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.”
…
It hasn’t been ‘pre-emptive’ for some time now, which is rather the point.
fr. all this phrasing does is give people who claim their support of russia (an imperial power) is anti-imperial in nature talking points
You are absolutely right, it can at most be considered retaliation at this point.
A defensive response aimed at spoiling the enemy’s preparations is shockingly enough called a spoiling attack.
If NATO can’t get their messaging right on the most basic of rhetoric it’s not a great sign, at least in regards to the state of their PR department.
Russia has already struck pre-emptively, so you are right