Skip to main content

**Is Russia Preparing to Test NATO’s Article 5?

The Growing Risk of a Limited “Small War” in the Baltics or Finland — And Why the Alliance Must Integrate Ukraine’s Combat-Proven Expertise**

For three years, Russia has been fighting a full-scale war against Ukraine. But if we examine Moscow’s mobilisation reforms, defence-industrial expansion, and strategic rhetoric, a broader picture emerges:
The Kremlin is preparing not only for a long war, but also for the possibility of expanding the conflict beyond Ukraine.

Russia’s recent actions point to a shift from a single-theatre operation to a multi-axis confrontation with the West:

  • transition to year-round conscription and continuous mobilisation;

  • rapid expansion of ammunition, missile, and UAV production;

  • reorientation of the economy to a war-time footing;

  • escalation in narrative framing the conflict as a struggle against NATO itself.

Given these developments, one critical question arises:
Is Russia preparing to test NATO’s Article 5 through a rapid, limited operation, counting on the Alliance’s slow political decision-making?

This scenario—while still not the most probable—has become increasingly plausible. And the consequences would be profound for European security and for Ukraine.

1. The Logic Behind a Russian “Small War” Against NATO

The Kremlin does not need to invade a large NATO country to undermine the Alliance.
A small, rapidly executed strike might be enough.

Possible Russian objectives:

  • create a fait accompli before NATO reaches consensus;

  • expose political divisions within the Alliance;

  • force the West into negotiation dynamics favourable to Moscow;

  • divert military resources and political attention away from Ukraine.

Potential targets:

  1. A border area in Estonia or Latvia
    – regions with logistical value or Russian-speaking populations.

  2. A sparsely populated zone in Finland
    – presented as a “buffer” or “security measure”.

  3. Hybrid destabilisation of Moldova
    – regime pressure without direct conflict with NATO.

Russia would aim to complete such an operation within days, calculating that NATO’s consensus-driven mechanisms will not be able to respond quickly enough.

2. Why This Scenario Is Dangerous for NATO — and for Ukraine

For NATO:

  • A delayed response undermines the credibility of Article 5.

  • Political divisions may block decisive action.

  • Russia gains leverage in negotiations on European security.

For Ukraine:

  • Western resources may be shifted to a new front.

  • Media and political focus would be diverted.

  • Moscow could attempt to freeze or reshape the Ukrainian front on its own terms.

  • Russia may intensify missile and drone campaigns against Ukraine to exploit NATO’s distraction.

A Russian “limited incursion” is not only a threat to NATO’s eastern flank — it is also a strategic threat multiplier against Ukraine.

3. NATO’s Critical Vulnerability: Reaction Time

NATO possesses overwhelming military superiority over Russia.
But Russia has a different advantage: speed of political decision-making.

Moscow understands that:

  • Article 5 is not automatic;

  • consultations can take hours or days;

  • several allies may prefer “de-escalation”;

  • Russia can exploit confusion in the early phase of a crisis.

Thus, Russia may aim for a micro-scale operation that is “too small for war, too big to ignore.”

The Kremlin wants to force NATO into an impossible dilemma:
either escalate into a major war or accept a limited territorial loss.

4. NATO Needs a New Source of Advantage — and Ukraine Already Has It

NATO’s eastern members have strong political will and growing defence budgets.
But they lack one thing Russia has—and Ukraine has even more:

Real, large-scale combat experience against the Russian military.

Ukraine uniquely possesses:

  • experience defeating Russian mechanised assaults;

  • tactical and technological countermeasures against drones and FPV swarms;

  • practical EW/EW-resilience expertise;

  • experience in distributed defence, urban resilience, territorial defence models;

  • understanding of Russian deception, hybrid operations, and early-stage invasion patterns.

This experience cannot be simulated, and no NATO member has it at the scale Ukraine does.

5. Why NATO Should Integrate Ukrainian Military Consulting Teams

For NATO, Ukraine is not only a partner but a strategic capability multiplier.

Ukrainian combat-experienced teams can provide immediate value across four domains:

5.1. Strengthening Territorial Defence and Resistance Networks

Ukrainian instructors can help NATO members:

  • build territorial defence forces from scratch;

  • train rapid-response volunteer units;

  • develop urban defence, stay-behind, and partisan infrastructures;

  • organise local resistance in case of temporary occupation;

  • prepare municipalities and civilian officials for crisis response.

This directly counters Russia’s strategy of rapid penetration and local collapse.

5.2. Red-Teaming and Stress-Testing NATO Defence Plans

Ukrainian experts can conduct:

  • red-team assessments simulating Russian attack patterns;

  • audits of border defence readiness;

  • analysis of mobilisation plans under real-world conditions;

  • independent evaluation of logistics, infrastructure, and command resilience;

  • scenario planning for “48-hour crisis windows”.

These teams understand how Russia actually fights today, not how its doctrine looked on paper 10 years ago.

5.3. Selecting and Deploying the Most Effective Modern Capabilities

Based on battlefield experience, Ukraine can advise NATO on:

  • optimal UAV and FPV configurations;

  • effective counter-UAV and EW systems;

  • layered air defence for small territories;

  • sensor-to-strike integration models;

  • low-cost engineering solutions with high operational impact.

This helps allies avoid wasted procurement cycles and adopt what actually works under Russian conditions.

5.4. Rapid Training Programs for Military and Civil Authorities

Ukraine can support NATO states by delivering:

  • drone operator training programs;

  • counter-sabotage and counter-infiltration training;

  • civil defence and critical infrastructure resilience courses;

  • interagency crisis management exercises;

  • urban warfare and resistance operations training.

This compresses NATO preparedness cycles from years to months.

6. Strategic Imperative

The integration of Ukrainian battlefield expertise is not a symbolic gesture.
It is a necessity if NATO wants to:

  • reduce reaction time;

  • deny Russia the advantage of surprise;

  • increase the credibility of Article 5;

  • deter limited incursions by making them non-viable;

  • prepare frontline states for the first 24–72 hours — the decisive window.

Ukraine's experience is operational, current, and directly relevant to Russia’s modern tactics.
It is the most valuable real-world dataset available to NATO today.

 

7. Conclusion

Russia may attempt a limited, rapid operation against a small NATO state — not to win territory, but to break the Alliance’s credibility.

To prevent this, NATO must act faster than Russian planning cycles.
The most effective way to do this is to integrate Ukraine’s combat-tested operational knowledge, advisory teams, and resistance-building expertise into NATO defence planning.

Ukraine is not only fighting for its own survival —
it is generating the frontline experience that can help secure the entire European continent.

If NATO wants to ensure Article 5 works tomorrow,
it must learn from the country that survived—and adapted to—the largest European war of the 21st century today.