Concern is rising within the United States and Europe that Russia is moving from testing NATO’s borders to testing its cohesion itself, with the construction of a new infrastructure for launching drones near the continent’s borders, increasing air penetrations, and American intelligence warnings of the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin will resort to a limited operation against one of the NATO countries, in a scenario that could, if it gets out of control, open the door to a direct confrontation between Moscow and NATO.
According to a report by journalist Eitam Almadon in the Israeli “N12” magazine, satellite images that the British newspaper “Telegraph” recently relied on showed a new Russian military structure that includes at least 10 bases and 59 designated launch pads, along with drones, some of which can fly a distance of nearly 1,000 kilometers.
These facilities were established along the borders with Belarus and Ukraine, while 7 of the sites have already been used in large-scale attacks on Kiev.
The location of these bases and the range of the drones present in them expand the scope of the threat far beyond Ukrainian territory, placing major cities within NATO territory, most notably Warsaw, the capital of Poland, within the potential range of targeting.
In parallel, doubts are growing in Washington about Putin’s next move, after reports abounded in recent months about an increasing Russian willingness to test the cohesion of NATO, based on an assessment in Moscow that the alliance is weaker and more fragile than it appears.
American intelligence reports, quoted by the Wall Street Journal, indicate that Putin may try to test this cohesion through a limited operation against a NATO member state, ranging from a cyber attack to a limited incursion carried out by unidentified armed forces.
According to the report, the possible time frame for such a scenario begins next fall and extends until 2029.
However, Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, former head of the NATO Military Committee, does not currently consider a Russian invasion of a NATO member state to be the most likely scenario.
Di Paola, who also served as chief of the defense staff and defense minister in Italy and currently serves as an advisor to the Israeli defense technology fund Kinetica, says he has learned in recent years not to rule out any possibility just because it seems illogical.
He said in an exclusive interview with “N12” magazine: “I do not think that Russia, while already facing a war in Ukraine, is likely to launch a conventional attack or undertake hostile action against a NATO country.”
He added: “She knows very well that in such a situation, NATO will respond.”
But Di Paula was quick to add a clear warning: “Never say never.” Russia made a huge mistake when it invaded Ukraine. “This means that no one is perfect, and even Putin can make a serious mistake.”
Di Paula believes that the most dangerous scenario is not necessarily the entry of Russian tanks across the borders of one of the NATO countries, but rather that Putin resorts to more complex action and below the level of automatic response.
He said: “I think more about media disinformation and a cyber attack.”
He added: “If Russia wanted to test the reaction of allies, their solidarity, or how they would move, it would likely attempt to carry out cyber activity, and if possible below the threshold that would warrant an Article 5 response.”
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that any attack on one country in the alliance is an attack on all of its members.
According to NATO doctrine, even a cyber attack could, in certain circumstances, justify the activation of this article, but determining the moment at which hostile cyber activity crosses the threshold that requires a collective response remains much more complex than the case of tanks crossing the border of a member state.
Di Paula gave an example of this, saying that an attack that would disrupt Estonia’s energy infrastructure would clearly exceed the required threshold, while a limited disruption of communications lines would present NATO countries with a more complex dilemma.
“This could be an attempt to disrupt a NATO communications or command and control capability, but at a level not high enough to trigger an automatic response,” he said.
According to Di Paula, the aim of such a move, if it occurs, would be to test whether the 32 countries that have pledged to defend each other will actually stand together in the moment of truth.
The Russian threat is particularly prominent on the eastern flank of the alliance, especially in the Baltic states, Poland and Romania, but Di Paula warns against treating it as a problem specific to the front-line countries only.
“All allies must be prepared,” he said.
He added: “If something happens to Estonia, because of Article 5, we, the European allies and the United States, are obligated to come to its aid.”
Di Paula stresses that this message must be clear above all in Moscow.
He said: “We have to show Russia that we are united, and that the defense of Estonia is the defense of all allies: Italy, Greece, Turkey and everyone.”
It is here that he arrives at his starkest warning, saying: “If NATO and Russia get involved in a war, it will be World War III.”
He added that such a confrontation could also carry “potential nuclear repercussions.”
Precisely for this reason, Di Paula believes that the main task before NATO is to make the Kremlin convinced that the price of any military adventure of this kind will be unsustainably high.
He said: “Deterrence means making the opponent understand that you are ready to respond quickly.”
He added: “We have to convince Putin that if he tries to do something stupid against one of the NATO countries, there will be a response. “This is the key: to make Putin absolutely convinced that he cannot try something like this against NATO.”
Meanwhile, field facts indicate that smaller Russian tests are already taking place on an almost daily basis.
According to NATO leadership data, during the month of July the number of take-offs of combat aircraft on operational missions on the eastern flank of the alliance increased by more than 250% compared to July 2025.
The alliance links this increase to the noticeable increase in Russian flights near NATO borders, which sometimes take place without the identification systems operating, in an activity that is interpreted as an attempt to collect intelligence information, demonstrate strength, and test the defense systems of the alliance countries.
The threat has already crossed the line.
In September 2025, about 19 Russian drones entered Polish airspace from Belarus, prompting NATO aircraft to take off to intercept them.
Since then, reports of similar incidents in NATO member states have increased.
About a month ago, an armed drone exploded near a Ukrainian plane parked at the German Leipzig Airport, before the incident passed without a disaster.
Russia did not claim responsibility for the incident, but Germany held it responsible this week.
When Di Paula was asked what form the limited Russian operation that American intelligence warns about could take, he replied with a smile: “If I had known, I would have been Napoleon.”
He added: “Putin is unpredictable. “Before the invasion of Ukraine, no one would have bet that Russia would invade, but they did.”
Despite these warnings, Di Paula is confident that the overall balance of power leans in favor of NATO if a direct confrontation breaks out.
If Ukraine was able, for years, to slow down the Russian army and stop its advance, then NATO, which includes 32 countries, including 3 nuclear powers, has much greater military power.
But Di Paula’s criticisms focus mainly on the distribution of burdens within the alliance and on Europe’s continued dependence on the United States.
“Allies must rebalance their contribution to NATO,” he said.
He added: “The Europeans must bear a larger share.” “Until today it has been clear that NATO’s operational capabilities have largely depended on the United States.”
This controversy is not new, as it has accompanied the alliance for decades and before the terms of US President Donald Trump, but it has acquired a sharper tone during his reign, sometimes reaching unprecedented rhetoric from an American president towards his allies.
The message coming from Washington to Europe is clear: the continent must bear much greater responsibility for its security.
However, De Paula rejects calls for a European security separation from the United States.
He said: “NATO is the best defense for Europe, and NATO means Europe plus America.”
But at the same time, he stressed that Europe must build a capacity that enables it to withstand even if Washington reduces its level of engagement in the future.
“If in the future the United States focuses on another arena and is no longer able to provide all the capabilities it currently provides, the Europeans must be able to do it themselves,” he said.
He added: “The best way is alongside the United States, but if, for any reason, it cannot be there, we must be able to do it alone.”
In addition, there is what is published about the deterioration of American ammunition stocks.
“If this worries the United States, and the United States is a central ally in NATO, then it is natural that we will also be concerned,” Di Paula said.
On the other hand, Di Paula believes that the war in Ukraine has changed the shape of the battlefield, and has revealed areas in which NATO cannot allow itself to lag behind.
“One of the things that is very prominent in warfare is the use of unmanned systems,” he said.
He added that this includes drones in the air, vehicles on land, and means operating above the surface of the water and underwater.
At a time when NATO was primarily built to confront major conventional threats, small, cheap drones can sometimes fly “under the radar,” literally and figuratively.
According to a report issued by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London (IISS), over the course of a year and a half, Moscow used drones that penetrated the airspace of at least 12 European countries, exploiting loopholes in the alliance’s defense systems.
“NATO must become a leader in the ability to use unmanned systems alongside manned systems, and in the ability to quickly move its forces to where there is danger,” Di Paula said.
He added: “He must also know how to use new technologies entering the battlefield, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, in order to respond faster and more effectively.”
Di Paula also places space among the essential areas in any future confrontation.
“Space has already become an integral part of the battlefield,” he said.
Satellites, especially those in low orbit, contribute to enhancing intelligence, surveillance and early warning capabilities.
However, above all these areas, De Paula places a priority that he considers the most urgent, which is air defense.
He said: “Air defense is the first and most important area that we must improve.”
He added that this includes “defense against missiles, hypersonic missiles, subsonic missiles, and drones.”
Here he also returns to the issue of European responsibility, considering that the continent cannot be content with relying on American systems such as Patriot.
“As Europeans, we must be able to provide a very strong air defense along all of NATO’s European territories,” he said.
He concluded by saying, “The American warning must serve as a warning bell to European allies so that they remain vigilant, with their eyes open and ready to respond.”
Thus, Western concern does not revolve only around the possibility of Russian forces crossing the borders of a NATO member state, but rather around a more ambiguous scenario in which Putin tries to test the line between provocation and war, because the real danger begins if one of the parties miscalculates the moment in which the “limited test” turns into a confrontation between two nuclear powers after which escalation is no longer controllable.
