The latest cases of drone trespassing and incursions into the airspace of NATO countries are fueling fears that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine could spread beyond their respective national territories. At the moment there have been false alarms, accidents or isolated cases, but what would happen if Putin decided to attack one of the members of the Alliance? A hypothetical scenario, at the moment, which would set in motion a complex security architecture, with protocols that provide responses of various magnitudes: political, logistical and military.
Article 5
The central pillar of collective defense is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more allies is considered an attack against all members. As also highlighted in the study “What happens if Russia attacks NATO?”, Article 5 does not trigger an automatic or identical military response for all countries. The text leaves each member state the possibility to choose what action to take, including the use of armed force. Essentially, in the event of an attack, each allied government retains its own decision-making sovereignty and must act in accordance with its own constitutional procedures. In the United States, for example, to approve the use of the armed forces requires a political step or congressional approval, depending on the presidential powers active at the time of the conflict. The obligation to provide assistance is binding, but Article 5 does not automatically declare war or require every NATO member to respond with military force.
The Atlantic Council
A violent response should also comply with international law on self-defense. For any coordinated collective military action under the NATO flag, the nature of the aggression must be formally ascertained by the North Atlantic Council, the political decision-making body of the Alliance. NATO operates following the principle of unanimous consent, therefore all member countries must agree that the incident actually constitutes an armed attack capable of triggering Article 5. A crucial step, which serves to prevent single isolated incidents from dragging NATO into a war without the consent of all governments.
Article 6 establishes geographical limits to the collective defense guarantee. In its current formulation, it identifies specific allied territories and also covers the parties’ forces, ships and aircraft in the designated areas. Article 5 does not automatically extend to allied military forces, ships or aircraft wherever they are in the world. Consequently, the location of an attack can be legally relevant even when the target undoubtedly belongs to a NATO member.
The answer
In the event that political unanimity is reached within the Atlantic Council, NATO’s operational and military contingency plans would come into force, with a response structured in different phases. The first line of defense is made up of the “Very high readiness joint task force”, a multinational force with very high operational readiness of around 5-6 thousand soldiers already deployed and active in rotation on NATO’s eastern flank. The regional defense plans approved by military leaders (New force model) provide for the ability to mobilize up to 300 thousand soldiers within 30 days, ready to reinforce the war front lines. Strategic countries such as Germany have developed detailed national plans, such as the Oplan, precisely to transform their civil, highway and railway infrastructure into a gigantic logistics hub, allowing the rapid transit of troops, heavy convoys and supplies from the Western allies towards the east.
In this scenario, our country would participate in the political decisions of the Atlantic Council and would immediately activate its military forces already integrated into NATO. From the headquarters in Solbiate Olona, Italy leads the new “Allied reaction force”, a special force trained to be sent to the attack front in just a few days. Furthermore, the country already deploys soldiers in Latvia and maintains a national task force of around 3 thousand soldiers ready to leave within a few hours of the political green light. The peninsula would inevitably become a logistical support center, both for surveillance and flight management.
Hybrid attacks
An intentional Russian missile attack against NATO territory or an armed territorial incursion would represent clear cases of “armed attack”. However, international law does not establish any minimum territorial area, number of troops or duration that must be achieved to trigger a response. Compared to the classical historical context, the current situation is decidedly more complex and does not involve an old-fashioned tank invasion. NATO’s strength could be put to the test by operations that are more difficult to classify, such as cyberattacks on critical infrastructures, sabotage on military depots, prolonged GPS interference and continuous encroachment of drones and helicopters into border territories.
All situations in which the application of Article 5 becomes more nuanced. Since it is difficult to immediately and unambiguously establish responsibility for a cyber attack or sabotage, it would be difficult for the Atlantic Council to obtain unanimous consensus for a direct military response. These are hybrid threats that can destabilize a state, without however exceeding the threshold of armed attack. For this border there is no clear line defined in international law. There is no established rule by which a certain number of drones, casualties, hours of disruption, or amount of property damage automatically distinguishes an armed attack from a minor illicit conduct.
The alternatives
Article 4 allows for consultation whenever a Member considers that the territorial integrity, political independence or security of a Party is threatened. In this case, direct military responses are not envisaged, but NATO countries can take various measures, such as strengthening the defenses of allied territory, strengthening air and cyber defenses, investigating hostile activities and imposing any diplomatic or economic measures. In August, several international outlets, citing US officials and sources familiar with intelligence assessments, expressed concern that Russia could test NATO through actions other than a conventional invasion, including cyber or hybrid operations and a possible limited territorial incursion. Unverifiable indiscretions and rumors which, however, continue to fuel the nightmare of a global war.