NATO Chiefs Demand Preemptive Strikes: “No More Waiting for Putin’s Next Move!”

Paul Riverbank, 12/2/2025NATO debates preemptive strikes as hybrid warfare with Russia pushes Europe toward dangerous uncertainty.

In an era where “hybrid warfare” is more than just a military PowerPoint phrase, NATO’s senior brass are openly wrestling with a difficult choice: should the alliance meet Russia’s covert pressure with preemptive measures of its own? Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chairing NATO’s military committee, put the dilemma bluntly in a recent sitdown with the Financial Times. “We are studying everything,” he said, not bothering with diplomatic hedging. In the realm of cyber conflict, “reactive” has become a bad word, one that conjures images of damage control instead of deterrence. Dragone suggests that perhaps it’s time for NATO to put away the fire extinguisher and consider a preemptive match.

This idea is as controversial as it is novel. Traditionally, NATO has anchored itself to the principle of defense—never the first to shoot or strike. Dragone acknowledged the moral minefield: Western democracies tie the alliance’s hands with legal, ethical, and jurisdictional limitations that Moscow openly flouts. “It is a harder position than our counterpart’s,” Dragone conceded. He refused to label it a losing hand but clearly sees it as a constrained one.

Moscow, for its part, was quick to denounce talk of escalation. Maria Zakharova, always quick with a rejoinder from Russia’s foreign ministry, called NATO’s deliberation “an extremely irresponsible step.” Russian officials have painted the discussion as proof that the West—not the Kremlin—is steering the path toward full-scale war. Denis Gonchar, Moscow’s man in Brussels, even accused NATO of sowing fear among its citizens about phantom threats from Russia.

But voices in the West have grown increasingly impatient with this tactic. “Let’s not forget who started all of this,” said retired U.S. Air Force General Bruce Carlson, referencing Russia’s broad daylight invasion of Ukraine in 2022. His verdict was caustic but widely shared: “Putin only understands one thing and that’s power.” Across the Atlantic, Carrie Filipetti of the Vandenberg Coalition scoffed at the Russian narrative, pointing out the absurdity in Moscow’s warnings about NATO being the irresponsible party.

While this war of words grows louder, diplomatic efforts grind on, inching toward a possible endgame in Ukraine. Yet the outlines of any proposed settlement are murky, and not all proposals have landed well. One leaked plan floating through the rumor mill, reportedly connected to associates of Donald Trump, offered blanket amnesty for wartime acts committed by Russian forces—an idea that was met with near-unanimous outrage in Europe. Michael McGrath, a top official in the EU, didn’t mince words when he heard that. “I don’t think history will judge kindly any effort to wipe the slate clean for Russian crimes in Ukraine,” he warned, adding that excusing these acts would “sow the seeds of the next round of aggression.”

And there is little question as to the scope of alleged Russian wrongdoing. Ukrainian investigators are now looking into more than 178,000 potential war crimes, spanning from deliberate strikes on residential neighborhoods to the forced deportation of children. International watchdogs—the United Nations, the International Criminal Court—have weighed in as well, documenting evidence of attacks on civilians. For many, including key voices in Western capitals, justice for these atrocities is non-negotiable.

Inside the alliance itself, the mood is restive, particularly among NATO’s eastern members. Leaders from the Baltics and Poland argue that a purely reactive approach invites further Russian probing—a strategy that’s cheap for Moscow and expensive, both politically and materially, for the West. “If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us,” one Baltic diplomat explained with visible frustration.

The old certainties have faded. There is no longer a clear line between risktaking and recklessness, between deterrence and provocation, between self-defense and escalation. Each option carries hazards that, only a few years ago, would have seemed unthinkable for leaders in Brussels or Washington. And yet, at this crossroads, the costs of inertia may match those of action.

As negotiations stumble forward, the stakes—for Ukraine, for European stability, for NATO’s credibility—remain dauntingly high. Old rules are up for debate, and ambiguity, not assurance, seems to be the new order of the day.

Rising friction between NATO and Russia isn’t confined to battlefields or diplomatic conference tables anymore. The contest has seeped into digital networks, slipped underwater, and whirred through neutral skies. The past few months have brought a string of incidents—sliced data cables, sabotaged power links, and shadowy drones drifting over Polish territory—that have left Europe jittery. Poland’s response? These are “the closest we have been to open conflict since World War II.” That’s a statement with weight, considering the country’s history.In an era where “hybrid warfare” is more than just a military PowerPoint phrase, NATO’s senior brass are openly wrestling with a difficult choice: should the alliance meet Russia’s covert pressure with preemptive measures of its own? Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chairing NATO’s military committee, put the dilemma bluntly in a recent sitdown with the Financial Times. “We are studying everything,” he said, not bothering with diplomatic hedging. In the realm of cyber conflict, “reactive” has become a bad word, one that conjures images of damage control instead of deterrence. Dragone suggests that perhaps it’s time for NATO to put away the fire extinguisher and consider a preemptive match.This idea is as controversial as it is novel. Traditionally, NATO has anchored itself to the principle of defense—never the first to shoot or strike. Dragone acknowledged the moral minefield: Western democracies tie the alliance’s hands with legal, ethical, and jurisdictional limitations that Moscow openly flouts. “It is a harder position than our counterpart’s,” Dragone conceded. He refused to label it a losing hand but clearly sees it as a constrained one.Moscow, for its part, was quick to denounce talk of escalation. Maria Zakharova, always quick with a rejoinder from Russia’s foreign ministry, called NATO’s deliberation “an extremely irresponsible step.” Russian officials have painted the discussion as proof that the West—not the Kremlin—is steering the path toward full-scale war. Denis Gonchar, Moscow’s man in Brussels, even accused NATO of sowing fear among its citizens about phantom threats from Russia.But voices in the West have grown increasingly impatient with this tactic. “Let’s not forget who started all of this,” said retired U.S. Air Force General Bruce Carlson, referencing Russia’s broad daylight invasion of Ukraine in 2022. His verdict was caustic but widely shared: “Putin only understands one thing and that’s power.” Across the Atlantic, Carrie Filipetti of the Vandenberg Coalition scoffed at the Russian narrative, pointing out the absurdity in Moscow’s warnings about NATO being the irresponsible party.While this war of words grows louder, diplomatic efforts grind on, inching toward a possible endgame in Ukraine. Yet the outlines of any proposed settlement are murky, and not all proposals have landed well. One leaked plan floating through the rumor mill, reportedly connected to associates of Donald Trump, offered blanket amnesty for wartime acts committed by Russian forces—an idea that was met with near-unanimous outrage in Europe. Michael McGrath, a top official in the EU, didn’t mince words when he heard that. “I don’t think history will judge kindly any effort to wipe the slate clean for Russian crimes in Ukraine,” he warned, adding that excusing these acts would “sow the seeds of the next round of aggression.”And there is little question as to the scope of alleged Russian wrongdoing. Ukrainian investigators are now looking into more than 178,000 potential war crimes, spanning from deliberate strikes on residential neighborhoods to the forced deportation of children. International watchdogs—the United Nations, the International Criminal Court—have weighed in as well, documenting evidence of attacks on civilians. For many, including key voices in Western capitals, justice for these atrocities is non-negotiable.Inside the alliance itself, the mood is restive, particularly among NATO’s eastern members. Leaders from the Baltics and Poland argue that a purely reactive approach invites further Russian probing—a strategy that’s cheap for Moscow and expensive, both politically and materially, for the West. “If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us,” one Baltic diplomat explained with visible frustration.The old certainties have faded. There is no longer a clear line between risktaking and recklessness, between deterrence and provocation, between self-defense and escalation. Each option carries hazards that, only a few years ago, would have seemed unthinkable for leaders in Brussels or Washington. And yet, at this crossroads, the costs of inertia may match those of action.As negotiations stumble forward, the stakes—for Ukraine, for European stability, for NATO’s credibility—remain dauntingly high. Old rules are up for debate, and ambiguity, not assurance, seems to be the new order of the day.