Opening a debate
Inside NATO, allies have not yet formally drawn up plans for responding to the uptick in incidents, two of the alliance diplomats mentioned above said. 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.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated wavering on NATO and collective defense in particular also makes that debate more sensitive. “We have considered calling for Article 5,” said an Eastern European diplomat. “But we don’t want to escalate and it could backfire, as it could show Putin that Trump is not ready to help.”
Countries are discussing how to formally, quickly and collectively attribute the attacks to the Kremlin, the three diplomats said. 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.