What are credible scenarios for Russia-NATO escalation over Ukraine by 2026?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Three credible escalation pathways could draw Russia and NATO into direct confrontation by 2026: inadvertent or “fog-of-war” incidents near NATO borders, deliberate Russian provocations or cross-border operations that create Article 5 dilemmas, and political-ratcheting driven by shifts in Western support or national leaderships that prompt riskier NATO responses; analysts from RAND, the Atlantic Council, NATO itself, GLOBSEC and others map these trajectories and stress that duration of the war and erosion of restraint raise but do not make inevitable a full Russia–NATO war [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The accidental escalation — misfires, air engagements, and the fog of war
One of the most plausible short-term paths is an unintentional clash: weapons falling short, air-to-air or air-to-ground engagements in border regions, or strikes at dual-use facilities that NATO interprets as attacks on allies, a risk highlighted by think tanks and experts who point to dwindling Russian precision munitions, fast-moving battlefield dynamics and the “fog of war” that makes misattribution likely [5] [6] [7].
2. Deliberate Russian cross-border operations that force an Article 5 choice
Analysts warn Moscow could pursue covert or deniable operations — sabotage, local proxies, or an intervention in nearby states such as Moldova/Transnistria — designed to create faits accomplis and split allied responses; the Atlantic Council flags such scenarios as strategic choices that could force NATO to either tolerate territorial loss or risk direct intervention and major escalation [2].
3. Targeting NATO logistics or bases as a calculated escalation
A second deliberate pathway involves strikes on NATO-linked infrastructure — bases, transit hubs or missile transit facilities — if Russia concludes these are tipping Ukrainian capabilities or if Moscow seeks to deter long‑range strikes; the Bulletin and RAND note that attacks on transit facilities or allied air bases could be read as attacks on NATO and trigger Article 5 dynamics [6] [1].
4. Political escalation: shifts in allied resolve, leadership, and policy signals
Escalation risk is also political. Reports argue that if U.S. or European leaders change posture — either stepping back and signaling weakness or, conversely, committing to far more direct actions such as a no‑fly zone or combat deployments — Moscow may respond aggressively, and NATO may face a fraught choice between deterrence and de‑escalation; the Atlantic Council and RAND underscore how Western policy shifts could alter Kremlin calculations [8] [1].
5. Hybrid and indirect pathways: cyber, infrastructure, refugees and asymmetric tools
Beyond kinetic paths, hybrid warfare — complex cyberattacks, strikes on critical infrastructure, migrant pressure and covert influence operations — can escalate politics and create crises that bleed into military confrontation; GLOBSEC and ELN highlight hybrid measures as core Russian strategies intended to fracture allied unity and raise the stakes without formal declarations of war [4] [9].
6. Limits, nuclear signaling, and the calculus that still constrains outright war
While multiple credible scenarios exist, major constraints remain: NATO’s explicit avoidance of direct combat in Ukraine (e.g., rejecting a no‑fly zone) because that would mean direct conflict with Russia, and persistent signaling — diplomatic hotlines, public warnings and ambiguous but severe retaliatory pledges — that make deliberate all‑out escalation costly for Moscow and NATO alike [3] [7] [10]. Analysts caution, however, that protraction of the war, deeper military coordination among Russia’s partners, or domestic political shocks could shift these constraints rapidly [2] [4].
Conclusion — probability, timing and what to watch to 2026
Expect the highest near‑term probability for inadvertent or hybrid-driven crises near NATO borders and for deliberate provocations aimed at testing allied thresholds; the overall risk of a sustained Russia–NATO war by 2026 is elevated while the conflict continues, not certain, and is importantly shaped by battlefield dynamics, allied political cohesion, and Kremlin assessments — watch force buildups (including in Belarus), attacks on allied infrastructure, debates over long‑range systems and any change in NATO’s use-of-force posture as the clearest indicators of movement along the escalation spectrum [11] [5] [8] [12].