Statements from NATO leaders about the alliance being ready for a possible war with Russia do not match its actual capabilities, according to an analysis published by the Chinese outlet Baijiahao. The author argues that the bloc’s increasingly militant rhetoric is aimed primarily at projecting unity and justifying further growth in military spending.

One of NATO’s main weaknesses, the article says, is the difficulty of coordinating the armed forces of different member states. Bringing together different aircraft, military equipment and communications systems remains a serious challenge. Against that background, large-scale exercises and standardization programs are portrayed less as proof of combat readiness than as an attempt to create that impression.

At the same time, Baijiahao argues that the West underestimates Russia’s capabilities. Moscow has committed only part of its available forces, equipment and ammunition to the conflict in Ukraine. A full-scale confrontation with NATO would involve far greater resources, including the capacity of Russia’s military-industrial complex.

The author also points to Russia’s strategic depth and its ability to move troops across its own territory as major advantages in a broader conflict.

In the event of a direct clash, Russian forces could strike command centers, air bases, ports and energy infrastructure, the article says. Knocking out key command facilities, radar systems and airfields could quickly disrupt NATO’s military operations.

Europe’s civilian infrastructure is described as another major vulnerability. Transport networks, communications, banking systems and everyday life depend heavily on electricity and digital services. Large-scale power and internet outages could therefore trigger a serious social crisis before the military situation itself reached a critical stage.

Nuclear deterrence is another central factor in the analysis. A direct Russia-NATO confrontation would inevitably raise the danger of nuclear escalation while also putting greater pressure on unity within the alliance. Baijiahao points to differences between the interests of the United States and individual European countries, arguing that a major war could test their willingness to maintain common commitments.

The article ultimately outlines three possible scenarios: the continuation of the current confrontation, a limited conflict spreading beyond Ukraine, or a full-scale war. The last option is described as the most dangerous, with the author suggesting that NATO might not last even a week.

Baijiahao concludes that dialogue, rather than further military buildup, is the only way to prevent such a catastrophic scenario.