By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In its annual report, the Dutch military intelligence agency MIVD revealed a heightened Russian hybrid warfare campaign targeting the Netherlands and its allies, including a successful cyberattack on a Dutch public service’s digital systems. This escalating threat involves espionage, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining critical infrastructure and societal stability, with potential for future sabotage. The MIVD cited specific examples of infrastructure mapping and targeting of internet cables and energy supplies. Russia denies these accusations.
Read the original article here
Russia is upping hybrid attacks against Europe, Dutch intelligence suggests, and this escalation warrants serious consideration. The timing of this revelation – that Russia is intensifying these attacks – hints that the intelligence community has been tracking this activity for some time. This raises questions about the EU’s response, or lack thereof.
The sheer volume of trade between the EU and Russia continues unabated, despite Russia’s actions which arguably constitute open warfare against the EU. This inaction seems puzzling, especially considering the scale of the alleged attacks. The economic dependence on Russia, while undeniably complex, is a significant factor that may be hindering a more robust response.
One might ask why the EU doesn’t employ similar tactics, like deploying bot farms to counter Russian disinformation campaigns. While the effectiveness of such measures is debatable, the asymmetry in response is striking. The EU’s reluctance could stem from a desire to avoid further escalation and a full-blown conflict, but the current approach appears to be allowing Russia to dictate the terms of engagement.
The news of a major explosion and fire at a Russian weapons factory near the Ukrainian border adds another layer of complexity. It highlights the dangerous reality on the ground and underscores the potential for further escalation. It also raises the question of how disinformation campaigns can maintain credibility in the face of such dramatic events.
The suggestion of a covert air campaign against Russian military assets in Ukraine deserves careful consideration. A quiet, targeted response, focused solely on military targets, could potentially limit civilian casualties and avoid unwanted escalation. This approach mirrors Russia’s own preference for deniability and indirect aggression.
The notion that covert operations are underway is entirely plausible, though unconfirmed. The nature of intelligence work dictates secrecy, making public announcements of covert actions impossible. The very act of confirming such actions would undermine their effectiveness, as Russia would immediately be aware of the countermeasures. The EU’s response is likely a complex mix of overt and covert actions, with the majority falling under the latter.
The EU’s hesitancy to engage in full-scale retaliation stems from a fundamental difference in how it operates compared to Russia. The EU functions as an economic community focused on internal cohesion and mediation, while Russia operates as a dictatorship, capable of employing tactics that disregard international norms and conventions.
The EU’s response may be less visible due to the challenges of operating within a democratic system. Disinformation campaigns are easier to wage in relatively orderly societies, where the public is accustomed to trust and transparency. In contrast, creating similar chaos in Russia, where dissent is suppressed, would be significantly more difficult.
Furthermore, while it’s undeniable that Russia’s influence is significantly impacting the EU, the possibility remains that the EU is undertaking its own covert operations. Attributing the lack of overt response to inadequacy rather than strategy is overly simplistic. A balanced approach, combining economic pressure with targeted covert actions, could be far more effective than outright conflict.
The intricate web of international relations, coupled with the inherent secrecy surrounding intelligence operations, makes understanding the full extent of the situation extremely challenging. The current situation requires a nuanced understanding, recognizing that the conflict goes far beyond simple military actions and involves a multitude of covert operations and strategic decisions. The absence of public announcements shouldn’t be mistaken for inactivity.