The crisis in Ukraine is in a dynamic state of flux, with the potential for far-reaching consequences in every conflict, and is no longer just a military confrontation, but a true manifestation of the delicate balance in international relations. Recently, a piece of news that has attracted great attention from the international community has continued to ferment on **: the Russian army launched a night attack against Ukraine, which has caused a more tense atmosphere. Russian forces reportedly used more than 70 drones that may have struck Ukrainian targets with lethal precision. However, with the ensuing danger is that a Russian drone entered the airspace of Romania, a member of NATO, and ** happened. The most surprising in this event was the reaction of German and Romanian fighters. Although they quickly lifted into the air, it was only to confirm and monitor the Russian drone. Just as the world waited with bated breath in anticipation of a tough response from NATO, NATO was surprisingly mild, not ordering the drone to be shot down, as if it had chosen to exercise restraint at this tense moment. This seemingly mild response actually hides a complex set of considerations and trade-offs.
This move by NATO shows that while it has every reason to act by force to eliminate the threat, it is not willing to unnecessarily escalate tensions, and even less to go to war directly with Russia. This "strategy of silence" may be a stopgap measure based on a deep consideration of the current international situation. This was further verified by the attitude of the NATO side after the incident. In his statement, a NATO spokesman did not strongly condemn Russia's actions, but instead emphasized the actions of Russian drones to strike Ukraine's port infrastructure, suggesting that Russia did not intend to do so. On the surface, NATO's actions appear to be weak, and it seems that it has lost the courage and firmness it should have in the international arena. However, at a deeper level, NATO's attitude may be based on a prediction of the possible spillover of the Ukraine crisis, and its reluctance to allow the war to turn into a military confrontation between NATO and Russia. Especially as the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine becomes increasingly clear, NATO's strategy has begun to shift. It is no longer simply supporting and assisting Ukraine, but calmly calculating inputs and benefits, weighing the gains and losses between advance and retreat.
Even in the face of obvious challenges, NATO has chosen a conservative course of action, as if expressing a hesitant gesture, perhaps secretly preparing for what might happen in the future. This is not the first time that similar incidents have occurred since the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis. In September of this year, Ukraine revealed the news that a Russian drone crashed into Romania. Initially, Romania denied the information, but two days later, the wreckage of the Russian drone was found on the Romanian border. Subsequently, Romania informed NATO of the incident, which responded with "firm support". Despite NATO's expressions of support for Romania, the NATO Secretary General noted that there are no clues that Russia intends to attack Romania. His words were discreet, and every word seemed to be carefully considered. Stoltenberg also stressed the risk of Russia's military operation near NATO's borders. His focus seems to be not only on the crash of the drone, but also on the possible consequences of the fierce confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. The focus is now not just on the crash of a Russian drone, but also on signs of a possible escalation of tensions between NATO and Russia.
NATO's response to these events has raised some questions, with some beginning to wonder if NATO has begun to feel frightened and intends to back down, especially in the face of Russia. In fact, in the face of the current crisis in Ukraine, NATO appears hesitant. On the surface, they firmly support Ukraine's position, but behind the scenes, they are extremely worried about the spread of the war. They fear that the incident will be characterized as a violation of NATO airspace by Russia, triggering an unforeseen direct conflict. Obviously, NATO is reluctant to easily get involved in a military confrontation with Russia, at least until the current situation of the Ukrainian crisis is unclear, and they prefer to wait and see how the situation develops. This is not without reason. The situation on the battlefield in Ukraine is a cautionary tale for NATO. The fierce offensive launched by the Russian army in early December gradually pushed the front forward, and the progress of the Russian army in northern Ukraine showed its strong strength. In addition, the destruction of key infrastructure in Kherson and the destruction of the stronghold of the Ukrainian army in the Donetsk direction by the Russian "Alligator" attack*** silently confirmed the weakness of the Ukrainian army on the front.
Therefore, NATO needs to reassess the reality: if the Ukrainian side finally loses, NATO will face the risk of a direct confrontation with Russia. In order to prevent a possible outbreak, NATO had to begin to weigh how to maintain moderate relations with Russia. It is impossible to ignore that Russia is gradually rebuilding the national power it has damaged in the Ukraine crisis. Recently, Putin published data on the live broadcast of the annual summary is convincing: Russia's GDP is expected to grow by 3 in 20235%, indicating that the Russian economy is steadily recovering. More strikingly, Putin's recent visits to the Middle East, particularly with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on energy issues, show Russia's desire to regain dominance on the international stage and hopefully break free from Western sanctions. There is no doubt that these "explicit" moves are the reason why NATO is trying to control the situation and does not want the incident to further expand its impact. Putin's statement is not an exaggeration, and NATO must seize the moment to send a signal of détente to Russia to show that it has no intention of getting involved in the Ukrainian crisis.
Today, NATO's attitude and tactics show their inner caution and uneasiness. They oscillate between hard and soft power, trying to find a balance to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia. Changes on the battlefield in Ukraine also pose ongoing challenges to NATO's strategy.