cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/5883329
Nato is considering being “more aggressive” in responding to Russia’s cyber attacks, sabotage and airspace violations, according to the alliance’s most senior military officer.
Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone told the Financial Times that the western military alliance was looking at stepping up its response to hybrid warfare from Moscow.
“We are studying everything . . . On cyber, we are kind of reactive. Being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something that we are thinking about,” said Dragone, who is chair of Nato’s military committee.
Europe has been hit by numerous hybrid war incidents — some attributed to Russia and others unclear — from the cutting of cables in the Baltic Sea to cyber attacks across the continent.
…
Dragone said that a “pre-emptive strike” could be considered a “defensive action”, but added: “It is further away from our normal way of thinking and behaviour.”
…
A Baltic diplomat said: “If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us. Especially when hybrid warfare is asymmetric — it costs them little, and us a lot. We need to try to be more inventive.”
…
Oh yes, Russia is far ahead on warmongering. Fuck their leaders and their military. But because someone does incredible evil shit does not mean you can start doing same kind of shit without being treated as such.
So if someone come to your house to steal you don’t have to defend yourself?
Defend doesn’t mean steal them in return. I hate seeing this confusion between “defending” and “attacking”. A way more fair comparison, whefe you could still defend “attack” while still making sense to only “defend” is : when someone strikes you, do you strike back? Though, as others corrected me, i thought this article was about actual strikes, not cyberfuckery. I admit it kinda applies less here, and my point was about general warmongering i hear about, and not this article.
Which part of NATO intention regarding Ukraine and Russia goes against international laws that all countries agreed to respect? I am far from a fan of Nato for collaborating with the terrorist state of Israel but in regard to this conflict they are right. They said they would respond to cyber attacks, sabotage and airspace violation so there is nothing preemptive about their actions
Never said NATO goes against international law, and i’m no specialist on the matter. Responding to attacks is indeed different from “pre-emptive strikes” which would be the “warmonger bs” i was talking about. I dont know if its pre-emptive or not, still hasnt read the article, only the tagline.