Could Article 5 die on the Danube? A scenario in which Russia strikes Romania and America hesitates

A Russian drone strikes a fuel depot in Romania, civilians are killed and Moldova is under attack. Romania is a NATO member, yet Washington hesitates. That is the unsettling scenario described in a recent American strategic war game.

The exercise imagined events two years in the future, with the war in Ukraine locked in a bloody stalemate. Russia, seeking to further fracture Europe and test the Western alliance, attacks Moldova. The conflict then crosses the Prut River. A drone hits Romania, and the crisis becomes a test not only of Moldova’s security but of NATO and the credibility of the United States.

The simulation took place under the auspices of Cornell University’s Brooks School of Public Policy and the Rockefeller Foundation. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius attended on Aug. 31, while the participants remained anonymous. They included sitting members of the U.S. Congress, former military officials, diplomats and former intelligence community representatives, people who could resemble those involved in real deliberations in Washington.

The response produced by the exercise was restrained and cautious, far less decisive than public rhetoric about defending “every inch” of NATO territory might suggest. Ignatius openly said that this possibility frightened him: in a real crisis, Washington could react as it did in the war game.

The lawmakers taking part believed American public opinion would not support a forceful military response to such an incident. That exposes the gap between the political obligation of Article 5 and the military response each ally chooses. The treaty does not require every member to respond in exactly the same way or automatically use force. The scenario’s central question is what happens when Russia does not attack Romania with a tank division, but with one drone, or two, in an incident ambiguous enough to make Washington hesitate.

“

Every inch