The Hill: Putin May Risk Dangerous Gamble Against NATO

Vladimir Putin may consider a dangerous gamble by attacking a NATO country as a means to escape Russia's current crises, according to Leon Aron, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and political analyst for The Hill. Aron posits that Putin could later offer to withdraw troops in exchange for political concessions, leveraging a conflict to achieve strategic goals.

Several internal pressures could drive Putin toward such an aggressive strategy. These include substantial Russian losses in the war in Ukraine, a lack of technological breakthroughs, dwindling revenues from oil and gas exports, ongoing attacks on Russian refineries, and a general deterioration of the Russian economy. These factors are reportedly contributing to a decline in Putin's domestic popularity.

“

The Kremlin may try to get out of the crisis by attacking a NATO country, and then offer to withdraw troops in exchange for political concessions.

Aron also points to a potentially favorable international environment for Putin, citing what he describes as an ambiguous U.S. stance on NATO and President Donald Trump's approach to conflicts, which Aron characterizes as an inability or unwillingness to distinguish between aggressors and defenders. This perceived U.S. hesitancy could embolden Putin.

“

Especially vulnerable are two NATO states bordering Russia – Estonia and Latvia.

Estonia and Latvia, two NATO members bordering Russia, are identified as particularly vulnerable. With combined populations just over 3 million and significant Russian-speaking minorities, these nations present potential targets. Aron suggests Russian intelligence services are already preparing pretexts for provocations, citing the spread of claims about Ukrainian drone operators in these Baltic states. Russia's UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzia has also issued threats against the Baltic nations.

Aron outlines a possible scenario where Russia could launch drone and missile strikes on airport runways in Estonia or Latvia to hinder NATO's rapid reinforcement capabilities. Simultaneously, Russia might attempt to paralyze the Warsaw-Kaunas railway line, the sole rail route connecting the Baltic states to the rest of NATO. In such a situation, NATO's rapid response forces, numbering around 40,000 troops, could take days or even weeks to deploy effectively to the region.

“

In such circumstances, NATO's rapid response forces, consisting of about 40,000 troops, would need several days or even weeks to deploy the main forces to the region.

Before any military action, NATO procedures require member state leaders to convene in Brussels, unanimously recognize Russia as an aggressor against a NATO country, and activate Article 5. Only then could the alliance provide military aid. However, Aron believes Putin would avoid direct warfare with NATO, whose military power significantly surpasses Russia's. Instead, Putin might aim to occupy a small territory in Estonia or Latvia, such as Estonia's Ida-Viru county or Latvia's Latgale region, both areas with substantial Russian-speaking populations. Putin could then organize swift "referendums" and threaten nuclear weapon use to "defend Russian lands," potentially offering Europe a "deal" for "long-term peace" that includes Russian terms for the war in Ukraine, such as Ukrainian withdrawal from Donetsk and international recognition of Russian-occupied territories.

“

Putin would not seek direct war with NATO, whose military power far exceeds Russia's capabilities.