Russia Has Moved Beyond Hybrid War: Why Washington Needs a Clearer Response

Defense One | Nikkie Lyubarsky

Russia’s campaign against Western countries is becoming more overt and kinetic, according to Nikkie Lyubarsky, who argues that the familiar label “hybrid war” no longer captures the scale or character of recent operations. Drone incidents in Europe and an alleged Russian intelligence-linked plot in the United States illustrate the widening security concerns described in the article.

Lyubarsky argues that Moscow increasingly accepts the loss of plausible deniability when intimidation, intelligence gathering and pressure on Western support for Ukraine matter more. European states have begun responding more directly to aerial threats, while Washington’s approach appears less consistent. The article points to mixed signals from US officials on criminal allegations, diplomatic engagement and sanctions policy. It argues that this uncertainty can weaken deterrent messaging and leave agencies without a clear mandate. The author calls for senior US leadership to define the threat more clearly and communicate credible limits. The account presents a policy argument based on reported incidents and allegations; it does not establish that every cited event was directed by the Kremlin.

Comment

“Hybrid war” remains useful for describing coordinated military and non-military pressure, but the label can obscure important differences in operational intensity and state responsibility. Governments need to assess each incident through evidence, attribution confidence and the potential for escalation rather than terminology alone.

European responses highlight the need for clear rules governing airspace protection and proportionate action. However, a stronger response must also account for misidentification, civilian risk and the possibility of reciprocal escalation.

For Washington, the central challenge is to align intelligence assessments, public messaging, law-enforcement action and alliance commitments. Consistency can strengthen deterrence, but policy decisions should rest on verified evidence rather than assumptions about Kremlin direction.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Should the United States respond more forcefully to suspected Russian operations below the threshold of open war, even when attribution remains uncertain?

A firmer response could improve deterrence if supported by reliable intelligence, clear thresholds and coordination with allies. Yet acting on uncertain attribution could harm innocent parties and trigger escalation. Washington therefore needs credible response options, transparent decision criteria where possible, and diplomatic channels that reduce the risk of miscalculation.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article