European officials have increasingly expressed concerns about the potential for Russian strikes targeting NATO member states, amid a notable rise in airspace violations across the continent. Danish intelligence issued a warning on Thursday that Moscow might launch an attack on NATO within months, describing the threat as a “low but growing risk.” On the same day, a report from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency indicated that Russia could be preparing drone strikes aimed at France, Spain, and Italy, with the attacks possibly originating from maritime platforms.

Information about Russia’s suspected plans to increase interference in Europe has reportedly been shared with several European governments. A source close to Lithuania’s Ministry of Defence conveyed to Spanish media that the Kremlin may be escalating its hybrid warfare tactics. Poland recently voiced serious concerns that Russia’s hybrid methods could escalate into a conventional military assault. Despite these alerts, analysts at the Institute for the Study of War have noted that European responses have not matched the urgency of the warnings, suggesting that “action is lagging behind words.”

Experts caution that Europe’s vulnerabilities lie in several areas, including military shortfalls, political divisions among allies, and weaknesses in critical infrastructure systems such as electricity grids, transportation networks, communication channels, and water supplies. These gaps could undermine societal stability in the event of an attack.

Regarding the nature of a possible Russian operation, Katia Glod, deputy head of foreign affairs at the New Eurasian Strategies Centre, characterized the threat not as a full-scale invasion but rather as a limited, calculated kinetic strike designed to probe NATO’s resolve and unity. Such an operation could involve drone or missile strikes on critical military or civilian facilities, attacks on maritime or underwater infrastructure, or geographically confined incursions. Moscow would likely attempt to obscure its involvement, either denying responsibility or attributing incidents to accidents, similar to patterns previously observed with airspace violations.

Daniel Schatz, a Swedish political scientist with experience as a visiting scholar at several U.S. universities, highlighted the strategic importance of protecting vital logistics hubs. Noting Russia’s history of targeting Ukraine’s energy and transport infrastructure, Schatz stressed that NATO must safeguard ports, railways, power supplies, and communications networks integral to its operational readiness. He warned that even a limited military action would carry significant political weight and that a fragmented response from NATO could embolden Russia and risk miscalculations that might escalate into broader conflict.

While acknowledging the gravity of these intelligence assessments, experts emphasize that war remains avoidable. Schatz remarked that Russian President Vladimir Putin does not need to believe he can decisively defeat NATO to consider risky gambits; he may seek instead to exploit fissures within the alliance. The experience of strained transatlantic relations during the previous U.S. administration underscores the potential impact of internal divisions on NATO’s cohesion and deterrence capability.