In recent weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has managed to extend the war in Ukraine into the everyday lives of millions of Europeans,without firing a shot. A series of drone incursions, cyberattacks, and airspace violations have unsettled governments across the continent, fueling fears that hybrid warfare has become Europe’s new reality.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned her citizens last Thursday that “more violent and frequent hybrid attacks” should now be expected. She stopped short of naming Russia directly, but Danish intelligence acknowledged that the risk of Russian sabotage is high. The uncertainty is deliberate: hybrid attacks thrive on anonymity, leaving authorities hesitant to assign blame while citizens grow wary of whether their governments can keep them safe.
Incidents across Europe highlight the growing threat. Over 20 drones crossed into Poland, while Estonia reported a brief but provocative violation of its airspace. Several European airports were forced to close after hacking attacks, and Danish officials reported spotting a Russian military vessel operating off their coast with its transponders switched off. Such events may be individually ambiguous, but collectively they point toward a campaign designed to disrupt, confuse, and test Europe’s resilience.
The dilemma for Western officials is whether to publicly accuse Russia. Naming Moscow risks amplifying the discord and anxiety the Kremlin hopes to create. Remaining silent, however, risks leaving societies blind to the threat until a larger crisis erupts. This balance has become the defining paradox of hybrid warfare.
Meanwhile, Europe has faced concrete acts of sabotage. In the United Kingdom, young recruits working for Russia have been jailed for arson attacks on warehouses storing Ukrainian supplies. Poland has prosecuted Ukrainians involved in similar plots. Cyber intrusions have hit systems ranging from airport check-in platforms to childcare centers. Whether orchestrated by Moscow directly or carried out by criminal proxies, the result has been the same: rising vulnerability and disruption.
These developments serve Putin’s aim of bringing the war closer to Europe’s citizens. By creating everyday costs,airport delays, cyber disruption, or higher energy prices,he stokes debate over whether Europe should continue its strong support for Kyiv. The strategy risks distracting policymakers from Ukraine’s front-line struggles, where Russia’s bombardment of cities remains relentless despite its failure to seize major new territory.
For Europe, the financial burden is increasing. Governments must now fund infrastructure defenses against drones and cyberattacks while maintaining costly air patrols along NATO’s eastern border. The imbalance is striking: a multimillion-euro interceptor missile may be used to destroy a drone worth only a fraction of that price. Over time, this lopsided contest strains budgets and raises hard choices about how much protection is affordable.
Still, the strategy is risky for Moscow. Outsourced saboteurs could cause unintended casualties inside NATO territory, triggering a strong response. Russia may also be blamed for acts it did not commit, or face unpredictable consequences from Washington, where U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to escalation remains uncertain.
For now, however, the hybrid disruptions have already delivered Putin a short-term gain: Europe is more anxious, more distracted, and more burdened by costs. Yet the very unpredictability of hybrid war means the Kremlin’s gamble could ultimately backfire.
