Russia is Attacking Europe: Let’s Stop Calling it ‘Hybrid’

Let’s stop calling Russian attacks against Europe hybrid attacks. The phrase has become a political sedative. It allows governments to acknowledge Russian aggression while placing it in a category that sits safely below war, Article 5 and any meaningful retaliation. Let’s call them what they are: acoordinated Russian campaign of covert, warlike attacks, designed to discover how much violence Europe will absorb without imposing a price. JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. The problem is that each attack is treated as a separate incident against a separate country. The evidence is investigated nationally, the condemnation is issued nationally and any response is left to the country attacked. The campaign against Europe is broken into isolated cases, making a collective response politically much harder. And it is a collective response that is the best way to respond to these attacks and force Russia into some kind of restraint. Europe should treat every confidently attributed Russian operation as part of an attack on European security, then select a collective and proportionate response from an agreed ladder of measures. Europe is hardly out of options. It can tighten sanctions, freeze more assets, expel Russian operatives, launch cyber operations and put pressure on the countries helping Moscow, especially China. Further up the ladder come intercepting Russian drones and missiles, protecting western Ukraine from the air and, in the gravest circumstances, direct NATO action. Other Topics of Interest Largest Drone Strike on Moscow Hits Oil Refinery and Logistics Hub Ukrainian drones struck the Moscow Oil Refinery in Kapotnya and warehouses in the Moscow region early Sunday morning, Sept. 20. Most attacks would be answered far below the top rung. A no-fly zone or direct military action would remain emergency options. Keeping them on the table does not mean reaching for them now. Europe sees incidents but for Russia it’s a campaign The term “hybrid” once described a useful fact. Russia mixes sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation, political interference and deniable kinetic attacks. Sure, the mix is hybrid but the political effect of the label has changed. It makes acts of violence sound ambiguous, manageable and somehow less real. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys put it plainly: “Russia’s attacks against us are no longer hybrid. They are very kinetic.” Radosław Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, spoke in a similar vein, saying on Thursday that “Russia’s hybrid war against Europe has already taken on a ‘kinetic’ dimension” and that these are “on the border between hybrid warfare and outright aggression.” It’s almost war The evidence is accumulating. Germany has attributed the explosive-drone attack at Leipzig-Halle airport to Russia. European authorities have investigated suspected Russian sabotage against defense companies and infrastructure in Poland, Estonia and Slovakia. Russia has also been linked to cyberattacks, interference with railways and energy systems, threats to undersea infrastructure and repeated violations of NATO airspace. The Institute for the Study of War, a US based think-tank, says: “The Kremlin is conducting these actions against Europe as part of a series of mutually supporting kinetic and cognitive campaigns.” Each attack is also as if the Kremlin is checking the cost it has to pay for each provocation. The results have been encouraging for Russia. Poland responded to the Russian-directed railway bombing by closing Moscow’s last consulate in Gdańsk. Germany answered the Leipzig attack by closing the Russian consulate in Bonn and the Russian House cultural centre in Berlin. Russia retaliated by closing Germany’s consulate in St Petersburg and its Goethe-Institut centers. These actions imposed some cost. They were still national and easy for Moscow to absorb. Neither attack automatically brought an EU-wide sanctions package, coordinated expulsions or additional weapons for Ukraine. The extra European cost was effectively zero. The real target is collective defense Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned that Russia could strike NATO territory and then present the incident as “accidental”. The official story, he said, would be that there was no reason to consider a NATO response. That’s the point. Russia wants Article 5 to appear, in Tusk’s words, “more theoretical than practical”. The immediate target may be a train, factory, airport or undersea cable but the strategic target is the credibility of collective defense. The Kremlin also wants to break European unity and wear down support for Ukraine. NATO already accepts that a hybrid operation could, in some circumstances, trigger Article 5. The obstacle is political. Allies examine each incident separately, so almost every operation appears too small to justify a collective response. Europe must reverse that calculation. An attack intended to divide European countries should bring them closer together. An operation designed to weaken Ukraine support should automatically produce more weapons, funding or air defense for Ukraine. Every Russian attempt to frighten one country should trigger a visible response from all. That would send Moscow a message it could understand. These attacks are failing. They are strengthening European unity, increasing the cost to Russia and delivering more support to the country the Kremlin is trying to destroy. Russia may be ready before Europe The danger extends beyond sabotage. “According to all our sources, late autumn and winter will be the most critical moment so far in the Russian-Ukrainian war,” Donald Tusk told parliament. He warned that Russia could extend the pressure to NATO’s eastern flank through supposedly “accidental” drone or missile strikes designed to paralyze the alliance’s response. Europe is rearming, but many of its new forces, factories and air-defense systems will not be ready until 2029. Meanwhile, Washington wants Europe to take greater responsibility for conventional defense, and the Pentagon is considering a substantial reduction in US forces on the continent, even by as much as 50%, according to the latest reports from NBC. Russia also retains an effective army despite its slow progress in Ukraine. It has battle-hardened troops, a wartime arms industry and growing experience with drones, missiles and infiltration tactics. Russia would not need the strength to conquer Europe. A limited incursion, drone strike or missile attack could be enough to test whether NATO could agree on an Article 5 response. NATO provides the shield. The EU sets the price NATO remains Europe’s main instrument for military deterrence and defense. The EU controls many of the economic tools most useful after sabotage or a cyberattack, including sanctions, asset freezes, export controls and defense financing. The problem is that these powers are divided. NATO cannot impose sanctions, the EU cannot command NATO forces, and security powers such as Britain and Norway sit outside the EU. Ursula von der Leyen has proposed three ways to connect them. A counter-hybrid playbook would list the available responses. An Emergency Security Protocol could be triggered by one EU member and force all 27 to consult. A European Security Council would bring key non-EU partners, including Britain, Norway, Ukraine and Canada, into the political discussion. The playbook would provide the options, the protocol would trigger the process and the Security Council would build the coalition. The council could still become another talking shop. Its value would depend on governments agreeing the response ladder in advance and arriving ready to act. See the original here. The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.