Russia would have to commit to a full-scale military operation if it attempted to seize territory in Estonia, rather than relying on a limited incursion that could be contained below the threshold of a wider NATO response, according to an Estonian defence expert.
Merili Arjakas, a research fellow at the International Centre for Defence and Security and editor-in-chief of foreign policy magazine Diplomaatia, said Moscow could not assume that an operation in Estonia or the wider Baltic region would remain localised.
Her comments follow renewed speculation over whether Russia could seek to exploit vulnerabilities in the Baltic states, including the possibility of an operation targeting Narva, the Estonian city on the Russian border.
The Institute for the Study of War has previously assessed scenarios in which Russian agents could seek to seize key infrastructure in Narva, while long-range drones launched from Russian territory could provide another potential avenue for pressure.
Read more related news:
Europe warns Russia’s ‘hybrid war’ is becoming a direct attack on NATO
Evacuation plans drawn up for NATO corridor exposed to Russian attack
Streeting warns Britain faces unprecedented risk of war with Russia
Putin targets 1.55m active troops as Europe watches nervously
But Arjakas warned that any Russian attack would risk triggering a much broader confrontation.
“Russia cannot expect that any such attack against Estonia or the Baltic states will remain limited, as if the European states had not learned anything from the annexation in Crimea and the war in Donbas, which led to the full-scale invasion eight years later,” she told the Express.
“That is not to say that Russia is not an aggressive power or that Putin does not dream of the collapse of NATO. Rather, any incursion will face a strong and immediate response from us and our partners.”
A limited operation aimed at testing NATO’s resolve would therefore carry substantial risks, she argued.
“Therefore, if I were Russia and I wanted to attack Estonia or the Baltics, I would go all-in, not think that any limited incursion to Narva or to other places would be enough,” Arjakas said.
She nevertheless argued that Russia had so far avoided creating the conditions for a direct conventional confrontation with NATO, even as its willingness to operate below the threshold of an overt alliance conflict had increased.
“Fortunately for us, Russia has so far been careful to not create conditions for a large-scale confrontation with NATO,” she said.
“Its tolerance of such risk has certainly increased as they carry out more attacks that fall below the threshold for triggering Article 5.
“However, such asymmetric escalation is also characteristic of a weaker party, one that still deems it too risky to use conventional means.”
Estonia has responded to the perceived security environment by significantly increasing defence spending.
“Our defence budget for 2026 is 5.4% of GDP (€2.4billion), with major spending on ammunition, medium-range air defence, HIMARS, UAVs, anti-tank systems and territorial defence,” Arjakas said.
She added that Latvia, Lithuania and Poland had made similar investments, while Finland had developed a longstanding model of military preparedness.
“There are vulnerabilities – particularly in defence against missiles and drones, as well as in terms of reinforcement and logistics in the event of a full-scale invasion,” she said.
“But these are not vulnerabilities unique to Estonia or the eastern flank; rather, they are shared by all NATO countries except the US.”
The geography of the Baltic region presents particular challenges for NATO reinforcement, while the Suwałki corridor linking Poland and Lithuania provides the principal land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of the alliance.
Arjakas argued that the war in Ukraine remains central to preventing a wider confrontation.
“Our best way of avoiding a NATO-Russia war, whether it erupts here or elsewhere, is still to support Ukraine so the aggressor does not prevail there,” she said.
“Ukraine keeps Russian forces and resources tied down and degrades Russian military capacity, thereby not only fighting for its own survival and sovereignty but also acting as a shield for Europe.”
Her assessment reflects a wider debate over the risks facing NATO’s eastern flank, where governments have accelerated investment in ammunition, air defence and territorial forces while seeking to strengthen the alliance’s ability to reinforce the region in a crisis.
Leave a Comment