European Union officials and diplomats are increasingly discussing how the bloc would respond if a hybrid attack caused large numbers of casualties, according to Politico, as concerns grow over the possibility of increasingly serious incidents across Europe.
The issue has gained particular attention in recent weeks following the discovery in August of an alleged attempt to carry out a drone attack involving explosives at Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany. German authorities have linked the incident to Russia, while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has warned that a successful attack of this kind could have caused serious consequences and loss of life.
Closed-door discussions among EU countries
Representatives of the 27 EU member states have held meetings under heightened security, with participants reportedly leaving their mobile phones and staff members outside.
According to two European diplomats cited by Politico, one of the recent meetings specifically addressed the possibility of a hybrid attack resulting in significant casualties.
The EU already has mechanisms for responding to hybrid threats, including coordination against cyberattacks, sabotage, interference in elections and other activities conducted below the threshold of conventional armed conflict.
However, an incident involving dozens of casualties would represent a significantly different level of crisis and could require a faster and more coordinated response.
“We need to be prepared for something serious,” one European diplomat told Politico, arguing that the Leipzig incident demonstrated that a high-impact attack could no longer be treated as merely a theoretical possibility.
Series of incidents raises alarm across Europe
Concern in Brussels has also been fueled by a series of incidents that European institutions and NATO have associated with the broader spectrum of hybrid threats.
These include drone incidents, suspicious fires at critical infrastructure, alleged attempts to place incendiary devices at transport facilities and repeated violations of European airspace.
The EU has repeatedly accused Moscow of increasing sabotage activities, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and other covert operations targeting European countries since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has denied various allegations of involvement in such incidents.
Teija Tiilikainen, director of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, has warned that increasingly dangerous methods used to test European countries’ preparedness could increase the risk of casualties.
How could the EU respond?
A major part of the discussions concerns what concrete measures could be taken immediately following a serious attack.
Options reportedly under consideration include deploying rapid-response teams, activating European funding for the affected country and coordinating a joint public response by EU institutions and national leaders.
A key question, however, remains who would take primary responsibility for coordinating such a response.
Potential overlap with NATO
The debate has also raised concerns in some European capitals that the EU could enter an area traditionally associated with NATO.
European institutions have repeatedly stressed that strengthening the EU’s defense capabilities should complement NATO’s role, which remains the foundation of collective defense for its members.
Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson and an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), has warned that creating parallel structures could lead to confusion at precisely the moment when a rapid response is required.
According to Lungescu, responsibilities could be more effectively divided by having NATO focus on military deterrence and intelligence-sharing, while the EU takes a larger role in civil protection and political crisis management.
Diplomats concerned about information leaks
Another issue raised during the discussions is the security of classified information.
Some diplomats have expressed concern that highly sensitive information could leak from EU meetings and subsequently reach the media or become accessible to third countries.
A diplomat from an Eastern European member state said the government was particularly cautious about sharing classified information during meetings of permanent representatives.
Von der Leyen pushes for new emergency mechanism
The discussions come as von der Leyen seeks to expand the EU’s role in security matters.
One proposal reportedly involves establishing an “emergency security protocol” that would allow member states to coordinate more quickly in the event of a major crisis.
The creation of a potential “European Security Council” has also been discussed. Some member states, however, argue that the EU already has instruments that could be used in such circumstances.
One existing mechanism is the EU’s Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR), through which the rotating presidency can convene emergency meetings and, when necessary, involve experts from NATO, the United Nations and other international organizations.
Lessons from the Paris attacks
A precedent for a European response exists in the aftermath of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris.
France invoked Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union for the first and, so far, only time. The provision establishes an obligation among EU member states to provide assistance to a member that has been the victim of armed aggression.
The activation of the clause was a political decision by France and did not result in the creation of a joint EU military operation.
Today, the challenge is more complicated. Brussels must consider how a European response would operate following a mass-casualty hybrid attack, particularly in circumstances where identifying those responsible could take time.
Experts cited in the report argue that, regardless of whether a response is coordinated primarily through the EU or NATO, Europe needs a clear, rapid and well-coordinated system that can be activated immediately following a major attack.
