Politics
Russia vs Ukraine – The Dangerous New Phase, Russia Threatens Europe With Strikes But Why Is Europe Not Fighting Back?
As winter descends, both Russia and Ukraine are deploying new resources in hopes of gaining a strategic foothold. But could it result in a wider and even more devastating war?
From all looks of it, yes! Even as The United States on Tuesday provided the first official confirmation that its long-range Army Tactical Missiles (ATACMS) were in use in Russia, Europe absorbed the ramifications of Russia’s retaliatory response with an intermediate ballistic missile that could strike “anywhere in Europe”.
How The Game Is Changing And Fast
Until now, Moscow has often downplayed Ukrainian missile and drone attacks, attributing damage to “falling debris” from intercepted missiles. However, in a notable shift in communication strategy, the Russian Ministry of Defence has openly acknowledged Ukrainian ATACMS strikes.
On Tuesday, Russia’s Defence Ministry admitted that ATACMS missiles had targeted an S-400 air defense radar in Lotarevka on Saturday and the Khalino airfield on Monday. Both sites are approximately 90 km (56 miles) from the Ukrainian front lines in Kursk. Geolocated footage has verified these strikes.
Why the sudden change? The likely catalyst is President Vladimir Putin’s commitment to retaliate decisively when long-range weapons like ATACMS are deployed. This shift comes as Ukraine has been authorized by Britain and France to use SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles with a 200 km (120-mile) range against Russian targets.
In response, Russia launched a new intermediate-range ballistic missile, named Oreshnik, at the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro last Thursday, targeting a missile and aerospace factory. Ukrainian officials reported minimal damage.
In a televised address following the Oreshnik strike, Putin issued a stark warning to European nations supplying weapons to Ukraine: “We consider ourselves entitled to target military facilities in countries that allow their weapons to be used against us.”
Sergei Viktorovich, commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, emphasized the missile’s reach, stating it “can strike targets across Europe.” Putin went further, suggesting that a barrage of Oreshnik missiles could rival the impact of a nuclear strike.
“With its immense destructive power, particularly when deployed in large numbers and combined with other high-precision, long-range systems, the effect will be comparable to that of strategic nuclear weapons,” Putin declared.
This escalation indicates a dangerous shift in Russia’s military posture, with both sides inching closer to a perilous threshold.
The Debate Over Oreshnik
Vasily Petrovich, the first deputy chairman of the Military Industrial Commission, asserted that the Oreshnik missile was developed “entirely using Russian technologies,” emphasizing that “issues of import substitution have been resolved” and that Russia’s defense industry is “capable of mass-producing this type of weaponry.”
However, international observers remain skeptical.
Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukrainian intelligence, told RBC-Ukraine that Russia lacks the capacity for large-scale production.
“The missile is experimental. We were aware that two prototypes were planned for completion by October, possibly a few more, but it remains a prototype,” Budanov stated.
He clarified that Oreshnik—meaning “hazelnut tree”—was the codename for the research project, while the missile itself is known as Kedr, or “cedar.”
Doubts also linger over whether Kedr represents genuine technological innovation, as claimed by Putin. Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh suggested it is based on the RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile, and weapons analysts noted that its development has been ongoing “for some time.”
According to Putin, Kedr warheads can reach speeds of 2.5 to 3 kilometers (1 to 2 miles) per second during their final approach, making them nearly impossible to intercept with current defense systems. Yet, Russia has already used various ballistic missiles in its campaign against Ukraine.
The Kedr missile launched last Thursday was part of a broader offensive that included a Kh-47 Kinzhal ballistic missile and six Kh-101 cruise missiles.
Ballistic warheads are notoriously difficult to intercept due to their high terminal velocity and lack of guidance in the final phase, rendering electronic warfare measures ineffective. Interception is most feasible during the launch or ascent phases, but Budanov pointed out that Kedr’s flight time from launch to impact was only 15 minutes, leaving minimal time for defensive measures.
The key question now is whether Russia can sustain a large-scale deployment of these missiles. Putin insists they can: “We have a reserve of such products, a reserve of such systems ready for use,” he declared.
Whether this claim holds true remains a contentious point, with global implications riding on the answer.
Why is Europe not fighting back?
Europe finds itself strained against a growing wave of Russian aggression, yet its response remains notably restrained. From cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns to acts of sabotage and espionage, Moscow’s playbook of hybrid warfare has expanded, raising critical questions about Europe’s capacity—and willingness—to respond decisively.
Thomas Haldenwang, former president of Germany’s federal domestic intelligence agency, recently put forth this concern: “We have been observing aggressive actions by the Russian intelligence services for some time now. Russia is using the entire toolbox, from influencing political discussions to cyberattacks on critical infrastructure to sabotage on a significant scale.”
Just last week, Germany reported the severing of two undersea telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea, suspected to be the result of sabotage. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius commented, “We have to conclude, without knowing exactly who did it, that it is a hybrid action and we also have to assume — without knowing it — that it is sabotage.”
This incident followed the expulsion of the Russian spy ship Yantar from Irish-controlled waters, where it had been patrolling near critical energy and internet infrastructure. Meanwhile, Russian-linked violence has intensified, with incidents like parcel bomb attacks in Birmingham and Leipzig, arson attacks across several European countries, and a foiled plot to assassinate Armin Papperger, CEO of German defense manufacturer Rheinmetall.
Despite these provocations, Europe’s collective response has been muted. Nordic and Baltic countries have sounded the alarm, but broader EU and NATO reactions have fallen short of a robust defense strategy. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen voiced her frustration: “We are simply too polite. They are attacking us every day now.”
Experts suggest that Europe’s hesitancy stems from a fear of escalation. Daniel Byman, an expert in terrorism and unconventional warfare, explained: “Most countries don’t want to be openly confronting Russia more than they already are. They’re worried about escalation, a back-and-forth cycle that will make things worse.”
Even the terminology reflects this caution. Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania’s outgoing foreign minister, criticized the tendency to label Russian actions as “hybrid warfare.” Speaking at a security conference in Riga, he argued, “Why do we call it hybrid? Because basically, when you call it hybrid, you don’t need to do anything about it. If you call it terrorism, then it implies reaction.”
The Limits of NATO
Russia’s hybrid warfare strategy, crafted by General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, employs a complex array of tactics beyond traditional military confrontation. According to Austrian security expert Gerhard Mangott, it encompasses disinformation, propaganda, sabotage, political infiltration, and even airspace violations involving Russian fighter jets over NATO territories.
A recent example of this multi-faceted strategy is unfolding in Lithuania, where Russian disinformation campaigns aim to derail the deployment of a German armed forces brigade, part of NATO’s efforts to reinforce its eastern flank. Darius Jauniškis, head of Lithuania’s secret service, warned that “a lot of fake news is being spread, for example, that German soldiers raped women and wanted to occupy Lithuania. Russia wants to sabotage the project. We take this very seriously.”
Similarly, in Poland, a spike in migrants crossing from Belarus led to a temporary suspension of asylum rights, with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk attributing the influx to Moscow’s attempts to destabilize Warsaw.
Despite these provocations, Russia’s actions appear carefully calibrated to avoid triggering NATO’s mutual defense clause, Article 5, which obligates member states to defend one another in the event of an armed attack. Instead, Moscow seems to be testing NATO’s boundaries, as German lawmaker and former military officer Roderich Kiesewetter noted: “Russia is testing the limits of Article 5 to stir up uncertainty.”
NATO has deliberated over a collective response to Russia’s hybrid tactics. While these attacks may not constitute traditional acts of war, Article 4—calling for consultations when a member’s security is threatened—remains an option. A senior NATO official hinted that invoking Article 4 could be considered if the situation escalates: “I don’t think we can rule that out in the future, particularly if we were to see a continued worsening and intensification of that kind of activity.”
However, NATO’s current stance remains cautious. General Thierry Burkhard, France’s Chief of the Defense Staff, explained: “NATO is a defensive military alliance that thinks in terms of peacetime and wartime. Its tools are not designed for the gray zone of competition and contestation.”
The challenges of invoking Article 5 lie in two key areas: defining hybrid warfare and attributing responsibility. Marek Kohv, an expert at Estonia’s International Centre for Defence and Security, pointed out, “There is no clear definition among allies about what hybrid warfare means. Attribution is another issue, often coming much later.”
For instance, more than three months after the sabotage of France’s rail network ahead of the Paris Olympics, intelligence agencies are still investigating whether Moscow was behind the attack, as reported by Le Monde.
EU and NATO Ramp Up Efforts Against Russia’s Hybrid Warfare
Despite EU and NATO efforts, deterring Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics has been challenging. One significant hurdle lies in NATO’s decision-making process, which requires consensus. Countries like Hungary and Turkey, which have expressed sympathetic stances towards Russia, complicate this consensus, according to Daniel Byman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
However, European governments are increasingly willing to publicly attribute acts of sabotage to Russia, marking a shift in their response strategy. Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur emphasized the importance of transparency: “When something happens, just go public. Show that these attacks were conducted by individuals funded by Russia.”
Countering Russia Through Sanctions and Cyber Defense
While avoiding direct military confrontation, the EU and NATO are gradually strengthening their countermeasures.
France’s 2021 establishment of Viginum, a government agency to combat foreign digital interference, exemplifies these efforts. Initially created after Russia’s interference in the 2017 French presidential election, Viginum has since accused Russia of spreading disinformation, including false narratives linking a bedbug infestation in Paris to Ukrainian refugees. French intelligence also suspects Russian involvement in antisemitic graffiti incidents aimed at exacerbating domestic tensions over the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Sweden has also stepped up its defenses by creating a special “Agency for Psychological Defense” to counter disinformation campaigns.
Following the 2023 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, NATO established an Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell to safeguard vital assets like telecom lines, gas pipelines, and electricity grids. Additionally, a joint EU-NATO Task Force on Critical Infrastructure Resilience was launched in March 2023. In October, Germany and Norway proposed the creation of five regional centers to enhance subsea infrastructure protection.
Sanctioning Hybrid Warfare Actors
The EU introduced a new sanctions framework in October 2023, targeting individuals and entities involved in Russia’s hybrid warfare activities, including election interference, sabotage, and cyberattacks. Sanctions can include asset freezes and travel bans.
“The EU’s response remains united and determined,” Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard stated. “Russia will not succeed in undermining the resilience and stability of the EU and its member states.”
This comprehensive approach reflects a growing determination within Europe to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare, even as diplomatic and strategic challenges persist.
Despite sustained efforts, the EU and NATO have struggled to effectively deter Russia’s ongoing hybrid warfare tactics. While sanctions tied to the war in Ukraine have been implemented, their impact remains limited. The effectiveness of the new sanctions framework targeting Russia’s hybrid warfare actors is uncertain.
“The Europeans need to respond in a much more united, forceful way,” emphasized Daniel Byman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Increasing military aid to Ukraine would demonstrate that Russia’s actions are backfiring.”
Beyond defense spending, European nations must also bolster internal security, according to Marek Kohv from the International Centre for Defence and Security. He stressed the importance of enhancing police forces, domestic intelligence, and inter-governmental information sharing. “If we miss this opportunity, Russia will only gain more traction,” Kohv warned. “They are essentially mirroring the Soviet Cold War sabotage doctrine.”
The Rise of Disposable Agents
Ironically, one of Europe’s most decisive actions—expelling over 700 Russian spies posing as diplomats since 2022—has made tracing Russian operations more complex.
In response, the Kremlin has shifted to recruiting so-called “disposable agents,” often through platforms like Telegram. These recruits are typically young, Russian-speaking, tech-savvy men with criminal backgrounds, aged between 20 and 30. Some are ideologically driven, while others are motivated by financial incentives, often paid in cryptocurrency.
Intelligence officials suspect that disposable agents have been involved in recent incidents, such as the parcel fire in Leipzig and a British man charged in April with hostile activities for Russia. These agents may sometimes be unaware of the full extent of their involvement, making them harder to trace and hold accountable.
Arndt Freytag von Loringhoven, NATO’s first chief of intelligence and a former German ambassador, stressed the urgency of a stronger European response. “We are asleep,” he said. “Aggressive behavior has to have political costs. Europe must wake up and ensure Russia pays a price.”
The evolving nature of Russia’s tactics now calls for a unified and proactive European stance to counter these unconventional threats.
Europe now stands at a crossroads. The longer it avoids a firm response, the more emboldened Russia becomes. The challenge ahead is clear- Will Europe continue to tread carefully, or will it recognize that inaction may invite greater aggression, forcing a response it hoped to avoid?