Russian President Vladimir Putin could try to test NATO’s resolve with a limited attack against an allied country in the coming years, according to new US Intelligence reports outlining possible scenarios ranging from a cyberattack to a small-scale ground incursion.
The assessments, described by US officials, come amid a shortage of certain critical munitions that the military would need to face Russia or China in a potential future war. The US has severely depleted its stocks of these weapons due to shipments to Ukraine following the Russian invasion, as well as the US conflict with Iran. At-risk reserves include long-range precision missiles (Precision Strike Missiles) and Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), as well as short-range Stinger surface-to-air missiles, officials noted.
The US had previously assessed that Putin would not provoke any NATO country while still fighting in Ukraine. But that assessment changed earlier this year, US officials said, as Putin finds himself cornered in Ukraine and under pressure at home to secure a victory. Kyiv’s drones are causing increasing damage to both the Russian military and oil industry, while Putin’s forces are making ever smaller advances on the front line at the cost of heavy casualties.
US and European leaders are increasingly seeing signs that Russia is conducting probing attacks to test NATO’s resolve, including Russian cruise missiles that have fallen in Poland and drones that have penetrated Romania.
Putin’s goal in attacking NATO during an ongoing war with Ukraine, if it occurs, would be to fracture the Alliance, US officials said.
“The big question is how the United States would respond in that case”, said Heather Conley, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, regarding a possible Russian incursion. “It has always been a [Russian] goal to cast doubt on NATO’s credibility and drive a wedge between the US and its allies.”
Since Putin is struggling to consolidate the gains he wants in Ukraine, US Intelligence officials have been analyzing whether Moscow intends to escalate its aggressive actions toward European allies in the short term, sources indicated. The concern is that Putin could become more dangerous when cornered, US officials explained.
Possible threats range from a cyberattack on a NATO country or the deployment of armed groups without insignia to occupy territory, to a limited incursion on the Alliance’s eastern flank. The timeframe for any Russian move is estimated to be between this fall and 2029, according to US Intelligence assessments.
The likelihood of the most extreme scenario—a limited ground incursion—is low but increases over time, the reports said. Such a maneuver has always been considered extremely unlikely because it would trigger NATO’s Article 5, which commits members to collective defense. However, Article 5 is not so clear regarding NATO’s response to cyber or hybrid threats.
“Responding to an attack below the Article 5 threshold has always been NATO’s big challenge, and it is very true that, until now, NATO allies have preferred not to escalate,” Conley said. When Russia launched a series of cyberattacks against Estonia in 2007, for example, the country chose to manage the crisis bilaterally.
Spokespersons for the Department of Defense and NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe declined to comment on classified intelligence. A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to a request for comment.
Read more Evacuated the town of Catí due to the Tírig (Castellón) fire
“We are always analyzing and preparing for any number of scenarios. NATO is vigilant and we are ready to deter and defend as necessary, as we continue to demonstrate,” said Colonel Martin O’Donnell, NATO spokesperson.
The new assessments add to existing concerns among US officials about the shortage of certain critical munitions. In addition to certain long- and short-range missiles, other critical air defense reserves are also at low levels, including Patriot, SM-3, and THAAD interceptors (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), as well as THAAD radars and air defense artillery units, officials noted.
Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell called claims of ammunition shortages false. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that the US military had “more than enough” munitions to “meet all of President Trump’s strategic objectives,” while adding that the president has urged defense contractors to produce more ammunition.
“We have everything needed to strike at the time and place the president chooses,” Parnell said. “Across multiple combatant commands, we have already conducted successful operations while maintaining a deep and ready arsenal to defend our people and interests. Any adversary who confuses media noise with American weakness will learn the truth the hard way.”
In a potential conflict with Russia, weapons like the Precision Strike Missile and ATACMS systems (both fired by the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System HIMARS) and Stinger missiles are crucial to repelling a ground invasion, explained Tom Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
The shortage of critical munitions has sparked a debate within the US government about dwindling weapon stocks as Trump weighs next steps regarding Iran. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned the White House about the reduced number of air defense interceptors, according to The Wall Street Journal. The issue is a concern for Caine, who believes the low inventory level would not prevent the resumption of major combat operations against Iran but would add greater risk.
Outside analysts have repeatedly warned that munitions expenditure in the Middle East could erode the US’s ability to deter its adversaries worldwide, not only Russia but also China.
A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies covered the seven key munitions used in the war with Iran. For example, the updated report estimates that the US has used between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriot missiles in the Iran war, leaving barely 870 in the US arsenal.
“If it were only a matter of fighting Iran, even if we have used half the interceptors, or a bit more, we still have the other half. So we could continue against Iran for quite some time,” said Mark Cancian, co-author of the CSIS report. “The problem is that the Pentagon is very concerned now about what this means in the Western Pacific against China.”
Content licensed from The Wall Street Journal. Translated from English by V. Hdez.
