Some have questioned the value of such public statements in terms of deterrence, naming & shaming. While it (rhetorically) demonstrates unity and determination, current tensions within the alliance undermine this stance with regard to the possibility of actual responses described in the statement.

✅ Underlining strategic ambiguity - Art. 5 applicability to campaigns & range of response „[…] determined to employ the full range of capabilities in order to deter, defend against and counter the full spectrum of cyber threats.  We will respond to these at a time and in a manner of our choosing.“

✅ Similar language as used in Strategic Concept & Summit declarations: „We remain united in our determination to counter, constrain, and contest Russian malicious cyber activities […].“

🇺🇦 „Russia’s actions will not deter Allies’ support to Ukraine, including cyber assistance through the Tallinn Mechanism and IT capability coalition. We will continue to use the lessons learned from the war against Ukraine in countering Russian malicious cyber activity.“

🇺🇦 Also notice how strong this language is on continued support for Ukraine. 🇺🇸 Maybe a hint that working relations with the U.S. Delegation are quite stable despite Trump (as suspected by many & has been the case under Trump 1.0). However, this runs contrary to reports of DoD practice under Hegseth

🇷🇺Continued clarity on the threat: „[…] illustrate the extent to which cyber and wider hybrid threats have become important tools in Russia’s ongoing campaign to destabilise NATO Allies and in Russia’s brutal and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine.“

The Statement is likely a sign that attacks against allies are more severe than publicly known, hence the timing & move. The connection to one of the few other statements of this kind (malicious Russian cyber activities against GER/CZ) adds more weight to the statement and emphasizes the prior move.

The nod to attacks against other allies, incl. Romania is interesting as it differs from the language used above. Likely allies wanting to avoid confronting language. It’s widely known & recognized that all allies are subject to such attacks - choosing to highlight it still makes for a stronger case

🤝 Standing in solidarity & recognizing attributions by individual allies (here EST, FR, UK, US as NATOs leading cyber nations) has become the compromise, alternative to a joint NATO attribution in a narrow sense. Getting 32 allies to agree to such a move is not easy in the current environment.