By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO is considering a shift toward a more aggressive response to hybrid threats, including cyberattacks and airspace violations, according to Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s Military Committee. The alliance is exploring options like proactive cyber defense and potentially viewing “pre-emptive strikes” as defensive actions. This shift comes as European countries face increasing hybrid incidents, leading NATO to reassess its deterrence strategies, while also acknowledging the need to carefully consider legal and jurisdictional constraints. Despite successful deterrence efforts like the Baltic Sentry mission, challenges persist, particularly in international waters where accountability can be difficult to establish.
Read the original article here
NATO may get “more aggressive” in countering Russia’s hybrid attacks, top military official says, and it’s a statement that’s met with a mix of relief and, let’s be honest, a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s like hearing a promise after years of watching the same movie. Finally, a change? Maybe. The operative word here, and the one that’s getting the most scrutiny, is “may.” That small word does an awful lot of heavy lifting. It hints at action, but it doesn’t commit to anything.
The sentiment seems to be, “About fucking time!” Many feel that “may” isn’t aggressive enough. Hybrid attacks, by their very nature, are designed to be insidious and disruptive. They’re meant to operate in the gray areas, to sow discord, and to test the boundaries of international law. To effectively counter them, a robust and unwavering response is needed, one that’s always active, not just considering it. Full force, full commitment – that’s what the situation seems to demand. The current approach is seen by some as akin to bringing a sternly worded letter to a gunfight.
There’s a prevailing feeling that the response needs to move beyond simple condemnation. Russia, it is suggested, understands only strength and direct action. The constant finger-wagging and cautious rhetoric simply aren’t effective. It’s a bit like wondering how many times a warning needs to be issued before the action is taken. The fear is that the “may” will translate into nothing concrete. The reality is that Russia has been acting with impunity for years. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other forms of hybrid warfare are regularly deployed without significant repercussions.
The idea of NATO responding in kind, with its own cyber offensives, isn’t new. Why haven’t they already been doing that? The consensus suggests that it’s a long overdue move. Another popular opinion is, “This needed to happen almost 10 years ago.” The feeling is that everyone has been slow to realize that they’re already in a type of war. The reluctance to take decisive action is seen as a sign of weakness, even something to be ashamed of. A major concern is a potential for future hesitation: if a full-scale invasion were to occur, would NATO be ready to respond? The concern is that it would not be able to react fast enough.
The word “may” is interpreted by many as a signal of continued inaction. It seems as though this has been the pattern for a long time. The emphasis should be on *will*. Not only that, but many feel as if NATO will be unable to act without approval from Putin himself. It’s a sad state of affairs. The truth is that Russia seems to be testing the waters. Russia is probing, and looking for weaknesses to exploit. But how many slaps on the wrist are needed?
The critiques do extend beyond just the word “may.” There’s a broader concern about the overall effectiveness of NATO and, by extension, Europe. Some see European entities as useless. There’s a strong sentiment that NATO has become more of a figurehead, and has lost its purpose. There’s a deep-seated frustration with the perceived weakness of the response. The fear is that the lack of resolute action will embolden Russia to continue its aggressive behavior, while the people of the world watch and worry.
The fact that some nations within NATO are carrying more of the burden is another factor contributing to the cynicism. The border countries, those closest to the threat, are pouring resources into defense. Meanwhile, other, more prosperous nations are, in effect, relying on their neighbors to defend them. That kind of imbalance breeds resentment and, as some point out, can fuel the rise of far-right movements. The call is for a unified front, one that’s willing to invest in its own defense and stand firm against Russian aggression.
What’s needed now is decisive action, not just words. A strong response that conveys the message that further aggression will not be tolerated. This means taking the gloves off, being proactive, and being prepared to deter rather than just react. This means a serious commitment, a *will* to act, not just a *may* to consider.