Russian Hybrid Operations, Pt. Deux
Why No Article 5?
Last week I wrote about Russia’s hybrid operations against the West and against Ukraine. Following the Washington Post’s ridiculous reporting claiming there was no sabotage in several incidents in which underwater cables were destroyed or otherwise undermined, I noted that given Russia’s old, barely seaworthy vessels sailing around international waters, causing environmental catastrophes and other accidents, a one-time incident could be assessed to have been accidental.
However, the latest incident in which the Finns finally said, “Enough is enough!” and seized the latest ship involved in severing an underwater cable in the Baltic Sea, was part of a group of “accidents,” and the Eagle S—the vessel involved—sported some Russian spy gear.
Accident? Don’t make me laugh.
The incidents involving the sabotage of underwater infrastructure are only part of a series of attacks, ranging from horrifying to merely annoying.
A few days ago, likely Russian agents disguised as climate activists were vandalizing cars in Germany to influence the outcome of the country’s upcoming election, blaming the Green Party. These so-called disposable agents, sprayed expanding foam into the exhaust pipes of hundreds of cars and left pro-Green party leaflets nearby. One of the suspects is reported to have confessed that they had been paid by a Russian agent who had contacted them through the messaging service Viber. The young men, all from the Balkans, were paid €100 for each vehicle they vandalised.
Why the Greens? Because they have been incredibly tough on Russia, and Russia desperately needs some support in Europe.
There were other incidents.
Last year, NATO stalwart Poland assessed that Russians were responsible for arson attacks, including a fire that gutted Warsaw’s biggest shopping center.
A Russian pilot who defected last year to Ukraine was found dead in Spain. Maxim Kuzminov flew a helicopter into Ukrainian territory, where he surrendered and was murdered upon moving to Spain. Surely that’s not a coincidence.
And let’s not forget the assassinations and attempted murders of opposition figures abroad - the Skripals on UK soil no less, Russian assassin Vadim Krasikov, sentenced to life in prison in Germany after assassinating a former Chechen rebel commander, and whom Putin is desperate to get back, and a planned assassination of Armin Papperger, CEO of German Rheinmetall, early last year, which was foiled by German security forces.
Multiple incidents of electoral interference, including in Romania, whose election was nullified because of vast Russian meddling, Moldova, and Georgia. And let’s not forget the vast amount of election interference in the United States!
Incendiary devices last year ignited in Germany and the UK - in an apparent plot to ignite fires aboard cargo and passenger flights heading to the US and Canada.
I’m not going to list all the attacks here. You’d be here all day reading, after I spent all day writing.
Attacks on NATO
My point is that these are, in fact, attacks on NATO members. This isn’t conventional warfare, since Russia is too busy losing its personnel and equipment in Ukraine. These attacks are cheaper and easier to conduct, giving Russia a degree (a very small degree) of plausible (barely) deniability, as it complains about “Russophobia” and being victimized by the West every time Moscow is credibly blamed for an attack. But they are, in fact, attacks on NATO countries.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte earlier this year, in his first address to the European Parliament in Brussels, warned that Europe is “not at war, but we are not at peace either.”
So in response to the latest attack, my question was, “Why the heck haven’t Article 4 consultations been invoked at the very least, let alone Article 5?”
For those who aren’t nerds, here’s a good explanation.
Art. 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty allows the Allies to consult and cooperate in areas related to security and defense, while art. 5 enshrines NATO's fundamental task, namely collective defense, so "an armed attack against an ally in Europe or North America is considered an attack against all".
If it’s quite obvious that Russia is behind these attacks, why has NATO not done anything? That’s why we have a NATO, right?
One of my contacts is Edward Hunter Christie - a former NATO official, a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, and someone I respect and consider an expert in this topic.
I was incredibly lucky that Dr. Christie opted to give me some insights into the answer I sought.
“It's the old problem of non-military, so-called sub-threshold attacks,” he replied. NATO is getting a bit better about addressing these attacks, such as the NATO deployment to the Baltic Sea after the sabotage acts against subsea infrastructure.
Unfortunately, however, low-level political subversion, isn’t really considered an attack, and western powers are at a disadvantage there.
“Maybe it’s time to reevaluate the definition of ‘attack’,” I replied. “I think we’ll be seeing more and more of these non-military attacks, and Moscow is counting on NATO countries viewing warfare in the traditional way.”
As I mentioned earlier, these attacks are cheaper, easier to conduct, using some witless, angry, third parties, and provide Russia with plausible deniability and the opportunity to continue painting itself as a victim of western “Russophobia.” Of course, Moscow will count on NATO doing things the old way! As long as there are no Russian troops goosestepping into Warsaw, NATO’s response will almost certainly be muted.
After all, it’s not a military attack, and frankly, no one wants a hot war between NATO and Russia!
Russian drones violate NATO nations’ airspace? Nope, not an attack. No one was harmed, right?
Russia wages a shadow war on NATO? Nope, not an attack. Below “the threshold of war.”
The discussion about reevaluating the threshold of attacks on NATO members “has been going on, quite openly, for over 10 years and very little has changed,” according to Dr. Christie. But alliance dynamics actually dampen the response. “The danger comes from those European allies that are reflexively afraid of any kind of assertive move against Russia, e.g. Germany, Italy,” he continued. “They're not on the ‘frontline’ and their main fear is losing alliance unity, so they both create and gravitate towards the lowest common denominator.”
That fear is so great, that NATO is getting defanged, and members are considering unilateral action. Finland seized the Eagle S and prohibited its crew members from leaving the country.
The Biden administration didn’t help the situation with its “escalation management” strategy and palpable fear of Russia. NATO’s strongest and biggest ally was so terrified of Russia until the very end, that it only imposed REALLY significant sanctions against Russian energy just a few days before President Biden left office!
So what to do?
Well, bureaucracy is never easy, and NATO has it, much like any multinational organization.
A NATO member has to feel threatened enough to call for Article 4 consultations. That’s when NATO members begin consultations. Decisions about how to counter the threat have to be taken unanimously.
Does the threat really exist? How do you deal with it?
The decision is not easy, because it can lead to a protracted war. The only time NATO invoked the Article 5 collective security guarantee was after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. NATO sent forces to Afghanistan after the al-Qa'ida attacks on America with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), where NATO took the lead in 2003, and the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) which ended in 2021.
Article 4 consultations were triggered by the Baltic countries after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But Article 4 doesn’t mean the alliance will act. So for example when Türkiye triggered Article 4 consultations in 2020, NATO consulted but did not act.
I would submit that with Hungary being part of the alliance, Putin’s pet EU darling Orban will block any decision to act against his master.
Many Europeans do worry that President Trump will abandon NATO altogether, especially with isolationists like Thomas Massie and Mike Lee on Capitol Hill advocating that the United States leave the alliance - at one of the most dangerous periods in NATO history.
But for now, the United States continues to be part of the alliance and is NATO’s strongest member. Trump values strength, and NATO provides it, even as Putin pushes the boundaries and continues to defy Trump, regardless of recent threats of more severe sanctions.
At the same time, I do believe it’s time for NATO members to step up individually. “Maybe it’s time for NATO nations to start acting unilaterally and decisively like Finland,” I told Dr. Christie. This doesn’t mean send troops into Russia, but certainly send resources to defend borders, seize Russian vessels that undermine NATO’s infrastructure, and arrest and prosecute those involved in attacks, like Germany did with Krasikov.
If Russia continues to increase attacks or winds up sending troops, NATO is going to have to act, and most NATO countries are beginning to realize this. European NATO members and Canada have already begun to increase defense spending, raising military spending by 20 percent last year over 2023.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine prompted members of the alliance to understand the importance of dedicating resources to their national defense. When I worked the issue of NATO defense budgets back in the day, only a handful of NATO members—the United States, the UK, Poland, and Estonia among them—met that 2 percent of GDP defense spending benchmark. Now, according to recent numbers, 23 of the NATO’s 32 members meet that goal.
Impressive, but the defense burden is only part of NATO members’ effectiveness. Defense burden can be deceptive if a country’s GDP is small. And defense budgets can be misspent or marred by corruption, impacting defense capabilities.
That’s why NATO has other benchmarks, including spending at least 20 percent of the defense budget on military procurement and at no more than 50 percent on personnel. This makes sense. Personnel spending is generally the biggest portion of a defense budget, and some countries make their militaries an attractive retirement gig for officers or corrupt officials.
NATO members must make progress on discussing the definition of “attack,” so that Russia’s hybrid warfare (really just regular warfare using other means, instead of conventional troops) can be considered. Otherwise, Russia will continue to rely on NATO’s old strategies of working to avoid war at all costs, even at the cost of its members having their sovereignty and independence undermined.
And as long as Russia knows that NATO will shy away from collective defense because these attacks don’t involve conventional military forces, it will continue these more effective, less expensive attacks to weaken NATO.
And we will continue to see attacks on everything from critical infrastructure to opposition figures in the West to scores of migrants being dropped off at NATO countries’ borders and instructed to flood the gates.
Russia is using unconventional strategies to attack its enemies in the West. It’s time NATO adjusted.