WASHINGTON—Russian President Vladimir Putin could try to test NATO’s resolve with a limited assault on an allied country in the next few years, according to new U.S. intelligence reports that posit possible scenarios ranging from a cyberattack to a small-scale land incursion.
The assessments, described by U.S. officials, come amid a shortfall in certain critical munitions that the military would need to confront Russia or China in a potential future war. The U.S. has severely degraded its stockpile of these weapons because of transfers to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion, as well as the U.S. conflict with Iran. Stockpiles at risk include long-range Precision Strike Missiles and Army Tactical Missile Systems, as well as short-range Stinger surface-to-air missiles, other officials said.
The U.S. had previously assessed that Putin wouldn’t provoke a North Atlantic Treaty Organization country while he is still fighting in Ukraine. But that assessment changed earlier this year, the U.S. officials said, as Putin is squeezed in Ukraine and under pressure at home to secure a victory. Kyiv’s drones are inflicting growing damage on both Russia’s army and oil industry, while Putin’s forces are making smaller gains at the front line amid heavy casualties.
U.S. and European leaders increasingly see signs of Russia conducting probing attacks to test NATO’s resolve, including Russian cruise missiles that have landed in Poland and drones flown into Romania .
Putin’s goal in attacking NATO during a continuing war with Ukraine, if it happens, would be to fracture the alliance, the U.S. officials said.
“The question mark is how the United States would respond in that case,” said Heather Conley , senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, on a possible Russian incursion. “It has always been a goal [of Russia’s] to challenge the credibility of NATO and to separate the United States from its allies.”
With Putin struggling to secure the gains he wants in Ukraine, U.S. intelligence officials have been analyzing whether Moscow intends to escalate its aggressive actions toward European allies in the near term, the people said. The concern is that Putin may become more dangerous when backed into a corner, the U.S. officials said.
The possible threats range from a cyberattack on a NATO country or sending unmarked armed groups to occupy territory to a limited incursion on the alliance’s eastern flank. The time frame for any move by Russia is estimated to happen between this fall and 2029, according to the U.S. intelligence assessments.
The likelihood of the most extreme scenario—a limited land incursion—is low, but gets higher as time goes on, according to the reports. Such a move has always been considered extremely unlikely because it would trigger NATO’s Article 5, which commits members to collective defense. But Article 5 isn’t as clear about NATO’s response to cyber or hybrid threats.
“This has always been NATO’s challenge to respond to a sub-Article Five attack, and it’s been very true that to this point, NATO allies have preferred not to escalate,” Conley said. When Russia launched a series of cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, for example, the country chose to manage the crisis bilaterally.
Spokesmen for the Defense Department and NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe declined to discuss sensitive intelligence. A spokesperson for the Office of the Director for National Intelligence didn’t respond to a request for comment.
“We are always thinking through and preparing for any number of scenarios. NATO is watching and we are ready to deter and defend as necessary, which we continue to demonstrate,” said Col. Martin O’Donnell, a NATO spokesman.
The new assessments compound existing concerns among U.S. officials about a shortfall in certain critical munitions. In addition to certain long- and short-range missiles, other stores of critical air defenses are also low, including Patriot, SM-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, as well as Thaad radars and air defense artillery units, officials said.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell called claims of munition shortages false. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the U.S. military had “more than enough” munitions to “serve all of President Trump’s strategic goals,” while adding that the president has urged defense contractors to produce more munitions .
“We have everything required to strike at the time and place of the President’s choosing,” Parnell said. “Across multiple combatant commands, we have already executed successful operations while maintaining a deep, ready arsenal to defend our people and our interests. Any adversary who confuses media noise with American weakness will discover the truth the hard way.”
In a potential conflict with Russia, weapons such as the Precision Strike Missile and Army Tactical Missile Systems, both of which are fired by the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, and Stinger missiles are crucial to repel a land invasion, said Tom Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The shortfall of critical munitions has sparked a debate within the U.S. government about declining weapons stocks as Trump weighs next steps in Iran. Gen. Dan Caine , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned the White House of fewer air-defense interceptors, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. The issue is a concern for Caine, who believes that the low inventories wouldn’t preclude a resumption of major combat operations against Iran, but would add to the risk.
Analysts outside the government have repeatedly cautioned that the expenditure of munitions in the Middle East could hamper the U.S.’s ability to deter adversaries around the globe, including not only Russia but also China.
A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies covered the seven key munitions that had been used in the war with Iran. For example, the updated report estimates that the U.S. has expended 1,060-1,430 Patriot missiles in the Iran war, leaving as few as 870 in America’s arsenal.
“If it’s just a question of fighting Iran, even though we’ve used half of the interceptors, a little more, we still have half of them left. So we could go on against Iran for quite some time,” said Mark Cancian, a co-author of the CSIS report. “The problem is that the Pentagon is now very worried about what this does in the Western Pacific with China.”
