As Russia’s war in Ukraine stalls, Vladimir Putin is widening the confrontation into the shadows of Europe. A series of subtle provocations like drones, cyber strikes, and airspace probes now test NATO’s nerves, unity, and resolve without crossing the threshold of open war.

Vladimir Putin is playing a dangerous game in Europe’s shadows. As his war in Ukraine drags into its third year, the Russian president appears to be expanding the battlefield- quietly, subtly, but with intent.

Across Europe, small, seemingly isolated incidents have begun to form a pattern, for example, drones slipping into NATO airspace, radar locks on alliance aircraft, warships nudging restricted waters, cyber disruptions that flicker through civilian networks. Each episode, by itself, seems too minor to justify a military response. But together, they point to a strategy, a slow-motion campaign to probe NATO’s limits and unsettle its people.

Probing the Allies

Denmark and Poland have become particular targets. Denmark is helping Ukraine build elements of its defence industry abroad, producing rocket fuel and components too risky to manufacture inside Ukraine. Poland, meanwhile, serves as the main supply artery for weapons and aid flowing to Kyiv. Both nations are vital to Ukraine’s resistance and both have recently faced Russian harassment. Danish authorities reported Russian warships and aircraft “painting” their assets with targeting radar, a clear act of intimidation. Poland has endured a series of drone incursions along its border, sparking air-defence alerts and civilian anxiety. Moscow’s message is unmistakable: support Ukraine and you may find the war creeping to your doorstep.

These small provocations are not random. They are carefully calculated tests of nerve and unity. Each one sends several messages at once. To NATO, it is a reminder that Russia can reach anywhere, anytime, that support for Ukraine carries risk. To European publics, it is a whisper of fear: your skies are not safe, your leaders may drag you into war.

A War of Perception

Putin’s goal is not conquest but corrosion. He knows that fear can achieve what firepower cannot – it can divide democracies from within. If European citizens begin to see the conflict as an unnecessary danger, if they pressure their governments to step back, Moscow will have achieved a victory without firing a shot.

The tactics also serve another purpose: to measure NATO’s response thresholds. Every minor violation is an experiment- how fast will the alliance react, how loudly will it protest, how divided will its members sound? By staying just below the threshold of Article 5, Russia studies its adversary in real time. And because these acts are carried out by drones, cyber units or shadowy proxies, the Kremlin can always deny involvement. Deniability is not a shield here; it is the weapon itself.

The Grey-Zone Doctrine

What we are witnessing is hybrid warfare in full bloom. Moscow has long specialised in operating between the lines of peace and war, using a blend of intimidation, cyberattacks, disinformation and covert action. Over the past two years, Europe has seen a steady uptick in such operations e.g. drones over the Baltic, sabotage of energy pipelines, propaganda campaigns targeting elections, and mysterious fires at military depots.

Each act alone can be explained away. Taken together, they erode the sense of safety that underpins European life. They force NATO to spend time, money and energy countering uncertainty rather than preparing for direct attack. This “war of attrition by confusion” is designed to exhaust. For NATO, it presents an unfamiliar dilemma. The alliance was built to deter invasion, not to police ambiguity. If it responds too harshly, it risks escalation; if it stays quiet, it invites more tests. Either reaction serves Putin’s purpose.

And in democratic societies, where public opinion shapes policy, even minor incidents can ripple widely. Border states like Poland and the Baltics may demand stronger defences, while Western Europeans may ask why they should bear the cost of confrontation. That divergence of threat perception and political appetite is what Moscow seeks to exploit.

The American Question

Hovering behind all of this is a more delicate anxiety: will the United States show up if things get serious?

Putin is acutely aware of the debate within Washington about overseas commitments. If Europe begins to doubt American resolve, NATO’s deterrent credibility weakens automatically. The perception of hesitation is enough. In this sense, each radar lock and drone crossing is not just a test of Europe’s borders, but of America’s staying power.

NATO’s Calculated Calm

For now, NATO has chosen to play it cool. The alliance avoids dramatizing every incident publicly, preferring quiet reinforcement to noisy escalation. The new “Eastern Sentry” mission, launched this year, strengthens air and naval patrols along the eastern flank and boosts intelligence-sharing among member states. It is a prudent step, but one that risks invisibility.

Secrecy can steady diplomats, but it rarely steadies citizens. Hybrid warfare thrives on uncertainty; transparency is one of the few ways to disarm it. People who understand the game are less likely to panic. And panic is the real prize Moscow seeks.

NATO must therefore learn to fight in this murky domain as deftly as Russia does. Every drone that crosses a border, every cyberattack traced to Russian actors, must be documented and exposed with evidence. Silence only fuels speculation; visibility restores deterrence. When truth becomes public, ambiguity loses its bite.

Resilience as Deterrence

Europe also needs to harden itself in more ways than military. Psychological resilience — the ability of citizens to absorb and interpret provocation calmly, will matter as much as missiles or radars. Governments should explain clearly what is happening, why such provocations occur, and how the alliance intends to manage them. Fear is contagious; understanding is its vaccine.

At the same time, Europe must continue to strengthen its own defences. A more self-reliant continent, investing in air and missile systems, drones and electronic warfare, will leave fewer gaps for Moscow to exploit. Unity, preparedness and communication, not bluster, are the antidotes to hybrid warfare.

The Game in the Shadows

Putin’s teasing of NATO is not a mischief; it is the cutting edge of a new kind of conflict. The battlefield is no longer measured in kilometres but in confidence. Each small violation chips away at the sense of safety that binds democracies together. The aim is to make allies doubt themselves, to make the extraordinary feel ordinary, and to turn unease into paralysis.

Yet the gray zone cuts both ways. Push too far, and even a cautious alliance can snap into firmness. Russia’s probes are meant to stay invisible until they aren’t — and when the line blurs too much, miscalculation becomes easy. For now, the Kremlin may be laughing quietly at NATO’s restraint. But restraint is not weakness; it can also be a strategy. If the alliance responds with patience, transparency and unity, Moscow’s shadow game may end up strengthening the very institution it sought to rattle.

In this uneasy twilight between peace and war, the contest is not for land but for nerve. And that is a game Putin may find harder to win than he imagines.