What Would a Russian Attack on the Baltics Mean for NATO?

Russia’s potential strategy for attacking the Baltics

William Spaniel explains that Russia’s interest in the Baltics is not new but rather an extension of its broader geopolitical strategy. The Kremlin appears to be exploring the option of targeting a NATO country to ignite a diplomatic crisis, which could rally domestic support within Russia for increased mobilization, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This strategy hinges on fostering nationalist sentiment and using provocations to create tension and division within NATO.

Spaniel points out that this isn’t the first time Russia has employed such tactics. Over the past year, there have been instances where Russian forces have pushed boundaries, both literally and metaphorically. Russian drones have crossed into Polish and Romanian airspace, and Ukrainian drones, reportedly jammed by Russia, have wandered into Latvian territory. These incidents, while technically minor, have sparked localized incidents, such as the resignation of Latvia's prime minister, and have brought Russian aggression closer to NATO territory than ever. Additionally, Russian military aircraft have breached Estonian airspace, and unexplained explosives have been found at a German airport.

These acts demonstrate what Spaniel calls a “campaign of grief” aimed at provoking NATO’s members while maintaining enough deniability to avoid directly triggering Article 5, NATO’s collective defense clause. Russia’s recklessness with such provocations, however, creates unpredictable risks, which span international diplomacy and military engagements.

How NATO has responded to Russian provocations

Spaniel highlights NATO’s measured approach to these provocations. Early incidents resulted in Article 4 consultations: a provision that allows for consultations among member states when territorial integrity is under threat. However, NATO has largely refrained from retaliatory measures, choosing instead to focus on coordinated defensive strategies among its members.

This restraint is attributed to a larger strategic calculation by NATO. Spaniel reminds us that these “provocative attacks” are meant to elicit reactions that Russia could exploit to validate its aggressive stance or unify its domestic audience under the guise of external threats. By not taking the bait, NATO has been able to avoid escalating tensions, though this comes with the risk that failing to respond could embolden Russia to escalate its provocations further.

This precise dilemma may explain why CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently traveled to Moscow. Spaniel suggests that the West’s intelligence community has uncovered specific evidence of an impending escalation by Russia, the details of which remain closely guarded. By confronting Russian leadership directly, Ratcliffe’s mission sought to preempt any potential actions while avoiding unwarranted panic or premature revelations.

The role of intelligence in shaping NATO’s strategy

According to Spaniel, intelligence plays a pivotal role in guiding NATO’s strategy. He warns of the risks associated with prematurely exposing sensitive information, as it could force the enemy to alter its plans and potentially gain an advantage. For example, if intelligence revealed a potential covert Russian operation in Estonia, early disclosure could undermine efforts to trap the adversary in their steps and secure actionable outcomes.

Spaniel draws parallels to the lead-up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine five years ago. He recalls that there was a deliberate delay between the private intelligence shared with Russian officials and the release of declassified reports to the public. This strategy allowed the Biden Administration to organize international opposition to Russia’s plans. While the element of surprise was neutralized, Spaniel notes that the campaign still encountered hurdles, such as skepticism from European leaders who doubted the immediacy of Russia’s intentions.

Looking at current developments, Spaniel identifies similar challenges. While European skepticism may have diminished in the years since, conspiracy theories within Western populations, which undermine the credibility of intelligence agencies, pose a new hurdle to forming a unified response. He stresses the importance of distributing credible intelligence effectively among allies and the public to counter misinformation and prepare for potential escalation.

Global implications and international alliances

Examining the broader geopolitical landscape, Spaniel underscores the necessity for NATO to cultivate international support beyond its member states. He notes that influential nations like China and India have so far maintained a neutral stance, benefiting economically from their relationships with Russia while monitoring the situation from afar. However, both powers share an interest in avoiding the global instability that could arise from a major power conflict on European soil.

Spaniel suggests that U.S. intelligence services are likely engaging their counterparts in these countries behind the scenes to shape their perceptions of the emerging threat. He adds that upcoming diplomatic events, such as an announced visit by China’s President Xi Jinping to the United States, may offer insight into whether this outreach has been effective.

On the domestic front, the Kremlin’s control over Russian media presents a significant obstacle to undermining domestic support for aggressive actions. Spaniel contends that exposing Russian citizens to the truth about the government’s strategic calculations may chip away at public support for military conscriptions and other measures tied to the Ukraine conflict. However, this effort faces substantial resistance due to the Kremlin’s tight grip on state-run narratives.

Long-term projections and Baltic security scenarios

Spaniel evaluates two major long-term consequences of an attack on the Baltics. First, invoking NATO’s Article 5, which mandates a collective defense response, would put the alliance to the ultimate test. He remarks that such a scenario would surpass even the most severe Cold War-era crises, as the stakes involve both NATO’s cohesion and the Kremlin’s willingness to escalate further.

Spaniel also raises the critical issue of how NATO could craft a precise and calculated response to dissuade further Russian actions while avoiding unnecessary escalation. As an example, he proposes a focus on significantly bolstering support for Ukraine, such as supplying more advanced weaponry like the remaining ATACMS rockets, rather than opening up new conflict fronts in the Baltics. This approach could send a clear message to the Kremlin while minimizing risks of a global conflict.

Lastly, Spaniel stresses the importance of coordinated diplomatic initiatives, especially with partners like China and India, as a cornerstone of any long-term strategy. These players have strong incentives to maintain global stability and could act as deterrents to further Russian aggression, provided they find NATO’s evidence and arguments compelling.

What was said, and when

The points this article makes, and the moment in the recording where each was said. Every time below opens the recording at that moment.

• Russia’s interest in the Baltics is not new but rather an extension of its broader geopolitical strategy. 04:17.
• The Kremlin appears to be exploring the option of targeting a NATO country to ignite a diplomatic crisis, which could rally domestic support within Russia for increased mobilization, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. 06:45.
• Over the past year, there have been instances where Russian drones have crossed into Polish and Romanian airspace. 05:00.
• Ukrainian drones, reportedly jammed by Russia, have wandered into Latvian territory. 04:33.
• Russian military aircraft have breached Estonian airspace. 04:44.
• Unexplained explosives found at a German airport. 04:50.
• These incidents have sparked localized reactions, such as the resignation of Latvia's prime minister. 04:33.
• These provocations as a "campaign of grief" aimed at provoking NATO’s members while avoiding directly triggering Article 5, NATO’s collective defense clause. 04:17.
• Spaniel highlights NATO’s measured approach to Russian provocations, often responding through Article 4 consultations rather than escalatory actions. 05:00.
• NATO has refrained from retaliatory measures against Russian provocations, focusing instead on coordinated defensive strategies. 05:00.
• CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently traveled to Moscow, purportedly to confront Russian leadership directly regarding intelligence of a potential escalation. 00:18.
• Spaniel recalls that intelligence shared with Russian officials before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine five years ago was delayed in release to the public, enabling the Biden Administration to organize international opposition. 06:45.
• Spaniel warns of conspiracy theories within Western populations undermining the credibility of intelligence agencies. 09:01.
• Influential nations like China and India have maintained a neutral stance, benefiting economically from relations with Russia while monitoring the situation. 11:04.
• U.S. intelligence services are engaging counterparts in nations like China and India to shape perceptions of the emerging threat. 11:32.
• A planned visit by China’s President Xi Jinping to the United States as a possible opportunity to gauge the effectiveness of these diplomatic efforts. 11:32.
• Spaniel contends that exposing Russian citizens to the government’s strategic motives could lessen domestic support for actions tied to the Ukraine conflict. 11:48.
• Spaniel evaluates that invoking NATO’s Article 5 in the event of a Russian attack on the Baltics would severely test the alliance’s cohesion. 09:01.
• NATO avoid escalation by bolstering support for Ukraine, such as providing advanced weaponry like ATACMS rockets. 10:39.
• Spaniel stresses the importance of diplomatic coordination with countries like China and India to deter Russian aggression. 11:04.