The number two in the NATO military structure, Italian admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, never mentions the word "Russia". But his speech makes it clear that pre-war tensions between Europe and that country will continue, and perhaps increase, regardless of what happens with the US plan (or Russian-US) for peace in Ukraine.
Cavo Dragone is Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. This makes him the highest-ranking European military officer in the Alliance and the second highest overall, after the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who is always an American. The admiral grants this interview to EL MUNDO at the Security Forum held every November in the Canadian city of Halifax, which this year has been marked by Trump's peace proposal for Ukraine.
It was at the Forum where last Saturday the farce of the six US senators claiming they had spoken with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and that he had assured them that the peace plan was not such, but only the basis for starting negotiations, was staged. Just a few hours later, Rubio contradicted them and proclaimed the seriousness of the initiative, which involves giving Russia even more territory than it has conquered and Europe paying for the reconstruction of Ukraine, with Washington reaping the benefits.
Since the Donald Trump administration has been boycotting these debate forums since the Aspen Security Forum in July, the confusion in Halifax was even greater. However, among the collection of senior military officials, politicians, and civil society present, there was a clear consensus on the stark realism of Cavo Dragone's analysis.
Question. What has NATO learned from the war in Ukraine?
Answer. We have learned a lesson: we must speak to the people and educate them, clearly explain what a war in which the entire population is involved would be like. Ukraine has made it clear to us the importance of the people's will to fight. The entire Ukrainian society is fighting. We also need to strike a balance between new weapon systems and conventional ones. Take drones, for example: we have been using them as toys for years, without realizing the type of weapons they can become. Between 70% and 80% of Russian tanks - or even more - are being destroyed by drones. And we have discovered that, alongside conventional warfare, there is a hybrid or gray zone war, which includes fires, railway sabotage, or airspace violations by drones. These actions have ceased to be secondary activities. They are part of the war. And sometimes, they start long before the war begins. So, these movements in the gray zone could be a sign that something bigger is looming, just as it happened, precisely, in Ukraine.
Q. When you say that "something bigger is coming," are you referring to something beyond Ukraine?
A. Yes. I am referring to a hybrid conflict, meaning below the threshold of activities considered typical of a conflict, but heading towards a likely conflict [with NATO]. These are warnings that must be taken very seriously. Deterrence is our best weapon, and now we are beginning to consider whether deterrence is only reactive or could also be preventive. This may be the moment to address that question.
Q. What is preventive deterrence?
A. Perhaps doing the same things we have been reacting to in the hybrid warfare attacks we have been targeted with. For example, launching a preventive action against a site where drones could be ready to be launched [against NATO] could be an option.
Q. That would mean taking action against Russia.
A. Against anyone threatening us, putting us in danger. NATO is made up of democratic countries, so our tendency is to be reactive. But, of course, we have a wide range of options to act, and all of them, by the way, are perfectly feasible from a technical point of view.
Q. You just mentioned that one of the lessons from Ukraine is the importance of society knowing and acknowledging that they are at war. Should the societies of NATO member countries assume that a 'hybrid' or 'gray zone' war has been launched against them?
A. Our civil society should be aware that they are already targets of these hybrid activities or actions below the threshold [of full-scale war]. An obvious example: can you say that during our political processes and elections, there is no external influence? No. Certainly, there have been attempts. Whether they have been successful or not has been a matter of our resilience. But they have happened. What is needed is for us to acknowledge that and exercise all the options we have. It should be noted that NATO countries have been accustomed to decades and decades of peace, which is undoubtedly good. But now we have been given a cold shower.
Q. You also said that NATO - and here I am referring to the European NATO countries - have the resources to address these threats. Do they have them now, or do they expect to have them in the future?
A. We have them now. The nations, the Alliance have them. We have the plans. We have, of course, the adversary. We have everything necessary to carry out these actions, although we need to improve. Speaking honestly, we need to refine our target acquisition capability, and we are working on that with the commitment of 5% [Defense spending as a percentage of GDP by 2035] decided at the Hague summit. And let's not forget that the Defense sector needs to support us with more production and also more risk-taking. Let's say that the Defense industry should not only be a business: it also has to be part of the structure.
Q. If the US stops supporting Ukraine, can the rest of NATO fill that void?
A. Honestly, I cannot say yes. But I can say that we would do everything we could. We would increase our support to the maximum. We will never abandon Ukraine.
Q. But you cannot guarantee that it would be enough.
A. No. We will see that when, unfortunately, it happens.
Q. What would be the biggest limitation of European assistance? The lack of 'beyond the horizon' capabilities that the United States has [which allows Washington to warn Kiev when Russia launches its missiles or its bombers take off from their bases]?
A. Intelligence is extremely important, but, although we are not at the level of the Americans, we can provide Ukraine with what our Intelligence gathers. And, of course, we will continue to supply them with weapons. European countries - including Norway and the UK - and Canada are already the largest suppliers of weapons to Ukraine, although, of course, we will miss the Intelligence and weapons from the United States.
Q. Most of the technologies used in modern warfare, especially the 'cloud,' which is absolutely key, are almost entirely controlled by US companies. We know that Washington can compel these companies to cut off access to their services to third parties because it has already done so, for example, by having Microsoft block access to the Office platform - including email - of the former prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Karim Khan, whom it had sanctioned for prosecuting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Achieving autonomy in this field will take years for Europe.
A. We have a plan to develop these capabilities, and the EU is also working on developing the cloud. With the amount of investment we are beginning to have available, we will be able to accelerate this process because the digitalization of Defense is unavoidable. We have to be an operational Alliance at a multidomain level.
Q. How is peace in Ukraine progressing?
A. The peace plan comes after a period without proposals in that regard, so it is welcome. But we believe that any negotiating offer must consider fundamental aspects, such as there being an aggressor and a victim, and that the borders of States cannot be redrawn by force.
Q. And the war?
A. It is essentially stabilized. Russia has made small gains at the cost of enormous losses, between 1,000 and 1,200 casualties [including dead and wounded] daily. But the Ukrainians are resisting. The mobilization of Ukrainian society is incredible. They are a global example. NATO will stand by their side until the day there is a just and lasting peace, and even afterward, as they rebuild their Armed Forces to be able to deter Russia from invading them for the third time.