NATO’s openness to a more assertive approach against Russian hybrid threats isnot just another piece of news. It is a turning point. It is a sign that the West is finally realising that, in the era of sub-threshold warfare, defence is no longer an academic exercise but a concrete, immediate, almost daily occurrence.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Admiral Cavo Dragone did not rule out considering pre-emptive action as an integral part of defence. Not to attack, but to prevent the enemy from striking first.
An idea that, just a few years ago, would have been dismissed as unthinkable. Today, however, it is simply realistic.

Cavo Dragone’s words were stark:
“Perhaps we should act more aggressively than our opponent. The questions are about the legal framework, the jurisdiction: who will do it?”.
It is an elegant way of saying what we all know: deterrence lives in credibility, not prudence.

When deterrence falters, peace crumbles

Peace does not maintain itself; it is not a moral smokescreen, but a political and military achievement.
It is fragile, costly, demanding. And above all: it never survives ambiguity.

Europe has experienced what it means when deterrence does not work: sabotage of infrastructure, cyber attacks that cripple hospitals and energy networks, drones that trespass, clandestine operations bordering on the hostile.
Russia does this deliberately, precisely because it senses hesitation.

This is the reality that Admiral Cavo Dragone has put on the table: it is no longer enough to respond; prevention is needed.

Deterrence has never been an abstract concept.
It is a simple equation: “You do not attack me because you know you would pay an unsustainable price.”
And that phrase – repeated a thousand times throughout history – is perfectly summed up in the old motto that we in Europe have been afraid to utter: Peace through superior firepower.

Peace is guaranteed by being stronger, more ready, more determined than those who want to compromise it.

Superior firepower is not aggression: it is responsibility

Many pretend not to understand this.
They speak of ‘provocation’, as if defending themselves is a hostile act. It is exactly this mentality that Moscow exploits and .

“Superior firepower is not a desire for war.
It is the realisation that force is the only language that revisionist actors truly understand.

No one wishes for escalation.
But the alternative to credible deterrence is not peace: it is instability, vulnerability, the temptation for the enemy to strike again. The real risk is not being too strong: it is being perceived as weak.

The West has been trapped in the myth of‘escalation management’ for too long.
While we were discussing semantics, Russia slipped one attack after another under the Article 5 threshold.
Hybrid war is strategy precisely because it lives in the grey area of our hesitations.

This is why discussing pre-emptive strikes – or, more precisely, the early neutralisation of hybrid threats – is not a flight forward.
It is an act of responsibility towards citizens, towards the European democracies, towards the very philosophical and political motives of the West.

A Europe that defends itself is a Europe that counts

This debate marks a profound cultural shift: Europe is no longer a periphery protected by the United States; it is finally becoming an adult.
And an adult continent does not wait to be hit to decide what to do.

The NATO that discusses proactivity is a NATO that returns to itself: a determined alliance, not a bureaucratic and ‘brain-dead’ body.
It is a Europe that is beginning to realise that its global role depends on its ability to assert itself, not adapt.

It is not militarism. It is not bellicism. It is lucidity.

The point of deterrence is not to strike: it is to make it clear that it will never be necessary to do so.
And this truth, as old as international politics, applies today more than ever.

The return of deterrence as a pillar of the West

We do not know whether NATO will actually go so far as to adopt a preventive doctrine in the field of hybrid warfare.
But the very fact that it is being openly discussed is already a very strong political message.

It means that the West has stopped fearing its own shadow. It means that it has realised that peace is not protected by press releases, but by firmness.
It means that it is reaffirming a principle that we had set aside and that is instead at the heart of Euro-Atlantic security:

Peace belongs to those who have the strength to guarantee it.

And that is the true meaning of Cavo Dragone’s words: a call to strategic responsibility, an invitation to redefine our defence, and a reminder, simple and powerful, of what has allowed the West to prosper over the past seventy years: Peace through superior firepower.