cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/5883329
Nato is considering being “more aggressive” in responding to Russia’s cyber attacks, sabotage and airspace violations, according to the alliance’s most senior military officer.
Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone told the Financial Times that the western military alliance was looking at stepping up its response to hybrid warfare from Moscow.
“We are studying everything . . . On cyber, we are kind of reactive. Being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something that we are thinking about,” said Dragone, who is chair of Nato’s military committee.
Europe has been hit by numerous hybrid war incidents — some attributed to Russia and others unclear — from the cutting of cables in the Baltic Sea to cyber attacks across the continent.
…
Dragone said that a “pre-emptive strike” could be considered a “defensive action”, but added: “It is further away from our normal way of thinking and behaviour.”
…
A Baltic diplomat said: “If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us. Especially when hybrid warfare is asymmetric — it costs them little, and us a lot. We need to try to be more inventive.”
…
Sometimes the best defense is to retaliate before the initial attack has completed.
As soon as they’ve committed, they’re fair game. You don’t need to wait for the full effect of the attack to materialize to legitimately exercise your right to self-defense.
Well, that’s precisely the point of view i dislike (which was not the pov of the article actually, it seems). Though the logic behind it is clear, though the legitimacy of self defense makes sense, especially in this case, and especially in the cyberconflict going on, and though i appreciate your straight to the point explanation, i still think that in the case of armed preemptive strikes (and not cyberattacks as in the article), it only makes sense from the point of view of country versus country, and not of peoples governed by more or less autocratic leaders. If your goal is for one side to prevail, then sure, striking first can make sense. If your goal is for the less civilians to get hurt, no matter their side, then it’s way less clear. Striking first could then be a less bad option, if it leads to less violence in the end, but i cannot see it being the best option.