Post #18826

Following the NATO exercise Hedgehog 2025, held in Estonia in May, notable assessments and analyses began to appear in Western military-focused publications. These materials provide significantly more insight than the alliance’s official press releases. The choice of location and timing was far from accidental. In spring 2025, European political rhetoric increasingly focused on the possibility of escalation with Russia—particularly in the context of pressure on Moscow regarding the situation in Ukraine. At the same time, expert discussions intensified around the prospect of a direct Russia–NATO confrontation as a potential continuation of the conflict. Against this backdrop, Hedgehog 2025 included a key scenario: a NATO offensive operation through the Baltic region. It was assumed that a significant portion of Russian forces would be tied down on the Ukrainian front. The roles were distributed in a telling way: “NATO forces” — Estonian units reinforced by British mechanized elements “Opposing forces” — Ukrainian personnel, including UAV (drone) units This choice was logical. At present, the Ukrainian military possesses the most relevant combat experience for modern high-intensity warfare, particularly in the use of drones. What the simulation showed The results were unfavorable for NATO. Even during the deployment and concentration phase, the advancing force came under sustained drone pressure. According to the modeled outcomes, this led to: disruption of logistics and coordination loss of operational tempo significant casualties before engaging the main enemy forces The key takeaway: the NATO force failed to fully assemble and deploy for an attack. It became disorganized and effectively lost combat capability at an early stage. It is important to note: this outcome was driven solely by drone operations, without the involvement of artillery, electronic warfare, aviation, or the main conventional forces of the simulated adversary. Strategic implications For Western military planners, this served as a clear demonstration of how warfare has fundamentally changed: mass drone usage disrupts traditional offensive doctrines force concentration becomes a highly vulnerable phase lagging in drone warfare capabilities leads to rapid operational collapse In effect, the exercise suggested that NATO, in its current state, is not fully prepared for a high-intensity conflict against an adversary with real-world experience comparable to that gained in Ukraine. This helps explain a shift in political rhetoric observed in Europe in the second half of 2025. Calls for dialogue with Russia became more frequent. One of the earliest proponents of this approach was French President Emmanuel Macron. Logical conclusion If we synthesize these observations, the broader picture is as follows: NATO currently shows limited readiness for modern high-intensity warfare under drone-dominated conditions even limited simulations indicate a risk of early disruption of offensive operations in a full-scale confrontation, this could translate into a serious risk of defeat This leads to a wider political interpretation: Russia does not appear to view NATO as an immediate and credible military threat in its current form this may explain the relatively restrained posture demonstrated by Vladimir Putin toward the alliance similarly, Donald Trump’s statements that NATO without the United States would be a “paper tiger” align with this line of reasoning In other words, behind the rhetoric lies a pragmatic assessment: in its current configuration, NATO may not be fully prepared for a direct large-scale military confrontation with Russia.