Will NATO's Article V soon be put to the test?

[Aimless]

An interesting if opinionated take:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/...gin-in-latvia/

(if you encounter the paywall you should be able to bypass it by opening the link in an incognito window)

Past couple of years have seen a dramatic escalation in Russian infiltration and sabotage shenanigans in the Baltic and in nearby states (eg. in Finland and Sweden), targeting strategic locations, testing various aspects of their defenses and compromising control systems and other key components of important infrastructure and services such as power, communications, financial services, healthcare, etc. Espionage and tampering with the democratic process using disinformation and the like, that's business as usual. But these other more overtly military activities--and esp. the escalation--feel like the build-up to a more concrete operation.

So what do you guys think? Will Russia make a serious move on one of the Baltic states in the next couple of years? Will it do anything to seriously test Article V? Will NATO pass the test? Is there anything that can be done to forestall a war in--or a takeover of--the Baltic states? I think we've moved beyond the point where typical political and military posturing can be reasonably expected to accomplish enough of value.

[Lewkowski]

Seems very unlikely that it will be done to an actual NATO country. Unless America strongly signals we're going to blow off NATO responsibilities (which I doubt Trump will do) that's not a gamble Putin is going to want to take.

[Loki]

Putin tends to finish up one problem before starting another one. He's already dealing with two (Ukraine and Syria). Can't see him starting a third until the others wind down. That's probably 1-2 years in Syria, and God knows how long in Ukraine.

[Aimless]

I'd agree but this would also seem to be a very good time to begin undermining NATO. He isn't likely to get a better opportunity to do so after Trump is replaced and the US remembers that it actually wants to be an influential and respected member of the world order who takes its commitments seriously.

[Loki]

A better opportunity would be after sanctions are removed and when the US is dealing with another problem. Russia doesn't have the military or economic resources to start another conflict right now, even against a tiny country. I expect Putin to step up his disinformation campaign. That's been far more successful at getting desired political outcomes than bombs.

[RandBlade]

QTWAIN.

Even Putin isn't that batshit crazy.

[wiggin]

A better opportunity would be after sanctions are removed and when the US is dealing with another problem. Russia doesn't have the military or economic resources to start another conflict right now, even against a tiny country. I expect Putin to step up his disinformation campaign. That's been far more successful at getting desired political outcomes than bombs.

While I agree in principle, I do think that it's possible for him to continue to exert those elements of so-called 'hybrid warfare' that don't require actual military involvement. E.g. hacking, propaganda, interference in local elections, etc. The cost to him is minimal to engage in this sort of behavior, it won't cause an article V question, and it sets the stage for more aggressive interventions in the future. And in this context, I think a clear sign of NATO's (and the US') enduring commitment to the security and independence of the Baltics is necessary. I think the recent decision to keep some forces forward-deployed on NATO's Eastern border is a good start (along with modest increases in NATO military spending ex-US), but some more robust signals might not be a bad idea either.

This is particularly relevant given Russia's recent violation of the INF and their withdrawal from the CFE; simply waiting until we get an administration with a backbone while Russia wraps up their current messes is not really an option. A robust, clearly articulated and vigorously supported response is necessary IMO.

[Loki]

He's doing each of those things as we speak. And he did all of those things when Obama was in power. NATO did little then, and it will do even less now. NATO couldn't even come up with a coherent response to the disinformation campaign. Everyone is figuring out how to defend themselves.

[wiggin]

I agree, but my point is that he can do a lot of things short of an outright military intervention that will make it all that much harder for NATO to invoke Article V when push comes to shove at some point in the future. Certainly we have provided a modest response to his provocations until now, but I would prefer some continued creative thinking about how to aggressively counter his moves without precipitating an armed confrontation. It should indeed concern us if we have an administration that ignores the problem, because when the next administration comes around, it might be too late to head off an actual fight.