Congressman: We Need to Deter a Russian Attack on the Baltics Now | Opinion - Newsweek

Vladimir Putin has spent years probing for weakness in the West. The Baltic states may be where he tries next.

Public reporting citing U.S. officials says American intelligence assessments contemplate a limited Russian attack on a NATO country, from a cyberattack or unmarked armed groups to a small land incursion along the alliance’s eastern flank. The reported window begins as early as this fall, a change from the previous U.S. view that Putin would avoid provoking NATO while still fighting in Ukraine.

That should concern every American. Putin could convince himself he has found a weak link in NATO, gamble that the alliance will hesitate, and trigger a much larger conflict.

Deterrence depends on credibility. Putin must not be given any reason to doubt either NATO’s resolve or its ability to defend the Baltics.

NATO’s guarantee protects Americans, too: Article 5 has been invoked only once, after September 11, 2001, when our allies stood with us.

President Trump has repeatedly questioned whether the United States should defend NATO members, saying last year that “if they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.” He has since reaffirmed America’s Article 5 commitment, but now insists Putin is “not going to be attacking a NATO territory.”

I hope he is right. But mixed messages carry real risks. Earlier this year, I warned President Trump that rhetoric questioning America’s commitment to NATO risks weakening the alliance’s deterrent power. Putin should never be left wondering whether the United States would stand behind a Baltic ally.

Putin is also watching our military capacity. As I said recently, Putin is counting our munitions and thinks we are weakened.

President Trump’s war with Iran has raised serious concerns about stocks of weapons critical to defending Europe, including Patriot interceptors. Fresh public reporting says the Kremlin sees the United States as weakened by the Iran war. One person familiar with the intelligence described Moscow’s calculation bluntly: America is “depleted and can’t intervene.”

CIA Director John Ratcliffe subsequently made an unusual trip to Moscow amid reports that he warned Russia against attacking NATO, with particular concern about the Baltic states.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania say they see no evidence of an imminent conventional invasion. That is encouraging. But Putin does not need armored divisions rolling toward Tallinn, Riga, or Vilnius to create a crisis.

A drone strike on a power plant, sabotage, a cyberattack, a false-flag operation, or a small military incursion could kill people, destroy infrastructure, and test NATO’s resolve. Russia is already accused of cyberattacks, sabotage, arson, drone incursions, and other hybrid operations across Europe.

At a recent Intelligence Committee hearing, I raised exactly this danger: a Russian attack or false-flag operation against the Baltics designed to test NATO. David Feith testified that threats to critical infrastructure from drones have “matured with astonishing speed over the last five years.” Witnesses also emphasized the growing availability of inexpensive armed drones and the difficulty of defending against them.

Poland and the Baltic states are already increasing security around critical infrastructure, and one Baltic intelligence assessment warned that a false-flag attack could create “political chaos” as NATO governments debate how to respond.

We need to eliminate both doubts: whether NATO will act and whether it has the military strength to do so.

The Baltic states are doing their part. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are spending nearly 5 percent of GDP on defense while strengthening their militaries and critical infrastructure.

America and NATO should help turn that investment into air and missile defenses, counter-drone systems, electronic warfare, ammunition, long-range fires, stronger cyber defenses, and hardened energy and communications infrastructure. The Baltic states will defend themselves. They should know they will have NATO’s full backing, and Putin should know it too.

My recent visit to Ukraine reinforced how urgent that work is. I saw firsthand how fighting Russia has transformed modern warfare, from drone swarms and electronic warfare to sustaining weapons production under attack.

After my visit, I called for expanding weapons co-production with Ukraine and our allies, including vital air defenses such as Patriot missiles in Ukraine or nearby NATO countries. That would help Ukraine while increasing the supply of weapons close to NATO’s eastern flank.

If Putin doubts America’s commitment and believes our military capabilities are stretched thin, he may convince himself he can act without paying an unacceptable price. A miscalculation could leave us facing the choice deterrence is supposed to prevent: a wider war with Russia or failing to stand behind a NATO ally and damaging the collective security keeping us safe.

We should never let Putin put us in that position.

Strengthen the Baltics’ air defenses. Protect their critical infrastructure. Expand weapons coproduction with Ukraine and our allies. Replenish the weapons NATO needs. And make America’s commitment unmistakable.

Putin should see no weak link, no soft target, and no chance of dividing the alliance. That is the best way to prevent a Russian attack from becoming a wider war.Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and represents Illinois' 8th Congressional District.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.