NATO Needs to Wake Up
Lily Jacobs
We still have time before Russia is ready for a major war, but that time is constantly shrinking. That’s what former NATO Military Chief Admiral Rob Bauer had to say regarding the state of European military capabilities. While European countries within NATO are forcing themselves to quickly adapt to a future without guaranteed security from the US, the continent is also failing to mount proper responses against Russia and its invisible counteroffensives.
Invisible is a word that contradicts itself – Russian counteroffensives are very visible. But what makes them stand out is that they don’t neatly fit into what defines warfare. Russia’s campaign defies what war means and marks a different phase of conflict. Russia has been intensifying its campaign against NATO since early 2022, attempting to weaken the military alliance and reshape Europe to its benefit.
While NATO calls out Russia’s hybrid war in public, it fails to provide any meaningful approach that would pose significant consequences to Russia. The question emerges of how to impose such consequences without provoking or escalating the conflict, but at the same time, a failure to respond adequately and effectively also risks prolonging the conflict.
But what does “hybrid” mean? Hybrid warfare is the simultaneous use of multiple types of warfare by adversaries who “understand that successful conflict requires a variety of forms designed to fit the goals at the time.” That’s the broad overview, but in reality, there is no clear, accepted definition of the term. There are some methods, such as cyberwarfare and mis/dis-information, to name a few. Shadow warfare is merely an offshoot of hybrid warfare, using espionage, sabotage, and more to ”damage adversaries while avoiding open conflict.” It is designed to psychologically inflict fear without provoking military responses.
This is where the issues start arising. Because there’s no clear definition for either hybrid or shadow warfare, attacks that fall under this range are persistently misclassified. It’s like playing a game of Guess Who – who is responsible for these attacks? How can we punish the suspected actor if there’s no clear line linking them to the attack?
The ambiguity surrounding shadow warfare is exactly what Moscow loves. It thrives on operating in a constant state of indirect confrontation, carefully toeing the line between inaction and direct action. The strategy has roots in Soviet- and Stalin-era concepts of permanent confrontation, where conflict is deemed an organizing principle of politics. This makes sense given Putin’s desire to be remembered in Russian history as a great leader, and Putin needs the war to ensure the survival of his regime. A permanent state of war allows the Kremlin to push for domestic crackdowns that uphold censorship and broader repression. Its attempt to reclaim a Soviet-style sphere of influence comes at a time when historically Soviet-aligned regions like Central Asia are moving away from its dominance.
Russia’s strategy usually falls under three categories but can often be mixed: subversion, coercion, and sabotage. In August, an explosive drone was found near a Ukrainian airplane in Leipzig, Germany. Around the same time, Poland reported strikes on railways near the Polish-Ukrainian border carrying top public officials like the former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. These attacks are meant to sow fear and confusion in countries that are aiding Ukraine. Worse, Russian attacks vary widely in their ambition and sophistication, making it difficult to trace these attacks back to Moscow. These attacks do not rely on professional operatives either. In recent years, Russia has relied on individual saboteurs who are recruited remotely through Telegram channels and paid in cryptocurrency to carry out attacks. According to Western intelligence reports, analysts found a fourfold increase in Russian sabotage operations across Europe in 2024 compared to previous years. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk even noted that the Kremlin “plans to launch drone and missile attacks against European countries that it would argue were accidental to try to weaken any response,” although no evidence has since been shown to prove this.
So what can Europe do? Europe’s room for retaliation seems to be constrained. For instance, its intelligence agencies have less authority to conduct operations abroad. While some European countries, like the Netherlands, are attempting to expand their surveillance powers, this also risks undermining individual civil liberties. There also doesn’t seem to be a coherent response across NATO member states, with the US’ threats to reduce its military presence in Europe not exactly proving to be helpful. These escalating attacks from Russia highlight divisions between Europe and the US over how best to respond to this warfare.
What can NATO do beyond sanctions and diplomatic expulsions without risking a direct military confrontation? There must be a cohesive and unified response, leading to more tangible action against these hybrid attacks. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy mentioned: “If you don’t respond to Russians, they will go further.” NATO inadvertently risks escalating the conflict if it does not have a unified response. Muted responses have not de-escalated tensions – in fact, it seems like they have had the opposite effect and have emboldened Russian military and intelligence services to raise the stakes. Vladimir Solovyov, a Russian talk show host, once described Europeans as “dumb animals.” It seems like they’re mimicking this caricature if they don’t respond adequately enough to Russian hybrid warfare.
Comments