Nato considers being ‘more aggressive’ against Russia’s hybrid warfare
www.ft.com
Alliance’s top military officer says it could become proactive in dealing with threats from Moscow

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/5883329

Archived version

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.”

…

  • andallthat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    32·
    1 hour ago

    so… NATO-minus-the-US are considering creating a committee to discuss maybe retaliating AND they are helpfully announcing their intentions to Russia?

    I know nothing of diplomacy, foreign politics or war but what the f#@k is this? If NATO did have the strength and consensus to do something like that, wouldn’t they just launch a cyber attack and then immediately deny that anything happened? If we AREN’T already actively doing at least some light sabotaging in Russia, how do I return my NATO loyalty card?

    If someone is declaring something like that, it strikes me as a declaration of weakness for EU-internal reasons. It’s a call for the EU to start preparing to maybe start having this kind of capabilities in the next 10-15 years. And I fully hope I’m wrong and that there’s a better, 4D-chess type of strategy behind this.

    EDIT: I don’t mind the downvotes, but why? I WANT to be wrong on this so I’d really like to read a comment that explains why.