Overview: The state of hybrid warfare in Europe
Hybrid warfare, a blend of conventional military pressure, cyber operations, disinformation, economic coercion, and political meddling, has become a defining feature of Russia’s approach to Europe. After years of high-profile incidents across the continent, analysts note a pullback in some overt attacks in 2024–2025, but this does not signal a retreat. Instead, a recalibration is underway as adversaries adapt to sanctions, counter-disinformation, and intensified resilience measures. The question on many minds is whether 2026 could bring a renewed wave and what that would entail for European security architecture.
What “hybrid” means in practice
Hybrid threats are not limited to a single act of aggression. They blend multiple domains: political influence campaigns, cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure, legalistic pressure through contested regimes, and classic force projection in limited, deniable ways. In Europe, this has included cyber attacks on energy grids, influence operations aimed at elections, and coercive diplomacy around energy supplies and strategic assets. The goal is to destabilize without tipping into full-scale war, complicating deterrence and defense planning alike.
Why 2026 could look different
Three factors shape the 2026 outlook. First, technology and data analytics enable more precise, low-cost manipulation of public opinion and decision-making. Second, Western allies have expanded resilience—diversifying energy sources, hardening cyber infrastructure, and strengthening rapid-decision frameworks—creating higher thresholds for costly escalations. Third, hybrid activity is increasingly anchored in information environments, where narratives and perceptions can determine policy outcomes even in the absence of kinetic assaults. Taken together, 2026 could feature more complex operations that test alliance cohesion rather than rely on dramatic confrontations.
Lessons from recent incidents
When observers compare today’s threats with past episodes, a pattern emerges: tempo and targeting have shifted from broad bold strokes to persistent pressure and selective provocations. A European region could experience a spike in disinformation around sensitive political timelines, followed by cyber attempts to disrupt services or S.O.P. (standard operating procedure) gaps in crisis management. The aim is to erode trust in institutions, complicate decision-making, and create ambiguity about attribution. However, measured responses—coordinated rapid-reaction teams, transparent communication, and cross-border information sharing—have proven effective in reducing impact.
Policy responses and defense
European countries and allied partners are investing in four pillars: resilience, attribution and response, deterrence-by-denial, and international law-based norms enforcement. Resilience includes diversified energy grids, hardened critical infrastructure, and robust emergency communications. Attribution and response involve rapid intelligence sharing, sanctions, and coordinated messaging to counter disinformation. Deterrence-by-denial means building the capacity to blunt or absorb hybrid blows without conceding strategic gains. Finally, aligning with international norms reduces ambiguity about what is permissible and clarifies consequences for malign actors.
What to watch in 2026
Key indicators will include the frequency of disinformation campaigns timed to political events, the robustness of cyber incident response in critical sectors, and the persistence of economic coercion tools. Watch for: stable energy diversification, credible public-facing institutions that explain threats clearly, and multilateral exercises that simulate hybrid crises. The most effective defense combines practical resilience with clear, credible messaging that reinforces democratic processes and maintains economic stability.
Conclusion
Russia’s hybrid warfare strategy is unlikely to disappear, but its form and tempo may evolve. Europe’s best defense is a proactive, layered approach that integrates security, resilience, and transparent communication. As 2026 approaches, policymakers should prioritize long-term reforms that harden systems while preserving open, rule-based international engagement.
