From Kaliningrad To Svalbard: Five Scenarios Under Which The Kremlin Could Strike At NATO
- 26.07.2026, 11:45
Experts from the Atlantic Council identified the most likely directions.
On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, expecting a short campaign and the subjugation of the entire country. The plan failed: Ukraine put up fierce resistance, and after nearly four and a half years, the war has turned into a protracted and bloody battle of attrition that has completely transformed the security landscape in Europe.
A direct consequence was Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO, which is why the Baltic Sea is increasingly referred to as “NATO’s lake.” At first glance, the situation for Kremlin dictator Putin is extremely dire, writes Ynet News. Russia’s losses are estimated at approximately 400,000 killed and about 700,000 wounded or missing.
Most of its modern tanks have been destroyed—first by anti-tank missiles, then by cheap Ukrainian drones. The Black Sea Fleet lost its flagship and numerous ships and, in essence, failed to play a decisive role. Ukraine is increasingly striking deep into Russia with its own drones, inflicting serious damage on oil infrastructure. The economy has been put on a war footing: 42% of the budget—nearly 7% of GDP—is allocated to defense.
It would seem logical for Putin to seek a way out of the war. However, according to sources close to the Kremlin, he is determined to continue the war until his objectives are achieved and is even prepared for escalation, the article states.
Why Putin Feels More Confident Than He Appears
To understand the Kremlin’s next move, one must view the situation through Putin’s own eyes. From his perspective, Russia’s situation is far from desperate. There is essentially no domestic political pressure capable of undermining his power: the opposition has been suppressed, the oligarchs and security officials are loyal, and the public is being indoctrinated by propaganda that portrays the war as a “holy” struggle against the West.
Russians, raised in a tradition of collective endurance, are absorbing enormous losses without large-scale protests, according to media reports.
The economy has not collapsed, as the West expected: in 2024, it grew by 3.4%. Russia is self-sufficient in food and energy, possesses the largest reserves of natural resources, has built a “shadow fleet” of hundreds of tankers to circumvent sanctions, and relies on the support of China, Iran, and North Korea.
A window of opportunity to shatter NATO’s “illusion of deterrence”
If the regime is stable, why would Putin embark on a new adventure beyond Ukraine? Analysts believe that two factors converge in his mind: the stalemate on the Ukrainian front and what he perceives as historical fissures within NATO.
Putin may view U.S. demands that Europe sharply increase defense spending, the Trump administration’s transactional approach, and talk of reducing the American presence in Europe as an opportunity.
He believes that the Western order can be destroyed. According to his calculations, if Russia attacks a small, isolated section of a NATO country’s territory, and the alliance fails to respond with a unified military force—whether out of fear of nuclear escalation or due to internal divisions—then Article 5 of the charter will prove to be an empty promise, and NATO will effectively cease to exist.
This warning comes from an Atlantic Council report authored by military expert Richard Hooker titled “Putin’s Next Move? Five Scenarios for a Russian Attack for Which Europe Must Prepare.” It outlines five scenarios—ranging from the riskiest for Moscow to the least risky.
1. A land corridor to Kaliningrad (highest risk). Russian forces from Belarus launch a surprise attack through Lithuania to connect the Russian mainland with the Kaliningrad enclave.
This would physically cut off Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia from the rest of Europe, but it would almost certainly draw Poland’s powerful army into the war—the risk for Putin is enormous.
2. Seizure of the Swedish island of Gotland (medium-high risk). Gotland, in the heart of the Baltic Sea, is called the “unsinkable aircraft carrier.” Control over it would allow Russia to disrupt NATO’s sea and air communications, deploy radars and missiles threatening Stockholm, and at the same time “punish” Sweden for joining the alliance.
3. Hybrid warfare in eastern Estonia (medium risk). The area around the city of Narva is predominantly ethnic Russian. Instead of open warfare, Moscow could use “little green men,” agents, and propaganda to provoke unrest, seize buildings, and declare a “people’s republic”—following the 2014 Crimea-Donbas scenario.
The West would be faced with an awkward question: Is it prepared to go to war over a small city whose residents are portrayed as wanting to join Russia?
4. A rapid strike on Finland’s Åland Islands (medium-low risk). Under international agreements, the archipelago is completely demilitarized.
A sudden seizure by a marine landing force would give the Kremlin control over a vital passage to Helsinki and Stockholm and would deal a painful blow to the new NATO member.
5. The “Cold Trap” of Svalbard (according to the authors—the most likely scenario). Svalbard (Spitsbergen) is a remote Arctic archipelago of Norway with special status: under a 1920 treaty, it is demilitarized, and citizens of the signatory countries have equal rights to reside there and engage in economic activities.
Russia has maintained a presence there for decades (the settlement of Barentsburg) and regularly accuses Norway of violating the treaty—which suggests that it is laying the groundwork for future actions.
The operation could unfold in several stages: first, saboteurs would cut the undersea cables, cutting off Oslo’s communications; then, special forces disguised as tourists and workers would seize the only airport; next, heavy transport ships would disembark marines from the Northern Fleet, who would take control of the ports and the satellite communications hub without resistance.
In a matter of hours, Russia would deploy air defense systems and anti-ship missiles, creating a zone that NATO could not enter without suffering enormous losses.
Next comes the political and psychological trap: Moscow would announce that it has “temporarily” occupied the islands to protect its citizens and warn that any attempt to retake them would provoke a harsh response, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Western leaders, weary of the war in Ukraine, will be forced to ask themselves: Are they willing to risk a third world war over a few frozen islands?
If NATO hesitates and limits itself to sanctions instead of a military response, Putin will achieve what may be his greatest strategic victory: Article 5 will be exposed as an empty promise, and the alliance will begin to fall apart.