Putin ‘could push NATO into WW3 with deadly hybrid attack’
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, has warned NATO that Russia’s expanding campaign of sabotage and disruption in Europe could lead to someone being killed. He said the alliance would then face a difficult decision about what counts as an attack and how to respond, as there is no agreed definition in advance.
The concerns include cyber attacks, airspace violations and suspected sabotage linked to efforts to weaken European support for Ukraine. Poland and Estonia have requested NATO consultations under Article 4 after airspace incursions; Article 5, the alliance’s mutual-defence clause, has been invoked only once, following the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US. Sikorski urged European countries to restrict Russian diplomatic activity and require biometric passports for Russians entering the EU.
- Poland warns Russian sabotage could become fatal.
- NATO would have to judge how to respond.
- Sikorski urges tighter limits on Russian diplomats and travel.
New here? Start with this
NATO members have become increasingly concerned about Russian activities that fall short of traditional military attacks but cause real damage. These include cyber attacks, airspace violations, and suspected sabotage, which some link to efforts to weaken European support for Ukraine and destabilise the continent.
NATO's mutual defence clause, Article 5, requires member countries to treat an attack on one as an attack on all and respond accordingly, but it has only been invoked once in the alliance's history. The concern is that hybrid attacks could eventually cause deaths or major damage, yet NATO members have not agreed in advance on whether such incidents would count as attacks requiring a collective response.
This ambiguity is problematic because if a hybrid attack causes deaths, member states may struggle to agree on whether to respond militarily, potentially undermining the alliance's fundamental principle of collective defence. Poland and Estonia have been particularly vocal about the threat, with both countries raising the issue at NATO after detecting suspected airspace incursions.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Russia's expanding campaign of hybrid attacks—sabotage, cyberattacks, airspace violations—represents a deliberate attempt to destabilise NATO and undermine support for Ukraine, and these operations are escalating. The current ambiguity about what constitutes an armed attack under Article 5 creates a dangerous gap: if Russian activities kill someone or cause significant infrastructure damage, NATO could find itself forced to make a hasty decision about its response, potentially miscalculating and triggering unintended escalation. Establishing clear thresholds and deterrent measures in advance, including tighter controls on Russian diplomatic presence, would reduce this risk by removing ambiguity and signalling NATO's resolve to resist further escalation.
The case against
Whilst Russian hybrid operations are troubling, the existing flexibility in NATO's Article 5 framework has successfully prevented direct military conflict between the alliance and Russia despite years of escalating tensions. Pre-defining attack thresholds could be counterproductive, creating boundaries that Russia might deliberately exploit by remaining just below the limit, or forcing NATO to respond militarily to incidents that could be handled through other means. Restricting Russian diplomacy further could also be counterproductive by removing channels for crisis communication and negotiation, whereas NATO would be better served by strengthening its defensive capabilities and resilience rather than expanding triggers for military escalation.