Lots of people scoff at the idea that Putin will escalate further, given their floundering impotence in Ukraine. You hear a lot of versions of “He won’t do it because he can’t possibly win in an open fight against NATO”. You’re thinking rationally, and not like he does at this point in time. It also badly misses the likeliest reason why he might do exactly that. There’s a reason why the CIA director made a surprise visit to Moscow this week.
Conquering the Baltics wouldn’t be the point. Shattering Article 5 and further corroding American divisiveness would be the prize. At least in his own sick, vile mind.
He doesn’t care about Russian lives. He probably cares more about harming NATO and the U.S. than taking land in the Baltics - but he would take whatever he can get. It’s possible he finally understands that he is not getting enough of Ukraine to justify what he’s done - and that he pivots to spiteful tantrum mode, as dictators losing wars of their own choosing have done many times before.
Having his forward forces wiped out by a strong NATO response isn’t really a strategic defeat, if the trade-off is that Trump does his job and uses it as a pretext to remove the U.S. from NATO.
Russia needs an off-ramp. They don’t deserve it, but from a saving face perspective they NEED one. And it can’t be “Welp, we tried to take all of Ukraine, but they put up a jolly good fight. Fairplay, little Ukraine. We’ll go home now”. They can’t lose to Ukraine. But - they ARE allowed to lose to NATO. And it would STILL be a credible victory from a russian perspective if the U.S. and NATO split, even if it were only temporary and conditional as long as their stooge Trump remains upright and in control.
It’s more likley than most people realize that some kind of attack happens - and the outcome on the battlefield probably isn’t what matters. A NATO fracture before Trump dies or is neutered or any limp response to an attack is a win, regardless of how many men, machines or territory is lost.
Its a bad idea - it might force Eastern NATO like Finland, Poland and Romania to act unilaterally, and it certainly will cause London, Paris and Berlin to alter their calculus. The U.S. is a non-factor until they grow up a bit - which is maybe never. But here you are. It seems very unlikely to improve anything for Russia - but what’s good for Russia strategically and what keeps Putin alive for another 6 months aren’t necessarily the same thing. It’s dangerous to think he won’t do it simply because their army would lose.
Thoughts?
Good and sober hypothesis, though I would question if he would define “is this good for me” in such cerebral terms as a ‘public miliary split’. He’s never had any problem personally undermining NATO, and this is his CIA Director flying right to the heart of Mordor without Trump mentioning it - you have to assume therefore it is urgent and backed by whoever is managing Trump’s foreign policy agenda while he fills his diaper with fresh mud. Ratcliffe’s public politics might seem reasonable, but - he has a boss. Trump has never been shy about criticizing even cabinet members when they step out of line.
Splintering Article 5 while Trump can still override american support of it would have many repercussions and it’s not at ALL assured that any of these would be net positive for Trump and Pootz. Nor does it help Trump save face in Iran. There isn’t much time left before his hand is forced in the midterms.
On balance - a russian invasion of NATO sure doesn’t look like it HELPS make Trump look strong or create net new votes. Seems like an ally with presumptive american protection getting invaded would have the opposite effect and would energize anti-trump voters who have even the basest understanding of geopolitics. But - that’s thinking with Trump interests in mind. Putin’s situation is way, way further down the Desperation Highway.
Of course he can always escalate. But so can Ukraine and it’s backers. There’s plenty of moves left to make.