NATO Weighs More ‘Proactive’ Stance Toward Russia as Hybrid Threat Fears Grow

 The NATO should consider adopting a more assertive posture towards Russia as the bloc grapples with what it views as escalating "hybrid warfare", the alliance's top military official Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of the NATO Military Committee, told the Financial Times.

Speaking to the outlet on Sunday, he said that member states were examining options that would shift the alliance from a reactive to a more proactive footing.

"We are studying everything … being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something that we are thinking about," Dragone said, adding that even a "pre-emptive strike" could be framed as a defensive measure, though he acknowledged such a step would represent a significant departure from NATO's traditional approach.

Diplomats from Eastern Europe have reportedly pushed hardest for a firmer response, including retaliatory cyber operations. NATO's deliberations, Dragone noted, remain constrained by legal, ethical and jurisdictional limits, meaning consensus on any shift in posture is likely to be difficult.

European NATO members have already intensified air patrols across its eastern fronts and the Baltic states following alleged Russian airspace violations — incidents Moscow maintains were accidental or mischaracterised.

The EU governments for their part have flat out rejected these arguments, accusing Russia of probing their defences.

The Kremlin, meanwhile, has accused NATO of "warmongering" and repeatedly insisted it has no intention of attacking Europe, claiming Western governments are inflating threats to mask domestic weaknesses and justify rising defence spending.

European governments continue to accelerate military preparations as the war in Ukraine drags on and places increasing economic and political pressure on the bloc. After drone incursions reported by Poland, Latvia and Estonia, Brussels floated the idea of a joint investment programme to build an "anti-drone wall" along eastern borders.

The proposal has split EU capitals: Germany, France and Lithuania have cautioned that the plan is unrealistic given current technological and financial constraints, urging instead that member states prioritise more immediate upgrades to their own air-defence systems.

Complicating matters further is Washington's shifting posture. While still the strongest military contributor to NATO, the United States has begun reducing its troop footprint in parts of Europe, pressing both Kyiv and Moscow to agree to a negotiated settlement while urging EU states to shoulder more of the security burden and increase contributions to NATO's budget.

Alongside discussions on conventional defence, NATO members are weighing deeper cooperation in cyberwarfare to counter what they describe as persistent Russian intrusions into European networks.

Moscow has denied conducting offensive cyber operations against Western institutions, insisting that it is itself the target of frequent attacks, including claims made by pro-Ukrainian groups.

The debate within the European members of NATO is also reflective of the wider tensions borne of the two contrasting realities, which have been shaping all geopolitical dialogue in the last three years.

On one end is the increasing desire in Europe for combatting Russia more robustly and proactively, while the other is the realisation of its own limitations and weaknesses as a player in military diplomacy against Moscow.

These are primarily its overreliance on the US for engaging in diplomacy, as well as its own emerging political, legal and financial weaknesses, both of which are simultaneously shaping its strategic choices.