Europe is facing an intensified wave of hybrid warfare from Russia, prompting urgent questions about the continent’s ability to respond to a multi-faceted and elusive threat. Recent months have seen a significant escalation of what experts describe as a deliberate strategy to destabilize European Union and NATO member states without resorting to direct armed conflict.
Evidence of this campaign is mounting. In recent weeks alone, at least 19 Russian drones have reportedly entered Polish airspace, while three Russian aircraft have violated Estonian territory. France experienced a disturbing incident on September 9, when pig heads were discovered outside several mosques in Paris, an Islamophobic act authorities suspect may have been orchestrated from Moscow.
Further north, Moldovan President Maia Sandu raised alarms on September 22 about Russian interference ahead of upcoming parliamentary elections, following the dismantling of a network designed to incite “post-election violence.” The very next day, drones disrupted air traffic at Copenhagen Airport, an event repeated several times across Denmark that week. Danish authorities stated they could not rule out Russian provocation. NATO and European national authorities have recorded dozens of similar incidents since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a trend that has sharply accelerated since a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump last August.
“The very essence of hybrid warfare lies in ambiguity,” explains Arsalan Bilal, a research fellow at the Norwegian Centre for Peace Studies at the Arctic University of Norway. This deliberate lack of clear attribution is key to Moscow’s strategy. “The aggressor attempts to create significant strategic and tactical confusion by denying any responsibility. This makes it very difficult for the victim – the attacked country or society – to react decisively.”
Ulrich Bounat, an associate researcher at Euro Créative, summarizes the goal: “The purpose of hybrid warfare is to destabilize its adversary as much as possible, without reaching direct armed struggle.” Thomas Haldenwang, former head of German intelligence, told Politico that Russia, “aware of its military weaknesses vis-à-vis NATO,” employs “all tools at its disposal, from influencing political discussions to cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, including large-scale sabotage.” The Kremlin, through spokesperson Dmitri Peskov, has consistently dismissed accusations of Russian aerial intrusions as “hysteria.”
European leaders are now confronting the reality of an existential threat. General Thierry Burkhard warned in Le Figaro in 2024 that “Russia is fighting to establish, if necessary by force, an complete alternative order to the rule of law that emerged from the Second World War.” Arsalan Bilal goes further, stating, “Russia’s ultimate objective is the implosion of Europe – of the EU and NATO – from within. It knows it would be very difficult to defeat them in a conventional war and therefore seeks to weaken them from within.”
For a long time, Europe was slow to acknowledge the threat, with some leaders, like French President Emmanuel Macron, attempting to restore ties with Vladimir Putin even in the immediate run-up to the 2022 invasion. Germany, too, historically believed that strengthening economic ties with Moscow would guarantee peace.
However, the tide has turned. EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas condemned “coordinated and long-standing hybrid campaigns aimed at threatening and undermining the security, resilience, and democratic foundations of the EU, its member states, and its partners” last July. European and NATO responses have included “unprecedented measures, notably radical sanctions against Russia and massive transfers of arms to Ukraine,” notes Arsalan Bilal.
The EU has made significant strides in common defense, launching initiatives like the SAFE programme to finance joint arms purchases – a move that breaks a long-standing taboo on military matters being purely national prerogatives. “We have indeed taken steps forward that would have been unimaginable a few years ago,” says Ulrich Bounat, citing the willingness of Germany and Poland to consider sharing France’s nuclear deterrent. Transnational investigations have also successfully dismantled Russian influence networks in countries like the Czech Republic and Poland.
NATO, despite shifts in American policy, has likewise adapted. It has strengthened coordination among members, urged increased defense spending, and deployed tens of thousands of soldiers to its eastern flank. Its presence in the North Sea has also been bolstered following a series of incidents involving cut underwater cables.
Yet, facing persistent drone incursions and airspace violations, some leaders are calling for more robust action. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, suggested NATO countries should “step up” their response to “new provocations.” Even former US President Donald Trump has reportedly suggested European nations shoot down Russian aircraft that violate their airspace.
The challenge of drone incursions, which Ukraine endures nightly, is particularly pressing. European nations are currently ill-equipped to counter this threat, with the cost of interceptor missiles running into hundreds of thousands of euros per drone. Experts are advocating for a “Skyshield” project to protect European skies, a goal shared by the European Commission, which proposes an “anti-drone wall” along the eastern border. “Europeans and Americans will have to work with the Ukrainians on this,” believes Ulrich Bounat, adding, “If it wants to exist more globally in the world, Europe must become a military power commensurate with its economic power.”
Beyond military measures, fostering societal resilience is crucial. Arsalan Bilal emphasizes the need for “more coordination and more collective action” against hybrid threats. This includes countering Russian propaganda and disinformation through funding independent media and improving media literacy education, enabling citizens to recognize manipulation. “We need to give more resilience to European society,” Ulrich Bounat states. “We did it during the Cold War; we can do it again.”
However, Europe’s democratic nature presents both a vulnerability and a strength. Unlike Russia, where “Vladimir Putin doesn’t need to think about his re-election,” as Bounat points out, European leaders must consider public opinion. Not all European citizens feel themselves to be “at war” with Russia, and debates over EU and NATO involvement in Ukraine remain lively, particularly in Western Europe. Russia skillfully exploits these democratic vulnerabilities, such as political polarization and distrust in institutions, to undermine cohesion.
Crucially, experts argue that Europe cannot respond using Russia’s own methods. “Stooping to Russian methods would risk eroding trust in European institutions and alienating allies,” warns Arsalan Bilal. Such a move, he believes, would ultimately “undermine Europe’s legitimacy in the long term.” Instead, democratic norms must be perceived as a strength, even if they lead to a slower decision-making process.
The capacity of European political representatives to agree on collective action remains a critical factor. A 19th package of sanctions against Russia is currently under discussion in Brussels, even as some EU member states, notably Hungary and Slovakia, maintain close ties with Moscow. Upcoming elections across the continent also pose a risk to European cohesion. The 2027 French presidential election, for example, is being closely watched, given the ambiguous stance of the far-right National Rally party towards Russia. While the party now officially supports Kyiv, its members have repeatedly declined to confirm this by vote in both the European and French national parliaments.
