There are several databases and reports that purport to quantify Russian hybrid warfare, which are often cited as proof of a coordinated, escalating Russian campaign. [...] Taken individually and at face value, each of these reports paints an apparently damning picture comprising dozens — and in some cases hundreds — of alleged sabotages, attacks and influence operations spanning several European countries over many years. Worrying indeed. Read side by side and in detail, however, they tell a very different story: the numbers diverge wildly; the central concept is undefined; attribution often rests on nothing more than press reports of official suspicion; and the reports’ own caveats — buried in footnotes, appendices and methodology sections — often undercut the claims made in their executive summaries. Moreover, in most cases, the evidence linking Russia is very weak — or non-existent. Across these reports, the evidence that Russia was behind a given incident usually consists of a news article reporting that officials suspect it. There is no independent verification: if a government says “Russia did it”, it goes on the list — even in the absence of any evidence. [...] Ultimately, most roads lead back to the same pool of media reports of official claims — in most cases of “possible” or “likely” Russian involvement. And those official claims are not neutral. The IISS paper, remarkably, says so itself: decisions about attribution are “rarely made in a political vacuum”, and public statements “reflect broader strategic calculations as much as their confidence in the evidence”. Nor can many of the organisations behind these reports be considered neutral. The IISS, CSIS and GLOBSEC all have funding ties to American and European arms manufacturers (GLOBSEC counts among its donors the defence company Helsing, which the Ukraine war has turned into Europe’s most valuable startup), as well as to the transatlantic establishment, and are known for their hawkish approach to the Ukraine war and to Russia. The language of the reports themselves betrays their ideological commitment. The CSIS brief argues that NATO should abandon its “mindset of self-deterrence” and launch a “calibrated offensive campaign” against Russia. The IISS urges a “more assertive and proactive stance”, with its chair, Lord Mark Sedwill, saying that Britain was at war with Russia. The GLOBSEC report speaks of “state terrorism”. But, in fact, as noted above, the reports themselves contain very little evidence, if any, to support the “Russia is at war with Europe” narrative. Read the article here: thomasfazi.com/p/the-russian…