NATO is preparing to outline how it would respond to a potential Russian attack, as European governments grow increasingly concerned about alleged Russian operations aimed at destabilising their societies and testing the military alliance’s ability to respond.
The alliance’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, US General Alexus Grynkewich, is expected to present what officials have described as NATO’s “theory of victory” during a security conference in Warsaw, Poland, on Monday.
The announcement comes as Poland urges NATO members to prepare for a strong and decisive response to any potential Russian hybrid attack, amid Western warnings that Moscow’s alleged campaign of sabotage and other unconventional operations could intensify and result in casualties.
The developments have revived a question increasingly confronting European governments: could the confrontation between Russia and the West move beyond Ukraine and develop into a direct conflict involving NATO?
NATO’s ‘Theory of Victory’ Against a Potential Russian Attack
Colonel Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for General Grynkewich, explained last week that NATO’s approach is centred on maintaining the military superiority necessary to deter aggression and defeat an adversary if deterrence fails.
“The Supreme Allied Commander Europe’s theory of victory is simple: maintaining NATO’s superiority, consistent with the alliance’s deterrence and defence plans,” O’Donnell said.
He added that the increasingly complex and unstable global security environment requires NATO to establish the conditions necessary to deter aggression while remaining prepared to prevail if the alliance comes under attack.
The proposed theory, he explained, provides a framework for achieving both objectives.
NATO, established after the Second World War to confront the Soviet Union, has traditionally kept its operational plans for responding to a potential Russian attack confidential.
Grynkewich is therefore not expected to disclose substantial new details about the alliance’s military strategy.
Instead, his presentation is likely to serve two purposes: reinforcing NATO’s deterrence message to Moscow and reassuring member states along the alliance’s eastern flank that collective defence remains a central priority.
The timing reflects mounting Western concern about the possibility of escalation, particularly following several incidents that have raised questions about Europe’s vulnerability to unconventional attacks.
Among the incidents cited is the discovery of an explosives-laden drone at an airport in Germany.
Western officials allege that Russian activities have become increasingly aggressive as Russian forces encounter difficulties in Ukraine.
They warn that further incidents could result in substantial loss of life, placing additional pressure on NATO to determine when and how to respond.
For the alliance, one of the most difficult challenges is dealing with hostile operations that fall into the grey area between peace and open warfare.
Unlike a conventional military invasion, acts of sabotage, cyberattacks and covert operations can create uncertainty over who is responsible, what constitutes an armed attack and which response would be proportionate.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has urged member states to remain calm while continuing their support for Ukraine.
Last month, Rutte warned against underestimating Russia, while stressing that Moscow understands NATO is militarily stronger.
His position reflects the alliance’s attempt to maintain deterrence without allowing repeated confrontations to develop into a broader war.
Poland Warns NATO to Prepare for a Decisive Response
Poland has emerged as one of the strongest voices calling for NATO to prepare for a more forceful response to potential Russian hybrid operations.
According to the Financial Times, Poland’s foreign minister urged NATO countries to be ready to respond firmly and decisively if Russia launches such an attack.
The minister warned that the possibility of casualties is increasing as Russia allegedly intensifies operations designed to destabilise European societies and provoke internal unrest.
His concerns extend beyond conventional military threats to the use of covert activities that could disrupt civilian infrastructure, undermine public security or create political instability.
The Polish foreign minister also proposed requiring all Russian nationals entering the European Union to carry biometric passports.
According to the newspaper, the measure is intended to prevent Russian operatives from travelling under false identities.
The Polish warnings come at a particularly sensitive moment for Europe’s security arrangements.
European allies of the United States are preparing for the possibility of a reduction in American military forces stationed on the continent.
The Pentagon is currently reviewing its military deployments across Europe, with the findings expected to be announced towards the end of 2026.
The prospect of a reduced American military presence has introduced further uncertainty for European governments already concerned about Russia’s activities and NATO’s capacity to respond to future threats.
Is a Russian Attack on NATO Imminent?
Despite increasingly forceful warnings from Western officials, concerns about a possible Russian attack do not necessarily point to an imminent full-scale war between Moscow and NATO.
Instead, one scenario being considered involves a limited Russian operation intended to test the alliance’s internal cohesion, military readiness and willingness to respond.
Such an operation could be designed to challenge NATO without immediately triggering a large-scale conventional confrontation.
Poland and the three Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, are viewed as particularly sensitive areas in this scenario.
Their geographical proximity to Russia and Belarus, combined with their membership in NATO and the alliance’s collective defence commitments, makes developments in these countries especially consequential.
A limited incident involving one of these states could confront NATO with difficult decisions about the nature and scale of its response.
However, not all analysts believe Moscow is preparing to attack a NATO member.
Political and strategic researcher Roland Begamov doubts that Russia currently has a completed plan to launch such an attack.
He argues that recent Russian statements are better understood as attempts to prevent further escalation and send warnings to Western governments.
Begamov links these messages particularly to Britain’s announcement that it would transfer long-range missile technology to Ukraine.
In his assessment, Moscow could initially respond by targeting facilities or workshops inside Ukraine associated with that technology.
If the confrontation continues to intensify, he believes Russia could expand its strikes to targets outside Ukrainian territory.
Such an escalation, he warns, could open the way to direct confrontation with Western countries.
His assessment suggests that the risk may arise less from a pre-planned Russian invasion of NATO territory than from a sequence of military responses that gradually expands the geographical scope of the confrontation.
Hybrid Warfare: The Grey Zone Between Peace and War
A confrontation between Russia and Western countries would not necessarily begin with missiles, tanks or conventional ground offensives.
It could instead emerge through hybrid operations involving sabotage, cyberattacks and attacks against military or industrial facilities connected to Western assistance for Ukraine.
These methods present a challenge for NATO because they can cause substantial damage without fitting neatly into traditional definitions of warfare.
A cyberattack targeting critical infrastructure, for example, may have serious consequences, but determining whether it warrants a military response can be considerably more complicated than responding to a conventional armed assault.
Similarly, sabotage directed against an industrial installation supporting Ukraine could create uncertainty about whether the incident should be treated as a criminal act, a hostile state operation or an attack requiring NATO intervention.
Hosni Abidi, professor of international relations at the University of Geneva, believes these forms of confrontation place European governments in a particularly difficult position.
He argues that identifying the precise moment when a hostile operation becomes an attack requiring a NATO response is not always straightforward.
That uncertainty creates a strategic dilemma.
If NATO responds too cautiously to a hostile operation, it risks encouraging further actions by an adversary seeking to test the alliance’s resolve.
Conversely, a response considered excessive could accelerate escalation and potentially transform a limited incident into a broader military confrontation.
The challenge is therefore not simply whether NATO possesses the military capabilities to respond, but how it can use those capabilities without triggering a conflict that neither side may initially have intended.
Why an Attack on a NATO Member Could Change Everything
Any direct confrontation involving a NATO member would differ fundamentally from the war in Ukraine.
The distinction lies in the alliance’s principle of collective defence, under which an attack against one member is treated as a threat to the alliance as a whole.
This commitment gives even a geographically limited confrontation potentially far-reaching strategic consequences.
A military incident involving Poland or one of the Baltic states could therefore become an issue for the entire alliance rather than remaining a confrontation between Russia and an individual European government.
Former American diplomat Donald Jensen believes NATO would not ignore a Russian attack against one of its members, despite existing disagreements within the alliance over defence spending and the role of the United States.
The initial response, he suggests, could involve sanctions, additional military deployments, defensive operations or retaliatory cyberattacks.
Depending on the scale of the original attack and subsequent developments, those measures could eventually develop into broader military action.
However, the central difficulty would be determining how far NATO should go in responding.
An insufficient response could undermine the credibility of the alliance’s collective defence commitments, while an excessive response could lead to a wider military confrontation between Russia and the West.
The danger is particularly acute because both sides possess nuclear arsenals.
NATO’s preparations, Poland’s warnings and the continuing debate over Russian hybrid operations therefore reflect a security environment in which the boundaries between deterrence, confrontation and war are becoming increasingly difficult to manage.
The immediate concern is not necessarily a Russian invasion of NATO territory, but the possibility that a limited incident, an act of sabotage or an escalating exchange of strikes could set off a sequence of responses leading to direct confrontation between nuclear-armed powers.
