NATO’s deterrence ‘weakened’ by lack of response to Russian attacks

Incidents of Russian-orchestrated hybrid war attacks across NATO territory are entering a new dangerous, kinetic phase, leaders across the continent agree.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

At a meeting in early September, EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aim is to “scare us away from supporting Ukraine.”

“He will not succeed,” she told journalists at a meeting of EU foreign ministers.

However, others in European diplomatic circles have told Euronews that the lack of a powerful deterrent response is leaving the continent vulnerable to an escalation in Russian attacks.

Germany’s decision to formally blame the Kremlin for planting an explosive-laden drone in Leipzig airport in August marked Berlin’s most direct confrontation with Moscow after years of hostile interference.

Germany shut the Russian consulate in Bonn and terminated an agreement that had allowed the Russian House cultural centre in Berlin to remain open despite long-held suspicions of espionage activities.

“Taken together, police investigations, patterns of the offences and intelligence findings establish Russian responsibility for the attempted attack at Leipzig Airport,” German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said in Berlin after the incident.

More recently, a plane carrying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was almost hit by a Russian drone as he started his journey to attend the state funeral of King Harald in Oslo on 7 September.

‘The Kremlin has the measure of us’

“How is it these (incidents) do not meet the threshold for NATO to respond?” Ed Arnold, senior adviser at British Foreign Policy Group, put it to Euronews.

“By doing nothing, we are chipping away at the deterrence value of NATO.”

Arnold pointed out that if the military-grade explosives in the drone at Leipzig at detonated, they could have been fatal. The drone wasn’t correctly installed and failed to blow up.

“The incident at Leipzig wasn’t foiled by security services, the explosives didn’t detonate,” he said. “NATO needs to have a comprehensive response now, because the Kremlin has the measure of us.”

The ambiguity over NATO’s response stems partly from the lack of certainty as to whether the United States would support a collective response to an attack on NATO territory.

A US intelligence assessment in August reported that Putin could try to test NATO’s resolve with a limited assault on NATO territory within a few years, whether via a small-scale land incursion or a serious cyber-attack on critical infrastructure – in either case, a situation too serious to go unanswered.

Arnold argued that the uncertainty over Washington’s commitment will only fuel Putin’s appetite to risk the possibility of a direct confrontation with NATO, playing as it does into Putin’s campaign to prove that Article 5 of the NATO charter – “an attack on one is an attack on all” – is hollow.

“He knows that the best bet to achieve this is the current White House administration,” Arnold said. “Putin is a strategist not a tactician. He still can’t beat the Ukrainians in a conventional war, but he can see that the Trump administration are susceptible to Russian charm.”

Charm offensive

US Envoy Steve Witkoff spoke in glowing admiration to Putin during diplomatic talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine last week.

“So first of all President Putin, thank you so much for having us,” he said. “We were sitting outside just now… and we were all talking about when we retire, we’ll have all these incredible stories and incredible memories, and yours will be right at the top of it all.”

Kurt Volker, who served US ambassador to NATO under the first Trump administration, is now advising Ukrainian authorities on security matters. He told Euronews the alliance needs to be at a much higher state of readiness for an attack which would undeniably elicit an Article 5 collective response – and that it must be made clear to the Kremlin that there is now “zero tolerance” of its continuing shadow-war activities.

Instead, he pointed to drone incursions in Romania and Poland over the last year and the apparent lack of consequences.

“We’re left questioning – ‘where is the line’ that if Russia crosses it, we would respond.”

“Remember when there were 19 drones in Polish territory and that was shocking, and now we have an armed drone fast circling over Romanian airspace and into Ukraine and nobody says anything. This all has a creeping effect.”

Poland took the relatively rare decision to trigger Article 4 of NATO’s charter in the aftermath of the drone incursion last year.

An Article 4 process is the prelude to triggering the demand for a collective allied response. It draws all allies into a formal consultation if they suspect their territorial integrity is under threat. The goal of the process is to consider a joint response with the backing of allies after all the information is shared. Unlike Article 5, it does not commit the alliance to a mutual defence response.

Asked why there have been so few Article 4 formal consultations since despite the Kremlin’s increasingly aggressive activities, Volker said that whenever an official process is drawn upon but no outcome materialises, it further exposes NATO’s “level of disunity”.

“If you have Article 4 but then there’s no outcome, then maybe it’s a better idea not to have the meeting in the first place,” he said.

In response to such criticisms, NATO officials have also pointed to the fact that Germany did not trigger an Article 4 emergency consultation.

“Germany might do this, but until they do, it’s still a matter for the German government to respond and not the alliance,” an official told Euronews.

Russia undeterred

“The deterrence isn’t working,” said Laura Galante, former director of the US’ Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Centre. “When you have a drone in a civilian airport, we can see this threat in clear focus.”

She agreed with others who spoke to Euronews that there hasn’t yet been a moment where NATO has successfully coalesced around a response to Russian incursions or attacks – and she also pointed to the “backpaddling” by Washington on whether it is fully committed to collective security of NATO.

Galant says it’ll be up to Europe – particularly countries like Finland and Sweden which have strong, well-equipped militaries and a comprehensive security posture – to take the lead in the event of a major attack.

Even the use of the term “hybrid war” is now widely viewed as insufficient as it minimises the severity of Russia’s orchestrated actions, which include not just frequent drone incursions but also arson, sabotage and assassination attempts.

“We have to find also a way how to tackle the non-conventional warfare,” Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs, told the 2026 Riga Conference on Thursday.

“We very often refer to that as hybrid warfare. And the more I have myself done that many times. Now I think that we are all wrong.”

Rinkēvičs argued that the “hybrid” framing creates “a feeling in our societies that it has nothing to do with the real and clear and present danger”.

Meanwhile, on 11 September, the Kremlin threatened to target Lithuania with Russian nuclear weapons if Vilnius allows nuclear arms to be stationed on its territory.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov made the remarks as he commented on Vilnius’s recent openness to remove restrictions on hosting nuclear weapons.

“This was to be expected. It will mark a very serious escalation of tensions, because if you deploy nuclear weapons on your territory, they are aimed at someone,” he said at a press conference. “Obviously, these weapons will not be aimed at the West. They will be aimed at the East – that is, at us.”

“If there are nuclear weapons on its territory that are aimed at us, then, accordingly, that country’s territory will also be in the crosshairs of our nuclear weapons.”