105

Nato considers being ‘more aggressive’ against Russia’s hybrid warfare, including a 'pre-emptive strike' (www.ft.com)

submitted 3 days ago by randomname@scribe.disroot.org to c/world@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/5883329

Archived version

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.”

...

top 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] andallthat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

so... NATO-minus-the-US are considering creating a committee to discuss maybe retaliating AND they are helpfully announcing their intentions to Russia?

I know nothing of diplomacy, foreign politics or war but what the f#@k is this? If NATO did have the strength and consensus to do something like that, wouldn't they just launch a cyber attack and then immediately deny that anything happened? If we AREN'T already actively doing at least some light sabotaging in Russia, how do I return my NATO loyalty card?

If someone is declaring something like that, it strikes me as a declaration of weakness for EU-internal reasons. It's a call for the EU to start preparing to maybe start having this kind of capabilities in the next 10-15 years. And I fully hope I'm wrong and that there's a better, 4D-chess type of strategy behind this.

EDIT: I don't mind the downvotes, but why? I WANT to be wrong on this so I'd really like to read a comment that explains why.

[-] realitista@lemmus.org 43 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.

[-] mcv@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

Yeah, why talk about preemptive strikes when they're still not responding appropriately to the invasion of Ukraine? Kick Russia out of there first. That's a totally legitimate non-preemptive way to block Russian aggression. That's how you show strength, not with words that help the Russian narrative.

[-] wooffersyt@lemmings.world 12 points 2 days ago

Yeah, NATO is run by absolute idiots.

"Pre-emptive strike" AFTER Ukraine has been routed. Real brilliant move.

[-] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Wouldn't you consider a drone incursion an offensive threat?

[-] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 2 days ago

Not if it is a direct response to one.

[-] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Do you pack the drones with bombs?

[-] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 2 days ago

Did they?

[-] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

They didn't. Do you think Russia would get afraid if they saw a dozen unarmed drones coming?

[-] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 1 day ago

Who knows. I don't think they'd be able to tell if they were armed while they were in the air. But at least would give them something to think about and show them that we aren't just going to sit down and take it:

[-] wooffersyt@lemmings.world 12 points 2 days ago

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?

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago

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

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Also, NATO is a mutual self-defense treaty. Ukraine is not part of NATO.

[-] brendansimms@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

also: field-test new weaponry

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 23 points 2 days ago

The first steps have long been done by Russia. And it was not in love.

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 2 days ago

Sure in cold war, not in open war, which preemptive strikes seems to be.

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Uhhh...

Do you just not read the news? Like never at all? Or talk to people about world events?

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 10 points 2 days ago

"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".

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Russia helping Trump get elected president was an act of war against the people of the US.

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 2 days ago

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

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 8 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 2 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] mrdown@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Shouldn't this be apply to Russia?

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] mrdown@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

So if someone come to your house to steal you don't have to defend yourself?

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 2 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Sometimes the best defense is to retaliate before the initial attack has completed.

As soon as they've committed, they're fair game. You don't need to wait for the full effect of the attack to materialize to legitimately exercise your right to self-defense.

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 1 day ago

Well, that's precisely the point of view i dislike (which was not the pov of the article actually, it seems). Though the logic behind it is clear, though the legitimacy of self defense makes sense, especially in this case, and especially in the cyberconflict going on, and though i appreciate your straight to the point explanation, i still think that in the case of armed preemptive strikes (and not cyberattacks as in the article), it only makes sense from the point of view of country versus country, and not of peoples governed by more or less autocratic leaders. If your goal is for one side to prevail, then sure, striking first can make sense. If your goal is for the less civilians to get hurt, no matter their side, then it's way less clear. Striking first could then be a less bad option, if it leads to less violence in the end, but i cannot see it being the best option.

[-] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

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

[-] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 2 days ago

Never said NATO goes against international law, and i'm no specialist on the matter. Responding to attacks is indeed different from "pre-emptive strikes" which would be the "warmonger bs" i was talking about. I dont know if its pre-emptive or not, still hasnt read the article, only the tagline.

this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025

105 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51022 readers

1557 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.