NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen?

Will Russia attack NATO in the coming years? In this video I discuss the recent warnings from military leaders and politicians, and I explain why the risk is bigger than many people think.

0:00 Possible war between Russia and NATO?
1:12 Wrong assumptions about a war?
2:46 Russia wants bilateral relations
4:23 Undermining NATO
7:01 A calibrated challenge of Article 5
8:06 A possible scenario
9:47 The collapse of NATO

[James-shzf]

I remember in December 2021 and January 2022, the ‘alarmists’ were also claiming that Russia would invade Ukraine…

[PapaOscarNovember]

This is why multinational 'trip wire' NATO brigades in border countries are important. Political debate in member countries to intervene can be quickly wrapped when their own soldiers are taking bullets by an aggressor.

Finland does not have one yet, but they need one soon.

I think the moment US decides to pull out of these trip wire forces, NATO is on a very shaky ground.

[uazuazu]

Whilst Ukraine is at war against Russia, they have the justification to attack within Russia and cripple Russian industry and so on. No other country has that justification. So really the best defense for NATO given these threats is to support Ukraine right now.

[wideboy]

An attack on Finland would NOT be a small, remote test of Article 5. NATO is paying a great deal of attention to it's Northern sector

[benyomovod]

I think Europs best defence is the Russian weakness in supply. But Europe must prepare for a fight without the US. We have the money, but we lack the will

[ОлегЛотошинський]

With this explanations it became clear why Sweden army commander said to prepare for possible war!👍

[sergelecluse]

This is a very enlightening video with a very pertinent point. It is important to speak about it well before that scenario becomes acute. And that the US has become a doubtful ally is a painful fact. Therefore, the EU must prepare for this type of Russian aggression and have a response planned out.
Thank you for bringing this up: as always, a great video. 👍

[jhbBouwmeester]

I agree with you on the fact that NATO might not help ( I am a historian of international affairs), so that the USA might fulfil article 5 with supply support (which is possible under article 5 too). But the EU has a far bigger commitment where you must help, so that means only non EU NATO member can not fulfil commitment on an attack on the Baltics. So a dead NATO means still an EU that has a collective defense system.

[SamHall]

The video was clear and informative as always. It's crucial that the EU and my country stop being naive, acknowledge the seriousness of this threat, and reduce our dependence on the US for defense, particularly as we witness America's growing inclination towards isolationism. We've begun to increase our ammo production, but it's still not enough. Thankfully, it appears that some political parties in my country are finally starting to grasp this reality.

[johnjoeflanagan]

We all benefit from Anders contributions. No emotion, no clickbait just informed comment. Thank you.

[ricardoospina]

That reason is why forward deployed units are needed. If Russia has to fight British, French, or American units in Finland for example, this will make them think twice before invading. Also it would be good cold weather training for those units. The Nato allies are much more likely to invoke article 5 if their troops are already dying.

[sdfp]

There is Swedish battallion of 5000 professional soldiers in northern Sweden that are immediately (under 24 hours, and even that is small amount of soldiers it will trigger war to Sweden first day) transformed to northern Finland if that kind of scenario happens. They are trained especially for that scenario and there is aggreements done for that move. So Sweden is almost immediately part of the war that is happening in northern Finland. I would say that Norway would be almost automatically part of the war that is happening in northern finland as well. Also in Finland we are having more and more american soldiers and we just made one and one DCA aggreement with USA, so USA it is not only defending Finland because of NATO. They have more to lose if they break their DCA deals (=Defence Cooperation Agreement), stopping russia in lappland is their cheap scenario under such aggreements. Edited this because people seems to miss point about that 5000 swedish soldiers. That 5000 men is just swedish quick response that is transfered under 24 hours to Finland for defense and it is enough to take Sweden to war at that same day than Russian attack to Finland. There is no additional decisions needed for transfering that 5000 soldiers. It is decided already and that amount if big enough to trigger war also in Sweden. More soldiers would come after. And by the way finnish are very patriotic also. By surveys most people from our relatively large reserve is ready to defend country. We have something like 870 000 men reserve. So when you think about Russia vs Finland war you should at least count in Finland, Sweden, Norway, UK and USA. Because in probability all of those countries is involved. Probably also baltic countries.
** !! ** Because people STILL leave me stupid comments that 5000 soldiers is nothing and again and again miss my point. Here is another reply to that same message: "Also you seems to miss the point. I told that 5000 soldiers is transferred from Sweden to Finland in first 24 hours without other decision and it is enough to take sweden to war. That is quick act force that will act without any other decisions. Russia attacks to norther Finland -> That 5000 soldiers will move to Finland without any political decisions, it is already decided and locked.. You think of that as kind of PACT. Of course 5000 is nothing. Finland have over 800 000 soldiers reserve."
"

[phillip]

Russia is pushing and NATO is acting so passively it seems disgusting to me.

[jeanettebrannstrom]

Well in Sweden we had a big cyberattack just a couple of days ago, it messed things up pretty bad, in my opinion we are already at war with russia, maybe not with tanks and artillery but in cyberspace and media, this is things that can do enormous damage to a country....

[Purple_flower]

Western Europe including the UK need to get over their hangups and past arguments and start to plan together for security on the assumption that US wont help anyone but themselves.

[mikkolukas]

I challenge the idea of northern Finland as such a target:

If Russia wanted to have the dispute with Finland without NATO being involved they have had decades to do that before Finland joined Nato.
Finland is one of the most defence-ready countries in Europe. They have a doctrine called "Total Defence" and are trained in guerilla warfare.

If Russia tried then:
* Either the nuisance would be small enough that Finland wouldn't need to trigger article 5 because they would throw out the Russians themselves. Sweden would probably show up to help anyway, due to the age-old Sweden-Finland defence pact.
* Or the invasion is so large that Finland and Sweden cannot throw the Russians out - and then it will certainly be large enough for the other NATO countries to take it seriously.

I otherwise agree with your assessment that Russia will try to challenge the coherence of NATO. I just don't believe it will be against Finland. Russia tasted that in the winter wars and Ukraine is called "Finland 2", as they show the same resilience. Going against Finland would be political suicide.

[janlindtner]

The highest art of war is to convince the opponent not to fight. Another super lecture Anders👍👍👍

[TorKarstensen]

Svalbard, Norwegian territory where ru already have a presence and where the territorial government is somewhat 'unclear' is a likely candidate.

[derkatzenfuerst]

I think you're on point.

And in addition to what you described, there will be massive disinformation campaigns and maybe a referendum of local populations that could create a strong ambiguity in Europe's public opinion. If people are not even sure about the facts anymore (just as an example: "wasn't this part of [insert country] actually an autonomous region with a mostly russian identity...?"), then it will be even harder for political leaders to mount a strong military response.
It's a terrifying scenario because Russia's invasion in Ukraine has already shown the West's priority of avoiding escalation at all costs.
But I think this doesn't work with Russia, they might even be encouraged by our attempts to deescalate. In my opinion, only a harsh and painful military intervention could deter Russia, but that of course is also a huge risk.

Thanks for the insightful analysis!

[flyawayhome]

I would say though - if the USA didn't respond to an attack on NATO, it would put all of the US's alliances in jeopardy across the globe, not just the NATO alliance, so I don't think they could risk not responding. Also - with the difficulties Russia is facing in Ukraine, it is difficult to see how they could hope to win a fight other countries such as Poland or Finland with very large and prepared militaries.