Understanding the shift in Europe’s security landscape
Russia’s hybrid warfare strategy—combining conventional pressure, cyber operations, disinformation, economic coercion and political meddling—has long aimed to achieve strategic goals without triggering full-scale war. In 2024 and 2025, several European governments reported a relative easing in some high-intensity incidents, while continuing to face persistent challenges in information warfare, cyber intrusions, and energy leverage. The question on policymakers’ minds is whether this lull reflects a temporary pause or a longer-term shift in tactics that could re-emerge with greater tempo in 2026.
What counts as hybrid warfare and why it endures
Hybrid warfare blends multiple tools to exploit political, social, and economic fragilities. For Europe, the core elements include cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns aimed at sowing distrust and polarization, strategic influence operations on elections and policy debates, and leverage through energy dependencies or sanctions pressure. Unlike overt military aggression, these tools leave plausible deniability and render attribution complex, complicating response decisions for democracies that prize open debate and lawful norms.
Recent patterns: what changed in 2024–25
Analysts note a measurable decline in large-scale, high-profile cyber incidents and overt disinformation campaigns with uniform narratives. Instead, there’s been a shift toward locally resonant narratives, fragmented online networks, and more sophisticated misinformation that exploits existing political divides. The energy dimension remains salient: disruptions in natural gas supply, price volatility, or delays in transit routes can pressure governments during sensitive political moments, creating a climate ripe for opportunistic influence operations.
Resilience and repeat vulnerability
European states have improved through public-private collaboration, better cyber hygiene, rapid incident response, and resilience planning for critical sectors like energy and finance. Yet vulnerabilities persist: supply chain dependencies, aging digital infrastructure, and uneven media literacy across populations can offer fertile ground for hybrid techniques to take root. The risk is not a single dramatic incident but a mosaic of smaller events that collectively erode confidence in institutions.
Why 2026 could look different—and potentially riskier
Several factors could tilt the balance in favor of renewed hybrid pressure in 2026. First, geopolitical competition dynamics remain intense, with fractures in alliance politics that could prompt external actors to test resilience during elections or policy debates. Second, information operations are far less costly than kinetic actions, so actors may prefer micro-interventions that accumulate influence over time. Third, economic mechanisms—sanctions relief, energy contracts, or trade disruptions—can act as catalysts or deterrents depending on the broader market environment. Finally, rapid tech change, from AI-driven content creation to advanced hacking tools, can lower the barrier to executing complex influence campaigns with plausible deniability.
What to watch in the coming year
- Election-related info ops: Watch for nuanced narratives designed to deepen social fault lines rather than merely push fake news.
- Cyber risk in critical infrastructure: Expect targeted but episodic intrusions, with improved detection but persistent vulnerability in legacy systems.
- Energy leverage and supply chain pressure: Geopolitical moves that adjust prices or create bottlenecks can accompany political messaging.
- Allied cohesion: The strength of European and transatlantic partnerships will influence how states deter and respond to hybrid pressure.
Building robust defenses: lessons for policymakers and the public
Builders of resilience should focus on multi-layer defense: secure critical infrastructure, diversify energy sources and routes, invest in media literacy and rapid fact-checking, and maintain transparent, accountable political processes. International cooperation should emphasize information-sharing norms, incident response coordination, and sanctions regimes calibrated to deter escalation without provoking backlash or unintended consequences. Public awareness campaigns can help individuals recognize disinformation patterns and seek reliable sources, reducing the effectiveness of manipulative campaigns.
Conclusion: staying vigilant without surrendering freedom of choice
Europe has learned to respond to hybrid threats with a blend of prudence, resilience, and strategic patience. While 2025 brought a relative quiet in some theaters, the strategic contest near Europe remains unsettled. The possibility of renewed hybrid pressure in 2026 underscores the need for sustained investment in defense, diplomacy, and democratic resilience so that fewer people are swayed by subtle manipulations and more citizens demand accountability from leaders and institutions.
