The possibility of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia has become one of the main issues on Europe's security agenda. Germany's Bild newspaper wrote that NATO has prepared an action plan against the possibility of a direct military confrontation with Russia. According to Bild, the concept envisages extensive use of unmanned systems for reconnaissance, surveillance, target identification and strike capabilities. This approach shows NATO's increasing emphasis on unmanned and autonomous military technologies in recent years. In particular, the widespread use of UAVs in the Russia-Ukraine war has significantly changed the nature of modern warfare.
Experts believe that in the near future, the conscious initiation of a large-scale war by the parties remains a low-probability scenario. However, miscalculation, a military incident, or an attack on critical infrastructure could spiral out of control and lead to a wider confrontation. In such a situation, Turkey's strategic role as a NATO member will be particularly important.
Speaking to Modern.az on the matter, Turkey's former military attaché, General Yücel Karauz, stated that a direct war between NATO and Russia cannot be considered the most realistic scenario in the short term:
“The military, political, and economic cost of such a war would be extremely heavy for both sides. Nuclear deterrence is also an important factor here. It is impossible to determine in advance where and how a large-scale confrontation between NATO and Russia would stop. The possibility of conventional war approaching the nuclear threshold remains a serious deterrent in the decision-making process of the parties. However, a low probability of war does not mean low risks. The main danger is not a pre-planned NATO-Russia war, but rather miscalculation, misjudgment, an accident, or a limited military incident spiraling out of control and leading to escalation. In this regard, the increased level of military readiness from the Baltic region to the Black Sea, airspace violations, cyberattacks, and the possibility of sabotage against critical infrastructure require special attention.”
He noted that an open and confirmed military attack on the territory of one of the NATO countries could be one of the most dangerous scenarios:
“In such a situation, NATO's collective defense mechanism, including Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, could come into play. However, more complex scenarios are also possible. For example, a Russian missile or UAV causing serious casualties in Poland, Romania, or one of the Baltic countries, a direct confrontation between NATO and Russian forces in the Baltic or Black Sea, a large-scale cyberattack against critical infrastructure, or sabotage could trigger an escalation mechanism. The first sign of such a crisis might not be a direct confrontation between two large armies, but a more limited incident. A UAV, a missile, a fighter jet, a ship, a cyberattack, or sabotage against critical infrastructure could become the starting point of a wider crisis. This is precisely the main danger.”
Y. Karauz emphasized that Turkey's situation is more complex compared to other NATO members:
“Turkey is a NATO member, and its collective defense obligations are clear. At the same time, it is a neighbor of Russia in the Black Sea and has extensive relations with Moscow in the fields of energy, trade, tourism, diplomacy, and regional security. On the other hand, Turkey supports Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and has important defense industry ties with Kyiv.”
According to him, it is not correct to evaluate Ankara's policy only as a “balance between NATO and Russia”:
“A more optimal approach for Turkey is to ensure strong deterrence within NATO, open communication with Russia, controlled military balance in the Black Sea, and diplomatic de-escalation in all possible areas. He stated that the Montreux Straits Convention holds special importance among Turkey's strategic capabilities. The 1936 Montreux Straits Convention gives Turkey important geostrategic responsibility. Turkey's application of the Montreux Convention after the start of the Ukraine war was one of the important factors limiting the war in the Black Sea from turning into a wider naval confrontation. Continuing this policy is in Turkey's interests.”
The expert said that the transformation of the Black Sea into an area of intense military confrontation between NATO and Russia is not in Turkey's security interests:
“From Turkey's perspective, the optimal situation is for the Black Sea to become an area of controlled deterrence, not a NATO-Russia front line. One of Turkey's advantages is its ability to communicate directly with Moscow, Kyiv, Washington, and European capitals. One of Turkey's priorities should be to manage military crises between NATO and Russia, especially in the Black Sea direction, and to keep communication mechanisms operational. Turkey can play the role of a crisis-preventing power.”
The general stated that if a direct war occurs between NATO and Russia, the Black Sea could become one of the most critical fronts:
“Romania and Bulgaria are NATO members, and Turkey is one of the alliance's most important military powers. Given Russia's military capabilities in the Black Sea and the Ukraine war, the region could turn into an area of extremely intense military struggle. Air and missile defense systems, UAVs, submarines, mine warfare, electronic warfare, long-range missiles, and attacks against critical infrastructure could come to the fore. Such a confrontation could have serious economic, not just military, impacts on Turkey. Energy prices could rise rapidly, and the cost of shipping and insurance in the Black Sea could increase. Trade with Russia could decrease significantly, the tourism sector could suffer, and new pressure could arise on grain and food prices. Therefore, a NATO-Russia war is not only a military issue for Turkey, but also an issue of energy, inflation, trade, tourism, logistics, and food security.”
Y. Karauz believes that a possible NATO-Russia confrontation will also have a serious impact on the South Caucasus:
“Russia's military and political attention shifting to the NATO front could further widen the geopolitical vacuum in the South Caucasus. In this situation, Azerbaijan's strategic weight could increase. The Turkey-Azerbaijan strategic line could gain greater importance in terms of regional security. In such a scenario, the geopolitical challenges faced by Georgia and Armenia will also increase. Geopolitical pressure on Georgia could rise, and Armenia's search for balance between the West, Russia, and regional states could become more complex. At the same time, the importance of energy and transport routes from the Caspian to Europe would sharply increase. Projects such as the Middle Corridor, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, TANAP, and the Southern Gas Corridor could, in such a situation, acquire not only economic but also strategic importance. These projects could become important elements of Europe's energy and transport security. In this regard, Azerbaijan's geopolitical importance could also seriously increase.”
The expert believes that Ankara should not view NATO membership and relations with Russia as alternatives to each other:
“While fulfilling its obligations within NATO, Turkey must also keep communication channels with Russia open. Military deterrence and diplomatic dialogue are not opposites. On the contrary, when strong deterrence and strong diplomacy are implemented together, they reduce the likelihood of war. Turkey should particularly strengthen its air and missile defense systems, surveillance and early warning capabilities in the Black Sea, electronic warfare and anti-UAV defense capabilities, maritime security, protection of critical infrastructure, and cyber defense.”
“In addition, the ability to be a diplomatic mediator and communication channel in crises that may arise on the Moscow-Kyiv, Moscow-NATO, and Washington-Moscow lines must be maintained.”
The expert concluded by emphasizing that a direct large-scale war between NATO and Russia is not inevitable:
“Today, such a war is not the most realistic scenario that the parties would consciously choose. However, the risk is higher compared to previous years. The main reason for this is not that the parties want war, but that their areas of military activity and points of contact are increasingly approaching each other.”
According to him, the main concept for the upcoming period should be “controlled deterrence”:
“There are three main strategic goals for Turkey: to contribute to collective deterrence as a reliable and strong member of NATO, to prevent the Black Sea from becoming a NATO-Russia battlefield, and to contribute to directing military crises towards political solutions by using open diplomatic channels between Moscow, Kyiv, and the West. This is precisely where Turkey's true strategic importance within NATO emerges. Turkey is not only a major military power located on NATO's southeastern flank. It is also a regional power that controls the entrance to the Black Sea, can speak directly with Russia, has strategic relations with Ukraine, opens to the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and holds a central position in Europe's energy and transport security. For this reason, in a possible NATO-Russia crisis, Turkey's strategic goal should not be to encourage one side against the other, but to prevent war by maintaining deterrence. Because a direct war between NATO and Russia will not have a real winner,” the expert emphasized.
