Featured Image

October 20, 2025 — No Comments

Cyber-attacks and drone sightings: How prepared is the West?

By Maria Makurat - Cyber Security Desk

Introduction

Recent months and weeks have shown a significant increase in headlines concerning drones, cyber-attacks, and hybrid warfare in the context of the Russia–Ukraine war.

The airports of Berlin, Heathrow and Brussels were reportedly hit by cyber-attacks, causing significant delays and safety concerns for passengers. Then it continued with several drone sightings causing disruption at airports such as Munich.  The German Federal Ministry of Interior (BMI) has officially released a statement saying that there is increased concern in the following areas namely: firstly, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine have prompted Germany and other Western countries to strengthen their security agendas, secondly, cyber-attacks have become an increasing threat since the start of the war making Germany the target for disinformation campaigns launched by Russia, thirdly, Germany must better protect its critical infrastructure against sabotage. With these incidents one can ask the following questions: How prepared is the West to face cyber and hybrid attacks? How should countries react in the future and are there serious concerns for drone warfare? Must the west continue to change its cyber-strategy as well as its hybrid warfare strategy?

Germany and the West against drones

We have seen a significant increase in drone sightings in the past months. Headlines of drones and even balloon sightings disrupting airports have caused concern and heated debates amongst civilians and of course government officials. Munich has been in the focus of the recent drone sightings causing the airport to suspend all flights. Twice the airport saw drones over the airport and had to stop all flights causing around 6,500 passengers to be affected. This has caused the German government to activate the German Military to be involved in battling drones more strongly and be trained in such scenarios. As of yet, it is unclear who is responsible for these drone incidents. However, whether it’s private or a state actor, they have managed significant disturbance and caused the EU and NATO to want to act more strongly to be better prepared for hybrid warfare. In addition, AI is also having a significant impact on how countries are developing weapons and defence against threats causing more uncertainty. 

In international relations there still remains much scepticism and different view points on whether cyber-attacks can be considered to have a ‘violent impact’ at all. Lucas Kello (2017) discusses in his work “The Virtual Weapon” the point that scholars leaning towards the Clausewitzian school of thought do not believe that “cyber operations are not directly violent. Nor do they create significantly collateral damage.”1 This may be true on some level if we were to discuss whether the drones had a physical impact on civilian lives but when daring to combine international relations with sociological theories, it always depends on the following aspects: What do we understand under violence? When is an act violent? And who decides when an act is violent in hybrid warfare?

Taking the Munich and Belgium drone incident from September 2025 into account – with considering what we know and do not know so far – the following impacts can be identified: it has caused unrest, concern amongst civilians (some surveys by national news outlets indicate that roughly one in two respondents now express concern about foreign drone attacks at home) and officials, a summit in Copenhagen and from the police in Germany to be able to shoot down drones more easily when in sight. 

One could argue so far, no physical violence has been caused however, is unrest amongst countries and cities and heightened security measures that cause unrest also a form of violence? Is the uncertainty over who is behind the drone incidents itself a form of disturbance? Will this add to a certain cyber strategy of ramping up defences? Or is it more of a back-and-forth game of cyber and drone attacks happening and the West reacting with closing defence holes? 

The Copenhagen Summit and hybrid warfare

The summit showed heated debates amongst the countries. As of this moment, there is no concrete evidence that Russia is behind the drone incidents; however, countries such as Denmark have strongly suggested possible Russian involvement due to the recent MiG-31 jet crossing in Estonian airspace. It can be seen as a form of ‘poking’ NATO to see what kind of reaction can be achieved however, caution is advised when drawing conclusions.

 Several other drones were sighted: “Drones have been seen in recent days over Germany's northern state of Schleswig-Holstein, and flights have been delayed in the past week at Vilnius airport in Lithuania and at Oslo airport in Norway because of drone activity.”  Western nations may need to strengthen their cybersecurity and defence systems, such as, establishing a “drone wall”. 

Perhaps the EU’s plans for AI Gigafactories can contribute to developing such systems in tackling drones more effectively in the near future: “Sectoral flagships including targeted measures to boost AI adoption across 10 key industry sectors and the public sector. The industrial sectors include (…) energy, agri-food; defence, security and space (…).”  What Germany plans to invest in anti-drone equipment, which should also be put to use in other countries called “Skyranger”. Furthermore, experts from Universities such as TU Dresden state that one should invest more strongly in protecting critical infrastructure, such as airports, by installing lasers, jammers and radars, to name a few examples, but will this truly help in deterring attacks? Perhaps the aggressor will not see this a true deterrence and defence and will simply continue with ‘probing’ or launching drones just to cause unrest.

The Summit has shown that members of the EU and NATO are concerned and are willing to step up their defence in the cyber and hybrid warfare areas. One cannot deny that the drones have targeted so-called critical infrastructure of the West namely: airports. It would be important to focus on all possible critical infrastructure in relation to drones and cyber-attacks such as hospitals, transportation systems, government buildings and energy structures (to name a few). These should be securely protected against drone disruptions as well as cyber-attacks which seems to be no new statement but should be highlighted nonetheless.

Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

What do we know so far and what do we need to ask ourselves next?

Clausewitzian skeptics are wary of cyber-attacks having a physical or traditional war perspective effect. One can conclude that in the last years the landscape of international relations has changed and states, countries and individuals are rapidly adapting with using technology (also drones) to achieve certain means. 

Apparently, reports suggest the drones were targeting specifically critical infrastructure in Germany, checking out important facilities such as energy and even a military site.

As for now, Russia has not claimed responsibility for the recent cyber-attacks and drone incidents,* which adds to the uncertainty* in cyber scenarios. Countries in this new type of ‘warfare’ often act based on suspicion and what is discussed amongst scholars,  “tit for tat” and to “coerce the enemy into acting a certain way”. One cannot say for certain at this moment if this is the intention of all the incidents however, it is certain that action needs to be taken to ensure a better defence and quicker reaction time. It also makes it clear that countries have to continue to rapidly adapt their strategy (also their cyber-strategy) in all directions in order to keep up with the changing landscape of conflicts. 

At present, it cannot be stated with certainty that the cyber-attacks on the airports or the drone incidents had a physical violent impact however, they have significant delays, disturbance and a renewed debate concerning security.  Both cyber-attacks and drones pose a threat to NATO member states and other Western countries and should be taken more strongly into account when investing in defence and a certain ‘cyber-strategy’. 

The following questions should guide future consideration: how can the West and the EU defend and react quicker in relation to cyber-attacks and drone incidents? Will the new plans to allow police to shoot down drones have a positive impact or cause further probing? Can AI and the investment in technology allow countries such as Germany to develop defence walls quicker than 2030? 

Developing the so-called “drone wall”  represents an initial response and could aid in the defence of countries against probing drones however, it should still be critically analysed who is behind the incidents and additional sanctions could be considered once attribution is established, to reduce uncertainty. The more certain one is of who is behind certain actions, the better a preparation can be put into place. This may add to the strategy in a certain ‘hybrid warfare’ but one cannot be for certain how it will develop in the near future since technology is also developing at a rapid speed. Perhaps states will be drawn into an endless “tit-for-tat”2 game with implementing sanctions against cyber-attacks or better defence systems against drones however, these questions merit further analysis and discussion to gain a better understanding of how such potential hybrid conflicts could play out.

When one continues to critically ask these questions, then a good strategy can be developed in order to tackle the emerging challenges in cyber and drone incidents. As Richard P. Rumelt notes a bad strategy would be to mistake the end goals as the strategy itself3. The latter is commonly depicted as being the ends, ways and means and when applying this to the current international political landscape, it must remain fluid and multidimensional to adapt to rapidly changing technologies.

  1. Lucas Kello, The Virtual Weapon, Oxford, page 31 ↩︎
  2.  Valeriano Brandon et al, “Cyber Strategy” 2018, oxford university press, page 226. ↩︎
  3.  Richard P. Rumelt, “Good Strategy, Bad Strategy – The Difference and Why it Matters,” pg 47. ↩︎
Featured Image

March 16, 2022 — No Comments

Russian Military Doctrine: An Overview

By: Danilo delle Fave and Marco Verrocchio.

The Russian Military Reform of 2014

The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has now skyrocketed among the news and masses of people are expressing their disapproval for the war through marches and protests worldwide. However, intelligence services and scholars had warned that a regional conflict between the two countries was foreseeable. To better understand the reasons behind Putin’s decision, an analysis of Russia’s 2014 military doctrine is fundamental. A military doctrine is essentially a public document that summarizes in strategic and theoretical terms the military capabilities in defending, offending and retaliating against threats. While Soviet-era doctrines were unpublished, the Russian federation documents are public, and they describe the political direction of Russia in military affairs. The 2014 version is divided in: generic provisions, the military dangers and threats, the military policy and the military economic-defence support. In comparison to the Soviet era, Russian military doctrines emphasize the defensive approach, and they profit from lessons learned from military conflicts and analysis of different scenarios. In the ethos of Russian “Motherland”, Russia is perceived as an object to be protected and a subject capable of reacting.

Military offensive operations are justified under a defensive provision which aims to prevent threats towards Russia. United Nations and international treaties are invoked in supporting this theory. Russia’s allies and partners are clearly mentioned. Belarus is the closest ally, with fully integrated armed forces, infrastructures and coordination. CSTO, CIS and BRICS countries are mentioned “to strengthen the system of collective security”. In comparison to the 2010’s military doctrine, the EU is perceived no longer functional to pursue national security, but an equal partner to maintain a status-quo.

The 2014 version also abandons all possible cooperation with NATO as well. The Russian ambition to pursue a regional defense policy guarantees that border states do not adopt an approach that threatens the Russian Federation. A specific section that implicitly was dedicated to the case of Ukraine mentions that overthrowing of legitimate governments in bordering states is a serious menace for Russia. Another reference regards 2011-12 Russian protests, declaring that anti-nationalistic information led by external parties is a menace. In some issues, Russia has a dualist approach, perceiving an issue both as a threat and as a mean. For instance, the use of private military contractors (PMCs) is a military danger but it is an inevitable component of contemporary warfare. The same idea is applied to the militarization of the information, which undermines Russia from abroad but is also a novel area of improvement. The 2014 also reflects a much more reliance on Russia in using tools of hybrid warfare. While the 2010 version made a generic use of hybrid warfare, the 2014 version highlighted that Russia would rely on military means only after political, diplomatic, judicial, economic, information and other non-kinetic means have been used.

Image Source: https://pixabay.com/photos/monument-to-minin-and-pozharsky-177843/

Gerasimov’s Doctrine and Hybrid Warfare

During an event in the Russian Academy of Military Sciences in 2019, the Russian Chief of General Staff, Valery Gerasimov described Russian military strategy as “Active Defense”. What does he mean by “Active Defense”? It is a strategic concept integrating preemptive measures to prevent conflict and wartime concepts of operations that seek to deny to the enemy a decisive victory in the initial period of war, degrading and disorganizing its effort, while setting the conditions for a counteroffensive or attaining war termination. The strategy privileges a permanent standing force, arrayed as high readiness operational formations in each strategic direction, prepared to execute operations jointly.

At the beginning, the Russian military needs to manipulate an opponent through the demonstration of his readiness, deployments, exercises, weapon tests and demonstrative actions and, if it is necessary, they can include a demonstrative use of force and limited strikes. After the period called “Pre-War”, the aim of the “Active Defense” is to inflict disorganisation on the opponent via long-range strikes against critically important objects at operational depths and beyond, in order to reach the goal of disorganizing the enemy’s effort, degrading his ability to sustain operation and affecting his political and at the same time maximize the survivability of the Russian units and preserve the force.

The “Active Defense” is based on two main tenets: Maneuver Defense and Non contact Warfare. Unlike World War I and World War II, the idea of using their own main effort to create a potential defense and a massive manned front, is totally obsolete in the eyes of the Russian strategists. Maneuver Defense for the Russian Military means that fires and strikes systems will attrit the opponent’s forces as they advance, and his aim is to destroy an opponent’s initial operation plan and buy time for reserves or follow forces to arrive, exhaust the opponent’s forces, and subsequently seize the initiative. Turning to Noncontact Warfare, the term is somewhat muddled, as there is a commonly held Russian military belief that modern warfare will feature forward operating sensors, fires, and precision strike systems. War will be driven by information, command and control systems, and precise means of destruction. However, non contact speaks more to the employment of longer-range capabilities to attack critical objects at substantial operational and strategic ranges.

With the Georgian and Ukrainian crisis of 2008 and 2013, the Russian armed forces have developed the so called New Generation Warfare, 4th Generation Warfare, or Hybrid Warfare. Hybrid warfare does not aim to victory through the defeat of the enemy on the battlefield but regime change and the achievement of the Kremlin’s goals. Therefore, the military became one element of a much larger set of foreign policy instruments aimed to reach political gains. The Hybrid force is composed of conventional forces and special corps, like the Spetsnaz, that operate in coordination with a militarized local population, like Donbass separatist militias. The militias are usually formed not directly by Russian forces, but by contracted forces from outside the area of operations which serves along militias, usually binded by a contract. Moreover, in the Hybrid force is also fundamental the role of Private Military Contractors (PMC), like the Wagner group, that can aid the efforts of regular forces and militias. It is the formalization of war by proxy, which is cleared witnessed by the praxis of Russian armed forces in Syria, Ukraine and Georgia.

The Russian military doctrine emphasizes therefore the political aspect of warfare, and the link between military operations and its ideological and foreign policy aspects: in all the three major fronts (Syria, Ukraine, Georgia), the Russians have carefully prepared the public affairs and the narrations in all their conflicts. They always claimed that their intervention was the result of a request for help, Ossetians and Abcazians in Georgia, russophone separatists in Ukraine, the Assad government in Syria. They deployed their PMCs in Africa, which helped them to further their influence on the Continent, with the successful coups in Mali and Central African Republic. The difficulties in improving their capabilities have inevitably shaped Russian military doctrine from conventional warfare of the Soviet era to a new form of warfare that can be defined as “non-linear”.