not believe Russia would proceed with very aggressive plans.

The article repeatedly refers to the fact that the Americans are running low on missile stockpiles because of operations in the Middle East and donations to Ukraine. Could it instead be that this article and the intelligence assessment are aimed at a domestic U.S. audience, to remind people of the need to replenish weapons stockpiles quickly?

That may indeed be the case. However, there is one important nuance here: the issue is not that the United States lacks certain types of missiles in its stockpiles, primarily air defense missiles and Tomahawk-type long-range strike weapons, of which too many have been expended against Iran. It is natural for stockpiles to decline during active military operations, but production is reportedly not keeping pace with what is needed. That is an embarrassing situation — what is the point of launching military operations if you cannot simultaneously replenish your stocks?

What is being overlooked, however, is that Russia has exactly the same problem, only even more severe. It also lacks sufficient air defense capabilities, as demonstrated by the success of Ukraine's long-range strikes. For example, this morning yet another large Wildberries warehouse, deep in the Urals some 1,800 kilometers from Ukraine, was set on fire.

Russia is in exactly the same position of weakness. Its entire missile capability is focused on Ukraine, and it is unable to carry out large-scale missile strikes on a daily basis. The war has lasted four years and has significantly exhausted Russia.

Of course, we can talk about hybrid attacks, but the conditions for Russia to launch a military incursion into NATO territory or start a military conflict with NATO are in no way favorable for Russia at present.

Why do you think intelligence assessments claiming that Russia is about to start testing NATO keep being published, when in reality they do not correspond to the facts?

I cannot answer that question. It is probably influenced by many different factors, ranging from incompetence and foolishness to domestic political objectives.

There is, of course, genuine reason to be concerned about the overall situation. There is nothing good about it. A major war is underway, and the governments of Europe and the United States have been unable to bring it to an end. That is indeed a very serious problem. Supporting Ukraine has also not been as successful as it should have been — a great deal has been done, but not enough.

A separate question is why European leaders have been unable to pull themselves together. Four years after the start of the full-scale war, they are still unable to produce enough of the military equipment that is needed. That is a very bad sign. In that sense, it is understandable that many people are seriously concerned about the situation and are trying to warn of possible negative developments.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!