What’s at stake if NATO falls? A deep dive on Russia’s hit list 

Almost 20 years ago, Vladimir Putin set out with striking clarity his ambition for Russia to regain its status as a global superpower capable of challenging American hegemony. In his 2007 speech at the Munich Conference on International Security Policy, the Russian president claimed that Russia had transitioned to democracy; but the speech revealed a nostalgic yearning for the Soviet era, when Moscow’s sphere of influence extended across half of Europe. 

For Putin, the primary obstacle to this resurgence was the prospect of former Soviet territories joining NATO. He described any expansion of the alliance as “a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust” between Russia and the West. The speech was not merely predictive but cautionary, a warning that foreshadowed Putin’s expansionist drive to reclaim Russia’s former glory. 

That trust, if it ever fully existed, evaporated entirely with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The invasion was not an isolated manoeuvre, but the clearest expression of the strategic worldview Putin had outlined years earlier. On Tuesday at The Conduit, Sam Kiley, World Affairs Editor at The Independent, interviewed two global experts on international conflict on defence as the defining issue of our times. Both speakers agreed that while headlines have rightly focused on conflicts in Venezuela and the Middle East, simmering conflicts put NATO at risk , as well as the fragile peace the alliance has maintained.  

NATO was created in 1949 in the aftermath of the Second World War, when much of Europe lay devastated and politically fragile. Its treaty created a collective defence that defines an attack on one member as an attack on all. This commitment was designed to deter aggression, particularly from the Soviet Union, and to bind North America and Europe into a shared security framework. In the decades since, NATO has evolved into a cornerstone of the global order, not only preventing major war between great powers but also providing stability that underpins international trade and democratic institutions. That role is being tested again as Russia’s return to large-scale warfare has revived the core threat NATO was created to deter. 

At the start of the event, the speakers posed a seemingly perplexing question: Why does a continent of 450 million people need the United States, a country of 350 million people, to help protect itself from Russia, which cannot even win a war against Ukraine, a country of only 40 million people? The answer was as chilling as it was simple: Russia has become a country wholly focused on doing one thing: war. The speakers made clear that Putin is trapped in an existential crisis of his own making and is willing to pay any price to accomplish his aims. He cannot afford to lose in Ukraine, and the West cannot afford for him to win. A Russian victory would not only expand Moscow’s sphere of influence, but also send a loud signal to every former Soviet country that Putin will face no military consequences if he crosses their borders. 

Almost 4 years on, Putin’s military expansion into Ukraine looks like a catastrophic error that has cost his country an estimated million lives. Yet, as the speakers explained, in 2022 the move appeared strategically rational. Russia’s complete control of Belarus was achieved without firing a single shot. The same logic underpinned the invasion of Ukraine, with plans to take Kyiv within six weeks, face minimal resistance, and then move on to Moldova. Once Ukraine fell, the Balkans were expected to follow. The dominoes would continue to topple without the widespread use of force. Georgia offers a sobering example: Once heavily pro-Western, the country has been deterred by Russian threats from moving closer to the European Union and from pursuing NATO membership. 

But while speakers were clear on the threats Putin’s military expansion poses to NATO countries, the elephant – if not mammoth – in the room was Greenland. Ahead of meeting at the White House on Wednesday hosted by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen issued a statement beside his Danish counterpart that his people would “choose” Denmark over the US. Donald Trump has threatened to use military force to gain control of the independent Nordic territory and last week Vance told Fox News Greenland is “critical” for US defence. The danger at this volatile time is that US military intervention would spell the end of the NATO alliance as we know, and it could embolden Putin to take further military action in Eastern Europe.  

Despite these concerns, recent bipartisan action in Congress offers a glimmer of hope. Last month, the House passed legislation requiring the maintenance of 76,000 troopsin Europe and prohibiting the removal of major military equipment from the continent. While recent decisions on the use of force sometimes seem driven more by instinct than careful strategy, the speakers emphasized that the American military remains acutely aware that without a strong European front, it becomes suddenly exposed to threats along its eastern flank.

But while NATO faces external pressure, internal pressures also risk weakening the alliance.  Article Three of the NATO treaty obliges member countries to maintain the capacity to defend themselves. Yet, it was revealed this week, the United Kingdom does not have a comprehensive national defence plan, placing it in violation of the treaty. Speakers also warned that polling reveals a stark disconnect between public perception and reality with only two in ten Britons saying they would take up arms to defend their country. At the same time, a Ukrainian general recently warned that Russian forces are willing to sacrifice fifteen of their own soldiers just to locate a single Ukrainian drone pilot. 

This willingness to incur massive losses to achieve even a minor tactical gain underscores the urgent need to bolster national and collective defence. The speakers closed the discussion with an ominous anecdote from a conversation with a senior Ukrainian official, who said that Russia has already “priced in” how they would fight a collective NATO defence for 400km once Ukraine falls. What today is perceived as an abstract threat could very quickly turn into a full-scale war, the likes of which Europe has not seen since 1945. The cost will not only be measured in security, but in the preservation of democratic order itself.