Europe prepares for a nightmare scenario – Casualties expected; "We must be ready for something serious"

However, the preparations have also exposed divisions over what role the EU should play in security matters and whether the bloc’s efforts would overlap with those of NATO. Discussions about the nightmare scenario have taken place in recent weeks among ambassadors from all 27 EU member states, who met in a “restricted format,” meaning without mobile phones or aides.

The talks intensified after an explosive drone was found at Leipzig Airport in August, diplomats and officials told Politico, speaking anonymously to discuss confidential deliberations.

The EU has been considering such scenarios for years and has introduced a “hybrid toolbox” aimed at coordinating responses to cyberattacks, election interference, and sabotage. However, the latest discussions have focused on the risk of more serious attacks that could cause mass casualties.

“Leipzig showed us that a very serious incident is not unthinkable”

Two diplomats said that last Wednesday’s meeting of EU ambassadors was particularly focused on such scenarios. The EU says that since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has intensified a campaign of cyberattacks, sabotage and other covert operations across the bloc.

“European democracies are facing a growing number of threats. We are strengthening our capacity to anticipate and detect threats, improving early-warning systems and ensuring that Europe can respond quickly and collectively when our democratic resilience is tested,” European Commissioner for Justice Michael McGrath told Politico.

Discussions between EU diplomats and ministers focused on deploying rapid-response teams, releasing certain EU funds that could be made available to an affected country, and how EU leaders should communicate in such a situation, an EU official said.

“We must be prepared for something serious. Unfortunately, Leipzig showed us that a very serious incident, something that could result in multiple casualties, is not unthinkable,” a senior EU diplomat acknowledged.

Almost daily reports of hybrid attacks

Another EU official added:

“Given the scale and scope of Russian activities, sooner or later there will definitely be casualties. Fortunately, there have been none so far.”

The bloc is facing almost daily reports of so-called hybrid attacks, a term used by the EU and NATO to describe subversive activities that fall below the threshold of direct acts of war. Yesterday, according to Bulgarian officials, several sailors went missing after drones sank their vessel in the Black Sea.

This comes after the incident at Leipzig Airport, a suspicious fire at a Polish ground station handling Starlink communications, and an alleged plot to place incendiary devices at commercial transport hubs across the EU and UK.

What if someone is killed in a hybrid attack?

“It is fairly obvious that as Russia uses increasingly lethal means to test our readiness and willingness to take countermeasures, at some point there will be casualties. At some point, intentionally or unintentionally, it will happen,” said Teija Tiilikainen, director of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats.

If several citizens of an EU or NATO member state were killed in an attack, pressure on both institutions to take action would be enormous.

“We are very afraid that at some point a life will be taken in one of the allied countries,” a NATO diplomat confirmed, adding that this would mean “very significant pressure to act.”

Criticism of the European Union

However, the EU-level discussions have drawn criticism from some European capitals, which believe the Union is overstepping its security role and potentially duplicating the core functions of NATO, the transatlantic alliance that has been the foundation of European security for 80 years.

“There is a risk that this will be very confusing for decision-makers at all levels. If there is confusion or duplication, it could slow down decision-making, which has consequences because time is always critical,” warned Oana Lungescu, a senior fellow at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and former NATO spokesperson.

Another problem is the lack of secure communication channels within the EU and concerns that sensitive information exchanged during ambassadors’ meetings could leak, several diplomats said.

Reports that a former Hungarian foreign minister shared the contents of leaders’ discussions with his Russian counterpart have only deepened these concerns, prompting some capitals to decide to restrict the most sensitive information to NATO formats.

“My government is very suspicious of sharing sensitive intelligence in Coreper or even in the room where leaders meet. It either ends up in the media or goes straight to Moscow,” said a diplomat from an Eastern European country.

Von der Leyen presents a new idea

Resistance to such initiatives comes as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen seeks to strengthen the Union’s security role.

In her latest State of the Union address in Strasbourg, the former German defense minister proposed a “security emergency protocol” that would help member states coordinate precisely in the scenario under discussion.

The protocol, along with von der Leyen’s proposal to establish a “European Security Council,” is expected to be included in a key “European Security Strategy” due to be published in early November, two diplomats said.

Critics: We already have mechanisms in place

However, several diplomats objected, arguing that establishing such mechanisms would take months and that their functions could potentially overlap with mechanisms that already exist within the EU. Rather than creating new formats that would further complicate the system, one senior national diplomat said the EU should rely more heavily on existing crisis-response tools.

“We are very uncomfortable with this security emergency protocol. We already have mechanisms in place. If a crisis occurs, we have the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR), which worked very well during the pandemic and other crises,” the diplomat said.

IPCR was established under the Lisbon Treaty and allows the country holding the EU presidency, at the request of an affected country, to convene emergency meetings attended by experts from NATO, the United Nations or other international organizations.

France activated Article 42.7 in 2015

In the event of a major hybrid attack, the best course of action would still be for the affected state to take the lead. Following the 2015 terrorist attacks in Bataclan, France invoked Article 42.7 of the EU Treaty, the only time the mutual-assistance clause has been activated so far.

Lungescu, however, stressed that this was a “political decision” by Paris that did not lead to major concrete forms of mutual assistance, apart from coordinating counterterrorism investigations between France and Belgium.

To avoid confusion over who does what in the event of an attack involving mass casualties, Lungescu argued that the two sides should divide responsibilities: NATO should handle intelligence sharing and military deterrence, while the EU should focus on the civilian response.

According to Tiilikainen, EU efforts to coordinate responses to hybrid attacks are useful, but only to a certain extent. However, she stressed that they “cannot compare with resilience measures at the national level,” such as Finland’s approach to comprehensive security.

Lungescu also said that Moscow does not distinguish between the two organizations.

“Honestly, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not care whether decisions are made in Coreper II or the North Atlantic Council,” she said, referring to meetings of EU ambassadors and NATO’s decision-making body.