NATO Considers More Assertive Posture Against Russian Hybrid Threats
NATO is finding itself at a crossroads in its approach to countering Russian aggression, as revealed by recent statements from its top military commander. Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chairman of NATO’s military committee, has indicated that the alliance is evaluating whether to shift from a reactive to a more proactive stance against Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics. In an interview with the Financial Times, Dragone suggested that member states are contemplating “more aggressive” measures, including potential “preemptive” cyber or sabotage operations. This represents a significant departure from NATO’s traditional defensive posture, with Dragone acknowledging, “It is further away from our normal way of thinking or behavior.” Despite this potential shift, he emphasized that such actions would still fall within the alliance’s defensive doctrine, suggesting NATO is recalibrating its approach rather than fundamentally altering its mission.
The evolving NATO strategy comes in response to what alliance officials characterize as a persistent campaign of hybrid warfare from Moscow. NATO faces daily cyberattacks attributed to Russia, alongside information operations, migration pressure, and targeting of critical infrastructure. Dragone pointed to the Baltic Sentry mission as an example of effective deterrence, noting that “from the beginning of Baltic Sentry, nothing has happened.” However, he candidly acknowledged the constraints NATO faces compared to Russia, citing “ethics, law, and jurisdiction” as limiting factors. This admission highlights the complex challenge NATO confronts: how to effectively counter aggressive actions while adhering to democratic values and international legal frameworks that its adversary may not respect.
Moscow’s reaction was swift and predictable, with Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova condemning Dragone’s comments as “an extremely irresponsible step.” She accused NATO of signaling a willingness “to move toward escalation,” a characterization that experts like Carrie Filipetti, executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition, find disingenuous. Filipetti told Fox News Digital that “Given Russia’s unilateral invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the idea that Russia is warning about NATO being irresponsible is laughable.” She emphasized that NATO’s more assertive posture represents a reaction to Putin’s aggression rather than an escalation initiated by the alliance. This war of words underscores the deepening distrust between Russia and NATO, with each side accusing the other of provocative behavior.
A series of troubling incidents throughout 2024 has heightened NATO’s concerns about Russian hybrid tactics. Several undersea data cables and a key power link were damaged in November and December, including a Christmas Day incident. While prosecutors in Finland initially accused the crew of a Cook Islands-flagged tanker of deliberately severing infrastructure by dragging an anchor for over 50 miles, a Finnish court later dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. More alarmingly, approximately 20 drones crossed into NATO member Poland in September, prompting Warsaw to trigger Article 4 consultations. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk characterized this incursion as “the closest we have been to open conflict since World War II,” though Moscow denied targeting Polish territory. These incidents collectively suggest a pattern of deniable actions designed to test NATO’s resolve and response mechanisms.
Retired U.S. Air Force General Bruce Carlson, former director of the National Reconnaissance Office, provided additional context to the situation, reminding that “it’s Russia who is conducting preemptive military action in Europe with the sole intention of invading and occupying another sovereign nation’s territory by force.” His assessment that “Putin only understands one thing and that’s power” reflects a viewpoint shared by many security experts who believe that only strength and resolve will bring Russia to meaningful negotiations. Carlson also emphasized the importance of using “every lever possible to push Russia to the negotiating table to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace deal that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty and defends U.S. national security interests.” This perspective highlights the strategic calculations underlying NATO’s potential shift toward a more assertive stance.
As NATO contemplates this evolution in its approach, important questions remain about how individual member states will interpret and implement any new strategies. Filipetti noted that Article 5 of the NATO treaty “merely states that an attack on one is an attack on all” and that “NATO adopting a more assertive position does not obligate the U.S. to do the same.” Member nations are only required to take “such action as [they] deem necessary” in the event of an attack on a NATO state. This nuance suggests that even as the alliance considers a more proactive posture collectively, individual members will retain significant discretion in determining their specific contributions and actions. The challenge for NATO will be maintaining cohesion while allowing for this necessary flexibility, particularly as the alliance faces what many security experts describe as the most serious threat environment in Europe since the end of the Cold War.
