By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO is considering a shift toward a more aggressive stance against Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics, potentially including “preemptive” cyber or sabotage operations, according to NATO’s military committee chairman. This evaluation comes amidst rising tensions and a series of Russian-linked incidents, such as cyberattacks, information operations, and targeting of critical infrastructure. Russia has responded by accusing NATO of escalating tensions. Experts note Russia’s history of aggression and the need for a strong response to deter further actions.
Read the original article here
NATO considers ‘more aggressive’ response to Russia’s hybrid threats. This is the crux of the matter, and it’s about time, isn’t it? The discussion revolves around the idea that the current approach to dealing with Russia’s hybrid attacks – which, let’s be clear, are attacks – isn’t cutting it. The overall sentiment expressed suggests a deep frustration with the slow pace and seemingly weak responses from the alliance. There’s a palpable sense that the West is being outmaneuvered.
The core of the issue, as understood, is that Russia is constantly deploying hybrid tactics. These aren’t just mere annoyances; they’re calculated attempts to destabilize, sow discord, and undermine democratic processes. The responses suggested should mirror the aggressive moves by the Russians. When Russia launches a hybrid attack, it’s suggested that Ukraine should be supplied with an equivalent level of retaliatory action, potentially including long-range weapons. The argument goes that Russia understands strength, and appeasement is perceived as weakness, so a more robust and direct approach is necessary to deter future aggression.
The specifics of this more “aggressive” approach are still being debated, but the general desire is for action, not just words. There’s a distinct lack of faith in strongly worded letters or further discussions. The comments indicate that the preference is for concrete steps: seizing assets, cyberattacks targeting infrastructure, and publicly acknowledging retaliatory measures. This includes economic pressures, such as targeting Russia’s banking systems, and exposing Russian activities through media outlets.
The idea of cyber warfare as a potential battleground is another element. It’s suggested to cripple Russian infrastructure, to send a clear message. The comments highlight the need for a multifaceted response, with examples like publicizing actions in response to Russian incursions, such as airspace violations, with the aim to create a clear message of consequences for aggression. The frustration stems from the belief that Russia has been acting without consequences for too long.
The comments also point out the hypocrisy of Russia’s reactions. Any defensive measure is instantly labeled as “escalation,” while Russia continues its aggressive campaigns. The general consensus seems to be that Russia needs to be pushed back and that the West needs to adopt the same strategic approach.
The discussion shifts to action, and many opinions on actions that are beyond the current approach. Some examples include shutting down the internet connection between Russia and the rest of the world and the support for Ukraine and its defense of freedom. There is a sense of urgency. The call for more aggressive action is often paired with an expressed feeling of disbelief that more hasn’t been done sooner.
The issue of frozen Russian assets and their potential use in aiding Ukraine is also brought up. This highlights the frustration with bureaucratic hurdles and a sense that there’s a lack of political will to take decisive action. The discussion suggests that the current situation is not just a military conflict, but a test of the West’s resolve and credibility. The West’s credibility is at stake.
In essence, the collective comments paint a picture of a situation that has gone on for too long without adequate response. There is a belief that the current strategies are ineffective and that a much more robust, aggressive, and decisive approach is needed to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics. The “consideration” of a more aggressive response, as the initial article states, is met with a mix of exasperation and cautious optimism, with the ultimate goal being to establish a clear and credible deterrent against further Russian aggression. The West needs to become strong and bold with actions.