It is all too easy to become absorbed in trying to understand today’s events. Yet it is crucial that we also look ahead to developments already visible on the horizon. Especially those with long and troubling historical precedents.
One such event looms large in Europe’s security landscape: Zapad 2025. This major Russian military exercise, scheduled for European autumn this year, deserves more attention than it is currently receiving. The implications for European security could be profound.
Zapad, meaning “West” in Russian, has a lengthy history stretching back decades. These exercises were the Soviet Union’s primary tool for rehearsing conflict with NATO.
They also served as demonstrations of force against potential rebellion in its satellite states. When the Solidarity movement threatened to destabilise the Polish regime in 1981, a massive Zapad exercise sent a clear message about possible Soviet intervention.
After the Soviet collapse, Russia lacked both the means and motivation to conduct such extensive war games. The Zapad exercises disappeared during the 1990s, a period during which military tensions in Europe ebbed.
Their revival under Vladimir Putin in the early 2000s marked a significant shift. Zapad exercises have grown more sophisticated and aggressive with each iteration. They have also expanded in geographical scope and operational complexity.
Most troublingly, Russia has deliberately concealed their true size. This obfuscation serves a specific purpose: avoiding international observation.
Under the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Vienna Document, military exercises involving more than 13,000 troops require advance notification and international observers. Russia routinely claims its Zapad exercises involve numbers just under this threshold.
Western intelligence consistently assesses the actual numbers as far higher, often exceeding 100,000 personnel. This deception allows Russia to conduct massive military manoeuvres without external scrutiny.
Putin has systematically blurred the line between military exercises and war preparations. Zapad scenarios have repeatedly simulated attacks on NATO countries. The 2009 iteration reportedly concluded with a simulated nuclear strike against Warsaw. In 2013, intelligence sources reported a theoretical nuclear attack on Sweden was practised.
Perhaps most concerning is the precedent established by Zapad 2021. That exercise positioned a significant number of Russian troops along Ukraine’s border. Those same forces would launch the full-scale invasion just five months later. What was presented as a routine military drill was, in fact, a deliberate positioning of invasion forces.
The concern now is that a similar scenario could unfold with Zapad 2025, but with an even more dangerous target: NATO itself.
For years, Western security experts have warned that Putin may eventually test whether NATO’s mutual defence commitment exists as more than words on paper. Such a test would involve an attack on a NATO member to gauge the alliance’s response. If NATO still functions as intended, an attack on one member would trigger a unified military response from all allies.
However, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically. President Donald Trump’s second term has seen repeated anti-NATO rhetoric that undermines alliance cohesion. His key advisor Elon Musk has openly called for American withdrawal from NATO altogether.
These developments create unprecedented uncertainty about whether the United States would defend a European NATO member under attack. This uncertainty represents exactly the kind of signal of weakness that Putin might want to exploit.
NATO’s relevance as a security guarantor stands or falls with American participation. If the United States were to abandon a European ally during a Russian incursion, the remaining NATO members would immediately understand they stand alone. Despite their combined wealth and military capabilities, European NATO states would face a Russia with its vastly superior nuclear capabilities.
This nuclear imbalance without an American counterweight would fundamentally alter the European security calculus. It would represent the effective end of NATO as a credible deterrent.
Putin’s potential exploitation of this perceived weakness could take several forms. The Baltic states are particularly vulnerable. A limited border clash with Estonia or Latvia might be designed to fall into a grey zone, testing NATO’s response threshold.
Another concerning scenario involves the Suwałki Corridor, the 65-kilometre Polish-Lithuanian border that serves as the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO. Russian seizure of this narrow passage would effectively isolate Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from their allies.
Putin’s calculation may be that limited actions would provoke only a limited NATO response, especially with American commitment uncertain. Such a demonstration of NATO impotence would serve his long-term strategic aims.
But such actions could also turn out to be a catastrophic miscalculation. Putin has misjudged before, most notably in Ukraine, where he anticipated a swift victory and regime change. Instead, he encountered fierce resistance that continues more than three years later.
A similar miscalculation regarding NATO could trigger military escalation that might spiral beyond control. In the worst case, this could lead to nuclear conflagration and World War 3.
Any conflict would not be confined to limited conventional military actions in the Baltics. Modern warfare encompasses cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns to sow confusion and covert operations against transport networks and energy supplies.
Russian military doctrine explicitly incorporates these hybrid elements. European cities could face power outages, disrupted communications and even sabotage of essential services. The economic ramifications would extend globally, triggering financial panic and supply chain collapses.
We cannot predict any specific outcome from Zapad 2025. Scenarios range from routine military exercises to catastrophic conflict. But we must recognise the increased probability of dangerous escalation in the current environment.
This heightened risk is a direct consequence of NATO’s weakened credibility. Trump’s actions since beginning his second term have damaged an alliance built over seven decades. This damage cannot easily be undone.
Unfortunately, this means that Zapad exercises, long dismissed as mere Russian posturing, have become genuinely dangerous events deserving global attention.
Even as we are distracted by an endless stream of provocative statements from Trump, Vice President Vance and Musk, we ignore at our peril the real threats developing in Europe’s increasingly fragile security architecture.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
Zapad, meaning “West” in Russian, has a lengthy history stretching back decades. These exercises were the Soviet Union’s primary tool for rehearsing conflict with NATO.
They also served as demonstrations of force against potential rebellion in its satellite states. When the Solidarity movement threatened to destabilise the Polish regime in 1981, a massive Zapad exercise sent a clear message about possible Soviet intervention.
After the Soviet collapse, Russia lacked both the means and motivation to conduct such extensive war games. The Zapad exercises disappeared during the 1990s, a period during which military tensions in Europe ebbed.
Their revival under Vladimir Putin in the early 2000s marked a significant shift. Zapad exercises have grown more sophisticated and aggressive with each iteration. They have also expanded in geographical scope and operational complexity.
Most troublingly, Russia has deliberately concealed their true size. This obfuscation serves a specific purpose: avoiding international observation.
Under the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Vienna Document, military exercises involving more than 13,000 troops require advance notification and international observers. Russia routinely claims its Zapad exercises involve numbers just under this threshold.
Western intelligence consistently assesses the actual numbers as far higher, often exceeding 100,000 personnel. This deception allows Russia to conduct massive military manoeuvres without external scrutiny.
Putin has systematically blurred the line between military exercises and war preparations. Zapad scenarios have repeatedly simulated attacks on NATO countries. The 2009 iteration reportedly concluded with a simulated nuclear strike against Warsaw. In 2013, intelligence sources reported a theoretical nuclear attack on Sweden was practised.
Perhaps most concerning is the precedent established by Zapad 2021. That exercise positioned a significant number of Russian troops along Ukraine’s border. Those same forces would launch the full-scale invasion just five months later. What was presented as a routine military drill was, in fact, a deliberate positioning of invasion forces.
The concern now is that a similar scenario could unfold with Zapad 2025, but with an even more dangerous target: NATO itself.
For years, Western security experts have warned that Putin may eventually test whether NATO’s mutual defence commitment exists as more than words on paper. Such a test would involve an attack on a NATO member to gauge the alliance’s response. If NATO still functions as intended, an attack on one member would trigger a unified military response from all allies.
However, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically. President Donald Trump’s second term has seen repeated anti-NATO rhetoric that undermines alliance cohesion. His key advisor Elon Musk has openly called for American withdrawal from NATO altogether.
These developments create unprecedented uncertainty about whether the United States would defend a European NATO member under attack. This uncertainty represents exactly the kind of signal of weakness that Putin might want to exploit.
NATO’s relevance as a security guarantor stands or falls with American participation. If the United States were to abandon a European ally during a Russian incursion, the remaining NATO members would immediately understand they stand alone. Despite their combined wealth and military capabilities, European NATO states would face a Russia with its vastly superior nuclear capabilities.
This nuclear imbalance without an American counterweight would fundamentally alter the European security calculus. It would represent the effective end of NATO as a credible deterrent.
Putin’s potential exploitation of this perceived weakness could take several forms. The Baltic states are particularly vulnerable. A limited border clash with Estonia or Latvia might be designed to fall into a grey zone, testing NATO’s response threshold.
Another concerning scenario involves the Suwałki Corridor, the 65-kilometre Polish-Lithuanian border that serves as the only land connection between the Baltic states and the rest of NATO. Russian seizure of this narrow passage would effectively isolate Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from their allies.
Putin’s calculation may be that limited actions would provoke only a limited NATO response, especially with American commitment uncertain. Such a demonstration of NATO impotence would serve his long-term strategic aims.
But such actions could also turn out to be a catastrophic miscalculation. Putin has misjudged before, most notably in Ukraine, where he anticipated a swift victory and regime change. Instead, he encountered fierce resistance that continues more than three years later.
A similar miscalculation regarding NATO could trigger military escalation that might spiral beyond control. In the worst case, this could lead to nuclear conflagration and World War 3.
Any conflict would not be confined to limited conventional military actions in the Baltics. Modern warfare encompasses cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns to sow confusion and covert operations against transport networks and energy supplies.
Russian military doctrine explicitly incorporates these hybrid elements. European cities could face power outages, disrupted communications and even sabotage of essential services. The economic ramifications would extend globally, triggering financial panic and supply chain collapses.
We cannot predict any specific outcome from Zapad 2025. Scenarios range from routine military exercises to catastrophic conflict. But we must recognise the increased probability of dangerous escalation in the current environment.
This heightened risk is a direct consequence of NATO’s weakened credibility. Trump’s actions since beginning his second term have damaged an alliance built over seven decades. This damage cannot easily be undone.
Unfortunately, this means that Zapad exercises, long dismissed as mere Russian posturing, have become genuinely dangerous events deserving global attention.
Even as we are distracted by an endless stream of provocative statements from Trump, Vice President Vance and Musk, we ignore at our peril the real threats developing in Europe’s increasingly fragile security architecture.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
Roger, read both sides of the story. Putin and his co-leaders have been very clear they have no intention on taking on Nato. You are part and parcel of the disinformation campaign against Russia. Scaremongering and distortion to create fear.
And, just in case you have not read the detail ............ read the time of the Ukraine SMO. Informative and the detailed account where your thinking is flawed.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-timeline-tells-tale/5882124
“ If NATO still functions as intended, an attack on one member would trigger a unified military response from all allies.”
This is a common myth, I would assume you’re better informed but here we are having to set the basics straight.
The much mentioned article 5 of NATO actually states that in the event of an invasion of a member state the other members must come together to discuss a response.
There is no automatic trigger of “attack one, attack all” as it’s commonly misleadingly paraphrased as.
Their response could be to condemn the invasion, maybe even in the strongest terms.
I don’t see any sign that Russia is planning on invading anyone, or are there other countries busy installing missiles to threaten mutually assured destruction (MAD) power balance?
I trust the New Zealand Initative is funded by yourself Roger because your NZ comments are unhelpful and your Australian Comments through ( Quadrant ) are plainly biased and worthy of cringe .
Anonymous & Anonymous
Your understanding of the Russian Ukraine saga, seems to reflect at the very least, The Bloke on the Clapham Bus.
Well done.
Over the past 20 years I’ve had much to do with Russia – Close rapport with both Russian and Ukrainian businessmen & women viz commercial initiatives. I speak the language and once upon a time at university studied USSR history politics and Russian language. I lived in Russia for 4 months.
On the other side of the cloth, in the past 10 years I provided the guarantees for visas for 5 Ukrainians to visit NZ. One did get sick and I picked up the tab.
Of course, that does not make me an expert on the issue being debated here, but by applying reason and not passion, one is more likely to forecast the next moves.
In my assessment, your assessments of the situation are reasonable.
As I say above, I am not an expert but probably more accurate that the soothsayers who 2 years ago insisted that Mr Putin was dying of cancer.
In my assessment, Mr Zelensky is in serious danger of being coup de tarred
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.