The Russian army suddenly launches an attack and captures the Estonian city of Narva. It crosses the border into NATO-protected territory for the first time. The Kremlin's bet? To sow discord in the Atlantic alliance and prove to the world that NATO's Article 5 - which guarantees collective defense - is obsolete. German military expert Carlo Massala presents this worst-case scenario in his book "The Next War", set in 2028.
Masala, director of the Center for Intelligence and Security Studies (CISS) at the Bundeswehr University, assumes, based on "war games" Russian aggression, which would bring a major strategic victory to Vladimir Putin's regime.
In an interview with the French newspaper L'Express, Massala explains why this scenario is, unfortunately, all too plausible. He confirms the concerns of analysts and senior military officials that Putin is already considering his next move. "Putin has inexhaustible strategic patience," the expert points out. According to him, European countries should not succumb to Russia's nuclear blackmail, but strengthen their deterrent capacity - following the example of Germany, which is discussing a new form of conscription.
L'Express: You assume that Russian troops could take the Estonian city of Narva in 2028. How realistic is this scenario? Is there a real danger of a Russian attack on a NATO country?
Carlo Massala: If Russia wants to test NATO's political unity, it will look for a weak spot. This could be Narva, Spitsbergen, or the Arctic. In any case, it would be an attack on a limited territory, with the idea that NATO would not react due to internal disagreements. This is much more likely than a full-scale invasion of a country like Poland.
If we assume that Putin is serious, the threat is real. As early as December 2021, he sent requests to Washington and Brussels, clearly stating his desire to review the European security architecture. Russia aims to weaken the EU, push the US out of the continent, and suggest that Europe is too weak to resist. If we are not united, such an attack is entirely possible.
L'Express: Do you think Putin wants to subject NATO to a "stress test" to prove that Article 5 does not work?
Carlo Massala: This is reminiscent of Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936. Germany checked the reaction of France and Great Britain, and since they were absent, it stayed in the region. Something similar could happen to NATO.
If I were Putin, I would doubt that NATO would react decisively. Would Germany or France enter into an open military confrontation over a small territorial dispute in Estonia, with the risk of nuclear escalation? Moreover, the Russian-speaking population in Narva predominates, and Putin is already using this argument in Ukraine.
L'Express: In your scenario, the French elections in 2027 were won by the National Assembly. How important is France in this context?
Carlo Massala: Extremely important. Only France and the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons in Europe, but the British are dependent on the United States. Only France has an independent arsenal. If it changes its course towards Russia, the other countries will be significantly weakened.
L'Express: Gen. Carsten Breuer also warned that Russia could attack NATO within a few years...
Carlo Massala: Almost every intelligence service and defense minister in Europe considers this scenario possible. Russia is mass-producing tanks and missiles that it is not using in Ukraine - it is preparing for the next war. If I were Putin, I would attack before 2029 to get ahead of expectations.
L'Express: But after three years of war, Russia cannot even take Kharkov. Can NATO really attack?
Carlo Massala: This is not a large-scale invasion, but an operation with 5,000-8,000 soldiers in a city where there is already local support. This does not require a huge resource. In addition, Russia has weapons that it does not use in Ukraine - such as ballistic missiles. Europe does not have sufficient air defense protection - cities like Frankfurt or Marseille are vulnerable. This creates fear and paralyzes the political will to react.
L'Express: Donald Trump is also a factor. What are his latest positions on the subject?
Carlo Massala: Trump has never blamed Russia entirely for the war. He sees the conflict as an obstacle to good economic relations with the country. According to him, Putin and Zelensky should come to an agreement on their own. This means a US withdrawal. In essence, he has not changed.
L'Express: Why do you say we should not accept Putin as irrational?
Carlo Massala: Putin is completely rational - his logic is just different. He believes that European societies will tire of supporting Ukraine. We are impatient. He - not. Russia can afford a long, expensive war.
L'Express: What is the real danger of nuclear weapons?
Carlo Massala: At the moment, it makes no sense for Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons. The US, China and India have made it clear that this is a red line. Even a demonstration nuclear strike would be at a huge cost. Russia has no real military advantage if it uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine.
L'Express: Chancellor Friedrich Merz wants to make the German army the most powerful in Europe. Is this a debate?
Carlo Massala: There is consensus on the need for better equipment, but not on personnel. The CDU wants to bring back conscription. The SPD prefers a voluntary model with higher salaries. But with the promise of 35,000 people to NATO - there is no way we can fulfill it without conscription.