BRUSSELS — Despite Russia's intensifying attacks on European critical infrastructure and weapons factories, NATO countries remain wary of making immediate tough moves that could provoke the Kremlin. European capitals are eyeing options including opening a debate about whether a so-called hybrid attack could trigger NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, more unified communication in response to incidents and a greater push on protecting critical infrastructure, according to three NATO diplomats and one person familiar with the matter, who were granted anonymity to speak freely due to the sensitivity of the matter. But so far, Europe is avoiding taking any drastic steps — in part over fears it could escalate into an all-out war with Russia.
Over the weekend, a Russian drone hit a train near the Polish-Ukrainian border shortly after top Western security officials passed through, while Bulgarian authorities launched investigations into two explosions at weapons storage sites in the country. But for now, the strategy is “keep calm and carry on and … continue our support for Ukraine.” The most serious incidents pinned on Russia — including an attempted attack on Leipzig airport last month — have so far been thwarted. But European officials are increasingly grappling with the prospect they may soon face a successful attack with casualties, and the backlash that brings.
But “we have been lucky — there have been no big incidents … if we do not act, then things might get much worse.” “We are too shy — definitely,” said German lawmaker Marie Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who chairs the European Parliament’s defense committee. Controversial options like offensive cyber operations against Russia are typically handled by national intelligence services. Informally, some allies are discussing the possibility of starting a debate on whether an accumulation of sub-conventional attacks could cross NATO’s Article 5 threshold, the three diplomats said.
Clarifying where that line is would send a clear warning to Russia and show NATO’s unified opposition to such attacks, two of the diplomats said, but acknowledged so far there is no consensus on the issue. The senior European defense official said opening the discussion was “worthwhile,” but cautioned it would need to be matched with clear “political will” for a military response — to avoid hollowing out the meaning of the collective defense clause. President Donald Trump’s repeated wavering on NATO and collective defense in particular also makes that debate more sensitive.
Allies could also be asked to spell out more clearly their spending on civilian preparedness and protection of infrastructure like hospitals, as part of their obligations to funnel 1.5 percent of GDP into civil defense by 2035, the diplomats said. So far, what spending counts toward that target has remained largely undefined. Gerlinde Niehus, a former longtime NATO official and independent security expert, said the alliance should come up with “pre-agreed packages” in response to specific future attacks, coordinated with governments and intelligence agencies.
Today, “Putin … clearly plays on long decision processes [and] institutional inertia between NATO and the EU,” she said. If a serious Russian-linked sabotage incident was not matched with a clear NATO response, “that would undermine fundamentally the credibility of the alliance,” she said. That's a concern Rutte brushed off on Monday.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
