While the Iran War dominates international headlines, Russia continues to conduct increasingly brazen external operations on European soil. The pattern is becoming harder to dismiss as a series of isolated incidents: assassination attempts, arson attacks, information operations, cyberattacks and drone incursions are accompanied by increasingly explicit threats from Russian officials. According to The Soufan Center, Moscow’s objective is to extend the battlefield beyond Ukraine and make continued European support for Kyiv more costly.
In August, an agent believed to be acting on behalf of the Kremlin attempted to murder an American of Ukrainian origin in Warsaw. The plot was disrupted, but the incident illustrates a changing approach. A strategy once heavily dependent on plausible deniability increasingly appears to be accompanied by overt signalling.
Taking stock of Russian operations in Europe over the past month, The Soufan Center describes a pattern involving state-sponsored assassination attempts, arson attacks, meddling in the information environment and continued drone incursions. These actions have unfolded alongside threats directed at European capitals and continuing rumours of a second Russian offensive in northern Ukraine.
The underlying logic is what Yaroslav Trofimov of The Wall Street Journal described as a “geopolitical mismatch”. Ukraine benefits from what has been described as “defense in depth”, at least insofar as Europe can provide economic assistance and military logistics for Kyiv. Russia has no comparable advantage. Moscow has therefore sought to offset that imbalance by keeping Western governments off balance through a sustained campaign of sabotage, cyberattacks and other asymmetric tactics, including the use of so-called “disposable agents”.
The visit of CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Moscow last week appears to indicate that the Trump administration is becoming increasingly concerned about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions. Ratcliffe stopped in Riga before travelling to the Kremlin, perhaps demonstrating solidarity with the Baltic States while also signalling to Moscow that an attack on a NATO ally would carry consequences.
Russia’s hybrid warfare approach is designed to extend the battlefield without crossing into an openly declared war with NATO. It combines kinetic and non-kinetic measures, including hacking campaigns, cyberwarfare and disinformation. The aim is not necessarily to defeat European states militarily, but to increase the political, economic and security costs of supporting Ukraine.
Plausible deniability has traditionally been central to this strategy. Moscow could deny responsibility for operations aimed at European governments and populations, and occasionally even its domestic audience. But Russia is increasingly and blatantly insinuating its involvement, while official statements and covert operations appear increasingly synchronised.
The United Kingdom provides one example. After Kyiv used UK-made Storm Shadow missiles for deep strikes into Russian territory, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, Russian officials denounced Britain. Moscow subsequently stated that it had a right to respond against UK targets both inside Ukraine and beyond.
Former Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister Andrei Federov went further, suggesting that UK drone manufacturers could face targeting by “unknown sources”. Fedorov said he could not exclude “semi-military” operations targeting the UK in response to British support for Kyiv.
Such statements illustrate another feature of Moscow’s approach: cost asymmetry and scalability. The operations can be comparatively inexpensive for Russia to conduct while imposing disproportionately high costs on their targets. That calculation may help explain why concerns about an imminent direct kinetic attack against NATO states, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, could be overstated when compared with the strategic advantages Russia gains from remaining below the threshold of open war.
Yet the summer has brought a notable escalation.
At Germany’s Leipzig airport, an explosive-laden drone was planted, likely targeting a Ukrainian cargo plane. Authorities believe Russia was responsible. In Estonia, Milrem Robotics, a drone manufacturer, was targeted in an arson attack widely believed to have been conducted or facilitated by Russia.
These incidents occupy a different position on the escalation ladder. They are increasingly difficult to characterise simply as obscure or deniable “hybrid” operations. Experts have argued that describing such attacks as hybrid incidents can obscure the fact that they are increasingly kinetic and, in many cases, more clearly attributable to Russia.
That distinction matters because the classification of an attack can influence how seriously it is perceived. Describing increasingly overt acts as merely “hybrid” can underplay their seriousness and reduce the public perception of the Russian threat.
There is, however, an apparent contradiction in Moscow’s strategy. As Russia has become more brazen, European publics appear to have become more attuned to the threat. This potentially undermines one of the Kremlin’s central objectives: weakening support for Ukraine.
Russia-aligned anti-Ukraine narratives have appeared to gain traction in recent years as right-wing politicians became more popular across Europe and the West, threatening to slow financial and military assistance to Kyiv. Yet the more overt Russian attacks have become, the more unified Europe has seemingly grown in its commitment to supporting Ukraine across the political spectrum.
Moscow has been more successful in another area: sowing disunity within NATO. As the United States continues to distance itself from the alliance, Russia gains a strategic advantage, allowing it to continue pressuring Europe through both hybrid and increasingly overt operations.
At the same time, Putin faces mounting pressure at home. The war continues to drag on, while Ukraine’s ability to conduct increasingly sophisticated deep strikes inside Russia is growing. The Economist recently reported that Putin remains determined to continue the war at all costs, fearing that failure to take the Donbas before the conflict ends could spell his political demise in Russia. He reportedly told confidants: “They will hang me” if he fails to turn the tide of the conflict.
The pressure is not confined to Russia’s domestic politics. Putin is also facing resistance from other world leaders. At a recent meeting in Bishkek, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared to chastise Putin, calling for an end to the war and urging him to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine.
For Moscow, the choice between escalation and restraint is therefore taking place under growing pressure. The Kremlin continues to face a battlefield it has been unable to decisively resolve, while Ukraine retains the capacity to strike deeper inside Russian territory and European governments remain committed to supporting Kyiv.
The result is a widening contest fought below the threshold of declared war. Sabotage, cyberattacks, covert operatives, arson and threats allow Russia to impose costs on European states while avoiding the consequences of an open confrontation with NATO.
As pressure on Putin mounts, Russia will likely continue to escalate its tactics against Europe — short of declaring open war.
