cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/5883329
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.”
…
I swear, our world is run by complete morons who are just operating on auto-pilot.
If NATO was always going to go to war with Russia, why did they let the Ukrainians die without their help?
I can think of several reasons:
- get information on Russian forces
- lower Russian morale
- let Ukrainians die first because it’s more profitable
- make Ukraine a debt-slave state to its NATO sponsors
- go in guns blazing in order to save Ukraine so NATO gets good press
- force Ukraine to sign all sorts of deals that will leave the country at the complete mercy of big western corpos
Stupid to talk about pre-emptive strikes. This plays right into the Russian propaganda narrative that NATO is an offensive threat. Just match them one for one on each cyber attack, shoot down all drone incursions and reply in kind with our own, and for each cut cable we sink the ship that did it.
Yeah, NATO is run by absolute idiots.
“Pre-emptive strike” AFTER Ukraine has been routed. Real brilliant move.
That’s warmonger bullshit, do the first step in love, not in war Edit : did not read the article, thought it was about actual military strikes.
The first steps have long been done by Russia. And it was not in love.
Sure in cold war, not in open war, which preemptive strikes seems to be.
“Not in open war”
Yeah sure if you don’t consider constant interference into other countries’ internal matters, constant hacking attempts (many of which were successful and quite damaging), and other cyber attacks, not to mention actual attacks on foreign soil (dare I remind y’all about the Salisbury incident?)…
Sorry but what Russia is doing is NOT a cold war, just because it happens in “cyberspace”.
Well that was what happened during Cold War, and anyway it should not legitimate replying to cybershit with army strikes. Fuck Russia military ofc, but also fuck my country military spreading war talks
Did you even read the fucking article? It’s not about “army strikes”, the preventative measures would be similarly cyberattacks - something NATO members have refrained from for the most part even as a response.
A preventative measure could be e.g. getting knowledge of a planned attack, and NATO responding by preemptively hacking the local grid, network hubs etc., to ensure that the attack can’t happen.
Did not read it, thx for bringing this to my attention. With all the bs france military fuckers are saying about war, i just assumed it was the same. You can consider my point invalidated there.
Shouldn’t this be apply to Russia?
Oh yes, Russia is far ahead on warmongering. Fuck their leaders and their military. But because someone does incredible evil shit does not mean you can start doing same kind of shit without being treated as such.
So if someone come to your house to steal you don’t have to defend yourself?
Defend doesn’t mean steal them in return. I hate seeing this confusion between “defending” and “attacking”. A way more fair comparison, whefe you could still defend “attack” while still making sense to only “defend” is : when someone strikes you, do you strike back? Though, as others corrected me, i thought this article was about actual strikes, not cyberfuckery. I admit it kinda applies less here, and my point was about general warmongering i hear about, and not this article.
Which part of NATO intention regarding Ukraine and Russia goes against international laws that all countries agreed to respect? I am far from a fan of Nato for collaborating with the terrorist state of Israel but in regard to this conflict they are right. They said they would respond to cyber attacks, sabotage and airspace violation so there is nothing preemptive about their actions
