NATO is divided over whether to launch “preemptive strikes” against Russia to end hybrid warfare

BrusselsRussia's hybrid attacks against European allies have been increasing in recent monthsFrom fighter jet incursions into NATO airspace to drones and cyberattacks against infrastructure such as airports, NATO's military committee chairman, Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, has made statements to the press advocating a change in strategy. Instead of being "reactive," he proposes a "proactive" and "more aggressive" approach to prevent potential attacks from Vladimir Putin's regime. However, other allies—as stipulated in the treaties—believe that the Atlantic Alliance is a coalition of countries for greater security and that carrying out actions like those suggested by the Italian admiral goes against the entity's defensive nature, according to NATO diplomatic sources. Cavo Dragone has expressed this view in various media outlets in recent days. And this weekend, he was clearer than ever in an interview with the British newspaper. Financial Times"If we continue to be merely reactive, we invite Russia to keep trying, to keep hurting us. Especially when hybrid warfare is asymmetric: it costs them little, but it costs us a lot. We have to try to be more inventive," responds the Italian military officer, who even asserts that a "preemptive strike" could be considered a "At this point, according to the newspaper itself, these types of actions would primarily be cyberattacks."

Cavo Dragone's controversial statements have the general support of the allies geographically closest to Russia's borders and most aware of the threat of Moscow's expansionism. These countries, especially those in Eastern Europe and the Nordic countries, often pressure the other partners to escalate their rhetoric against Putin and to take more forceful measures against the Russian regime. The same diplomatic sources indicate that this group of states agrees with the opinion of NATO's military committee.

On the other hand, and as usual, there are states that feel uncomfortable with these kinds of statements and find them unfortunate. This group usually includes countries like France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, which prefer a less militaristic discourse and do not feel as threatened by Putin's regime. In fact, Captain Dragone himself admits that the strategy he is putting forward is "far" from NATO's "usual way of thinking and acting."

Of course, the Kremlin considers the arguments of the chairman of the Atlantic Alliance's military committee a threat. The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a statement, calls them "extremely irresponsible" and sees them as yet another sign that NATO "is prepared to continue toward a military escalation."

The US was absent from a key ministerial meeting.

Amid ongoing peace negotiations in Ukraine, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to skip Wednesday's NATO foreign ministers' summit in Brussels. This absence is highly unusual, especially at such a crucial time. No ally—least of all NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte—has dared to criticize the Trump administration for sending only lower-profile officials to the Brussels meeting, though it confirms once again that the White House is increasingly disregarding European allies. In fact, diplomatic sources within the Atlantic Alliance admit that European allies are relegated to a secondary role in the negotiations with Ukraine, have limited influence on any potential peace agreement, and that Washington completely controls the timing of discussions with Moscow and Kyiv. In other words, European countries are being dragged along by the United States.

However, the same sources indicate that European allies have abandoned their harsher stance against the White House since Trump's return and are placing their trust in the United States and a peace plan that includes their demands, namely, avoiding the cession of all of Ukraine's Donb territory and leaving the door open for Ukraine's accession to NATO.