NATO and the Red Lines Trap
Victor Ângelo
International Security Advisor. Former Under-Secretary-General of the UN
Published on: 3 July 2026, Diário de Notícias, Lisbon
Next week, the heads of state and government of 32 countries will gather in Ankara for the Annual NATO Summit. The meeting will take place in a complex international context, marked by new regional crises and historic defence commitments—following the demanding budgetary targets approved last year in The Hague. Added to this is a more intense internal debate on how to respond to a Russia that, in addition to its illegal invasion of Ukraine, threatens Western Europe.
The Clash of Two Visions
Regarding Moscow, the meeting is expected to reflect the clash between two visions:
The End of Ambiguity: One side demands an end to NATO's policy of "strategic ambiguity", arguing that the Alliance must draw clear red lines against Russian sabotage.
The Trap of Confrontation:The other warns that doing so means falling into a trap that could drag Europe into a catastrophic confrontation.
For NATO to respond effectively to the challenges of the coming decade, the summit will have to forge a synthesis: political clarity about the threat we face and the Alliance's role, combined with a deliberate and asymmetrical ambiguity regarding the types of possible responses.
A Defensive Alliance and Sovereign Choices
Any synthesis must start from a fact so often silenced: NATO is, by treaty, an alliance of collective defence whose founding purpose is the security of its members. It must be made clear that it is not an offensive pact directed against Moscow or any other state. When it participated in operations outside its area, it did so because it considered, rightly or wrongly, that Euro-Atlantic stability was at stake. Experience has taught us, now, that these operations require a demanding political and legal justification.
The Kremlin has refused to recognize the right of every sovereign state to choose its alliances. By way of example, it should be noted that Finland and Sweden did not join NATO because it was imposed by the Alliance, but rather because their citizens democratically decided that membership would decisively reinforce their security.
Ukraine's aspiration to closer integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures is no different—it is a sovereign choice. Russia has no right of veto over the independent decisions of its neighbours. Treating NATO's open-door policy as an act of hostility is not a legitimate attitude; it is an obsolete claim based on the theory of spheres of influence that International Law does not recognize and which the defensive character of NATO contradicts.
The Limits of Ambiguity vs. The Reality of Deterrence
The defenders of clarity are right in their diagnosis: ambiguity, when confused with a lack of response, fails. NATO's strategy has consisted of leaving the boundaries of the tolerable undefined. Thus, Moscow seems to have viewed this restraint as hesitation and weakness. Therefore, in recent years, it has intensified its destabilization campaigns against several Western European states, utilizing drones, cyberattacks, naval assets, as well as elimination operations and assassination attempts on European figures and former spies who have taken refuge in the EU and the UK.
These are not mere incidents in the grey zone. They are hostile acts that, in certain cases, can approach the threshold of war. Refusing to name them can convey the perception that these acts have not yet crossed the political barrier that would trigger a harsher response. Remaining silent to avoid aggravating the situation is false prudence.
On the other hand, the pragmatists are equally right. Demanding that NATO define public and unequivocal red lines for a hybrid confrontation ignores the fundamental principle of deterrence: a red line only has credibility if member states are prepared to respond, including, as a last resort, with military means, to a deliberate violation.
If NATO declares that sabotaging critical telecommunications infrastructure constitutes an act of war, what happens the next morning? Responding with military force could trigger a wider conflict. Failing to respond forcefully exposes the red line as a bluff. That outcome would be a disaster, capable of severely compromising NATO's credibility. Strategic ambiguity does not reveal weakness; it provides the flexibility to decide on the most appropriate retaliation and leaves the adversary in doubt as to the limits they must not cross.
A Path Forward for the Summit
A strong declaration from the 32 member states—that clandestine operations constitute hostile actions against the security of the allies—will give governments the political mandate to mobilize resources, reinforce infrastructure, and explain to citizens what is at stake. This must reaffirm, in the same breath, that NATO seeks nothing from Russia other than respect for the sovereignty and security of its members.
The summit will have to focus on three essential political strands:
1. Strengthening cooperation within NATO.
2. Intensifying the support of the various allied states
for Ukraine.
3. Having the courage to take diplomatic initiatives that serve peace.
At the operational level, certain lines require equal attention:
- Refining analytical capacity, based on unreserved
cooperation with allied intelligence services.
- Increasing maritime surveillance.
- Protecting critical infrastructure.
- Investing substantially in the cyber domain.
None of this requires NATO to become something different
from what it has always been. The Alliance does not need rigid red lines, nor
proclamations that force it to choose between escalation and a loss of
credibility. It must state, in no uncertain terms, that it does not seek to
encircle Russia or threaten its security, but that it will not accept
intimidation, sabotage, or subversion as normal instruments of relations
between states. Its strength will lie in that equilibrium: political
firmness, strategic prudence, and a determination that the adversary can
neither measure nor anticipate.
No comments:
Post a Comment