In the heart of a Europe increasingly polarised between the illusions of normalisation and the tremors of a permanent war, Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to move on an invisible but tangible front: that of low-intensity hybrid warfare.
The recent air strikes in Baltic space and drone incursions across the Polish border are only the superficial manifestations of a deeper strategy. We are not facing isolated provocations, but systemic stress tests on NATO‘s eastern flank, conducted with surgical precision and ambiguous rhetoric.

Moscow alternates between controlled escalation, plausible denial and disguised communication in a sophisticated mix of actions and omissions. The aim is not so much to occupy territory as to occupy attention, destabilise the perception of collective security and test the political cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance. In this context, the traditional rules of inter-state confrontation dissolve, while communication itself becomes the theatre of operations.

The dirty game of hybrid warfare

The recent violation of Estonian airspace by three Russian MiG fighters and the shooting down of Russian drones in Poland by the air defence forces represent more than two isolated or marginal episodes: they are the visible symptom of a low-intensity hybrid strategy.
The Kremlin uses this scheme to wear down the Euro-Atlantic front without openly violating its red lines. These are calibrated operations that do not aim to inflict military damage, but to test NATO’s psychological, political and strategic resilience. It is psychological, diplomatic and communicative warfare that is being waged under the threshold of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

The Russian doctrine is not new, but today it takes a systemic and refined form. Moscow’s hybrid warfare consists of several intertwined layers: limited disruption, narrative ambiguity, force projection, psychological fragmentation and the construction of a permanent crisis climate.

The five levels of hybrid warfare

1. Recurrent disruptive actions: overflights and drones normalise risk and create habituation.
2. Operational ambiguity: plausible deniability of any provocation.
3. Force projection: a demonstration of Moscow’s freedom of action.
4. Psychological fragmentation: selective provocations testing reactivity and cohesion.
5. Permanent crisis climate: systemic attrition multiplying unstable fronts.

The pattern is clear: Putin probes Europe’s raw nerves, exploiting the weariness and sensitivity of Western public opinion. Every provocation becomes a psychological and political test.

Putin and cognitive warfare

The operational dimension of war is intertwined with the communicative one. Moscow is a master of dissimulation, manipulation and strategic framing. Every military provocation is accompanied by an official counter-narrative that aims to empty the act of its hostile significance.

The case of the drones in Poland is emblematic: silence, minimisation, blaming the West. The strategy is to confuse rather than convince, applying flooding the zone with shit. Moscow also uses rhetorical ambassadors: pro-Russian pundits, politicians, influencers and borderline media.

By systematically denying its responsibility, the Kremlin forces NATO into an unstable equilibrium. Every response may seem excessive, every silence weak. In this way, the narrative initiative always remains with Moscow.

Internal consensus and western cracks

This strategy also serves internal consensus: every flyover or drone launch reinforces the ‘big western enemy’ frame. Every NATO response is transformed into ‘imperialist aggression’.

At the same time, Moscow observes Western doubts about military spending, East-West divisions, US isolationism and Trumpian sympathies. Every provocation becomes a political test.
NATO, while aware, reacts with technical coolness. But without effective strategic communication, it risks appearing weak. Deterrence is not just missile against missile, but narrative against narrative.

The Gerasimov doctrine

This cognitive warfare implements the Gerasimov doctrine: a fusion of conventional warfare, information, economic destabilisation and psychological pressure. The objective is not to win, but to empty the very concept of victory.

Semantic manipulation, the instrumental use of media such as RT and Sputnik, and digital platforms become weapons in an offensive arsenal. The problem for the West is the absence of a unified response and a united narrative front.

The mind of the enemy is the first target: today, the main theatre of Russian strategy is the European public consciousness. Putin thus occupies the cultural space, semantically changing the geopolitical scenario.

Semantic Deterrence and Strategic Stability

The Estonian flyover and the drones over Poland are not accidents: they are sample episodes of a hybrid strategy that destabilises without fighting.

Europe must prepare for a long phase of controlled tension, consisting of low-intensity provocations and ambiguous communiqués. A new Euro-Atlantic doctrine is needed, including not only military deterrence, but also an agile communication strategy.

Hybrid warfare is won in the field of perception: the word becomes a weapon, ambiguity the new camouflage. Moscow has understood this. Now it is up to the West to act accordingly.