NATO’s top military chief says the alliance is considering stopping reacting only after cyber attacks and sabotage attributed to Russia and starting to act more assertively, including, in certain scenarios, “preventive” actions presented as defense
The warning comes from Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, president of the NATO Military Committee, at a time when the allies are adding incidents: damaged submarine cables in the Baltic, cyberattacks on civil infrastructures, airspace violations. “We are studying everything. In cyberspace, we are a little reactive. Being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something we are thinking about”, .
The admiral even admitted that, in certain circumstances, a “preventive attack” can be understood as “defensive action”, although he emphasizes that this approach is “far from our normal way of thinking and acting”.
The pressure comes mainly from the eastern wing of the alliance, which for years has been demanding a less passive stance in the face of what it classifies as a Russian hybrid war. Little cheap blows for Moscow, expensive for those who suffer them. Dragone admits that “being more aggressive compared to the aggressiveness of our counterpart” is a hypothesis on the table, but remembers that there are serious obstacles. “Legal framework, jurisdictional framework: who does it?”, he asked, when Financial Times.
The case of the Eagle S, a ship linked to Russia suspected of having damaged power and data cables in the Baltic, illustrates these limitations: a Finnish court shelved the case because the incident occurred in international waters, which, in the words of Finnish Foreign Minister, Elina Valtonen, ends up giving “carte blanche” to Russian ships outside territorial waters, even with allies asking for a firmer response.
At the same time, Dragone points to the Baltic Sentry exercise as proof that deterrence still works. Since allied naval ships, planes and drones began patrolling critical infrastructure in the Baltic, “nothing has happened”, he says, which for NATO means that the presence has stopped new attacks.
The question, the admiral insists, is what to do next: “How deterrence is achieved — through retaliation, through a preemptive strike — is something we have to analyze in depth, because in the future there could be even more pressure.” Pressure to respond to hybrid operations with means that go beyond condemnation statements.
