A Strategic Shift in How the EU Confronts Hybrid Threats

Last week, the European Commission launched ProtectEU, a new internal security strategy built to counter hybrid threats head-on. If you work in security—physical or cyber—this one’s worth watching. It reflects how nation-states and large institutions are recalibrating their defense posture in response to increasingly ambiguous, blended attacks.

This isn’t just policy for policy’s sake. The EU is adapting to a threat landscape where cyberattacks, influence operations, and physical sabotage are no longer siloed. These are coordinated campaigns that strike across domains—without declaring war. Recent examples include the pro-Russian hacktivist group KillNet launching DDoS attacks on hospitals and logistics providers in multiple EU countries, and sabotage operations targeting rail and energy infrastructure in Germany and Poland.

For U.S. businesses operating in or connected to European markets, this is more than a regional development. Regulations, threat-sharing initiatives, and vendor risk frameworks born from ProtectEU will have downstream effects on multinational compliance, contracting, and operational standards. If your org provides cloud services, telecom infrastructure, or cybersecurity solutions to EU clients, expect heightened scrutiny—especially around your own supply chain and incident response capabilities.

And while the strategy is broad, it's clear where the focus is tightening: critical infrastructure sectors. That includes:

• Telecommunications: especially firms providing 5G infrastructure or cloud hosting platforms.

• Energy and utilities: already on the front lines of state-sponsored probing and pre-positioning activity.

• Transportation and logistics: increasingly seen as soft targets in hybrid warfare playbooks.

• Finance: not just for direct attacks, but as a vector for economic disruption and public trust erosion.

This is the EU drawing a new line: internal security now includes defending digital, operational, and even narrative infrastructure. As we go deeper into the strategy, you’ll see why the implications go well beyond European borders.

What Are Hybrid Threats—Really?

The term “hybrid threats” gets thrown around a lot, but it’s often misunderstood. These aren't just cyberattacks or propaganda campaigns in isolation. They’re coordinated, state-aligned actions that blend cyber, physical, economic, and psychological tactics to destabilize or degrade a target—without ever triggering a formal military response.

We’ve seen this play out repeatedly:

• The Nord Stream pipeline sabotage—a kinetic strike with strategic cyber implications.

• Russia’s use of disinformation and election interference layered with cyber-intrusions into EU ministries.

• DDoS campaigns timed to coincide with diplomatic disputes or political events, designed to sow distrust and cause disruption.

• Cyber actors using ransomware as cover for broader espionage operations.

These actions aren't about immediate destruction—they're about shaping the battlespace.

Hybrid threats exploit legal gray zones and the slow response mechanisms of democratic systems. They test thresholds, erode public confidence, and create cumulative pressure on governments and critical sectors.

Why this matters for security teams:

Hybrid threats require a response that goes beyond firewalls or security guards. You're looking at the need for:

• Integrated threat models that consider physical, cyber, and information warfare vectors together.

• Fusion cells or multi-disciplinary working groups that combine intel, cybersecurity, and physical security.

• Policy awareness—especially around sovereignty, attribution, and response thresholds. Understanding how your sector is viewed geopolitically helps shape your defensive posture.

ProtectEU is essentially Europe saying: “We're done playing catch-up.” They’re reclassifying hybrid threats as internal security threats—and that reframing opens the door to faster coordination and stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Scaling Intelligence Sharing Across Member States

One of the most impactful shifts in ProtectEU is its emphasis on breaking down the long-standing silos between EU member states. Historically, intelligence and threat data have been fragmented across borders. That fragmentation gives threat actors a free lane to operate—especially those running multi-jurisdictional campaigns.

ProtectEU pushes for real-time, structured intelligence sharing across national and agency lines. This isn't just about passing reports up the chain—it's about building shared situational awareness across law enforcement, national security agencies, and even the private sector.

What this means in practice:

• Stronger mandates for Europol to act as a central hub for cross-border threat coordination.

• Increased use of joint investigation teams (JITs) for hybrid threat incidents that span countries or sectors.

• Common threat intelligence platforms, with standardized formats and automated feeds, reducing lag in detection and attribution.

• A push for machine-readable threat indicators and more automated playbook responses.

For security leaders and vCISOs supporting multinational clients, this shift means:

• You’ll need to map your data-sharing obligations—particularly if you’re operating across jurisdictions.

• Be ready to engage with regional intelligence-sharing hubs (including ENISA or local CERTs).

• Expect increased pressure to report incidents faster and more transparently—especially if your systems touch critical infrastructure.

If you haven't already built an internal protocol for sharing intel with European agencies, now is the time to design one. Make sure it aligns with both GDPR and your client’s threat reporting requirements.

Hardening Europol and Expanding Mandates

Europol is evolving from a coordination agency into something closer to an operational intelligence and enforcement body. ProtectEU calls for a significant expansion of its authority, capabilities, and technical reach. This isn’t symbolic—it’s a real shift in how the EU plans to detect, investigate, and disrupt hybrid threats at scale.

Here’s what that means on the ground:

• Broader access to national law enforcement data—Europol will no longer be reliant solely on what member states choose to push to it. Expect more direct data integration and access under secure frameworks.

• Operational tasking authority—Instead of just advising, Europol will be able to lead joint investigations and deploy rapid-response teams for cross-border incidents.

• More technical firepower—Investments in digital forensics, threat intelligence, and analytical tooling will make Europol a true peer to agencies like the FBI or GCHQ in certain hybrid threat contexts.

Actionable insight for security professionals:

• If you’re managing incident response in a European environment, understand Europol’s new role. You may be reporting to them directly during major threat events.

• Expect increased oversight of threat reporting, data retention, and evidence handling—particularly for cases tied to cybercrime, extremism, or critical infrastructure threats.

• If you're supporting government or defense clients, assume more direct integration with EU-level task forces, especially in cyber threat attribution and cross-border investigations.

Bottom line: Europol is being retooled as a central intelligence and enforcement hub. Your security playbooks—especially for multinationals or high-risk sectors—need to account for this evolving role.

Focus on Infrastructure and Cyber Resilience

One of the core objectives of ProtectEU is hardening the EU’s critical infrastructure—both physical and digital—against disruption, compromise, or pre-positioning by threat actors. This includes everything from energy grids and water utilities to telecom networks and cloud platforms.

The strategy places strong emphasis on two areas:

• Reducing dependency on high-risk suppliers: There’s a clear call to diversify away from vendors deemed vulnerable to foreign influence—especially in the 5G, cloud, and data hosting sectors. This follows previous EU actions limiting Chinese telecom involvement and will likely expand into broader assessments of software and hardware supply chains.

• Raising the baseline for cyber resilience: ProtectEU pushes for updated cybersecurity requirements for infrastructure operators, including mandatory threat assessments, sector-specific response plans, and tighter SLAs for incident handling.

What this means for security and IT leaders:

• Supplier vetting will get stricter. If you’re part of a supply chain that touches EU infrastructure, prepare for formalized vendor assurance processes—especially around sovereignty, data locality, and lifecycle management.

• Sector-specific resilience benchmarks will matter more. You’ll need to align security posture with your client’s sector guidelines (like NIS2 or ENISA recommendations).

• Expect more aggressive audits—both from regulators and third-party assurance teams—on backup readiness, recovery objectives, and segmentation practices.

Practical steps you can take now:

• Perform a geopolitical risk review of your upstream providers—especially cloud, DNS, telecom, and managed security services.

• Build redundancy and independence into critical components (e.g., multi-cloud deployments, local failover zones).

• Work with clients to stress-test recovery plans using realistic threat models—DDoS, ransomware, insider sabotage, and cascading supply chain failure scenarios.

The message is clear: security isn’t just about defense—it’s about continuity and resilience in contested environments.

Encryption, Lawful Access, and the Privacy Debate

One of the more controversial elements in ProtectEU is the European Commission’s renewed push for lawful access to encrypted communications. The strategy frames this as a necessary tool for public safety and counterterrorism—but it immediately raises red flags for privacy advocates and technology providers.

At the center of the debate is this:

• Can law enforcement agencies access encrypted data without weakening the very encryption that keeps systems secure?

• ProtectEU stops short of mandating backdoors, but it signals a strong intent to develop technical and legal mechanisms for "lawful and effective" access—especially in investigations involving terrorism, child exploitation, and organized crime.

Why this matters to security leaders and solution architects:

• If you're building or integrating with E2EE (end-to-end encryption) platforms—especially messaging, VoIP, or file-sharing—you need to track this conversation closely. There may be new compliance frameworks requiring disclosure of technical capabilities or metadata sharing practices.

• Multinational clients may face conflicting obligations—between ProtectEU's push for access and other jurisdictions (like the U.S. or Switzerland) where data privacy laws strongly oppose such mandates.

• Zero-knowledge architectures may come under pressure. You’ll need to justify how your platform balances privacy with lawful investigative cooperation.

Suggested actions:

• Review and document your encryption model and legal hold capabilities—especially if you serve public-sector clients or operate in sensitive verticals.

• Create clear internal policy positions on government data requests, encryption assistance, and data disclosure protocols. Don’t wait for the legislation—prepare for the inquiry.

• Track EU working group outcomes and be ready to participate in industry coalitions shaping implementation.

This part of ProtectEU will evolve—and fast. The challenge for security professionals is to remain agile: build defensible, privacy-respecting systems that can also support lawful oversight under the right conditions.

International Cooperation, Not Isolation

While ProtectEU is framed as an internal security strategy, one of its key pillars is deepening international cooperation. The European Commission recognizes that hybrid threats—whether cyber-enabled sabotage or coordinated disinformation—don’t respect national borders. And countering them requires aligned strategy across alliances.

This means closer operational ties with:

• NATO and EUROPOL-NATO fusion efforts, especially for threat intelligence and incident attribution in critical infrastructure sectors.

• The United States, particularly through data-sharing agreements, coordinated sanctions on cyber actors, and aligned defense postures in telecommunications and supply chain integrity.

• Like-minded Indo-Pacific partners (Japan, South Korea, Australia), focusing on the resilience of undersea cables, cloud service geopolitics, and maritime cyber risks.

Why this matters to operators and advisors:

• If you're a U.S.-based org servicing EU or NATO-linked clients, your detection and reporting posture will be scrutinized under a multilateral lens.

• International cooperation could lead to shared threat actor indicators and tooling, increasing pressure to stay aligned with European threat taxonomies (e.g., ENISA, MITRE adaptations).

• Vendors supporting multinational clients may soon face cross-border audit standards—think SOC 2-like assessments that factor in EU cyber directives and international threat norms.

Tactical moves to prepare:

• Map your data and incident workflows—identify where cross-border data sharing could become a compliance or disclosure trigger.

• Build or update international response protocols—include points of contact for EU CERTs, NATO-affiliated security desks, and transatlantic legal counsel.

• Align your threat intel feeds with partners who maintain visibility across EU and Five Eyes domains. Cross-region fusion is now part of the job.

ProtectEU isn’t isolationist—it’s an operational message: We’ll defend internally, but we’re linking arms externally. That mindset changes how you prepare, how you report, and how you collaborate.

Building Internal Protocols for Intelligence Sharing

As the EU formalizes its intelligence-sharing expectations under ProtectEU, private-sector organizations—especially those operating across borders or in critical sectors—need to build internal processes that can keep up.

Whether you’re a service provider, incident response lead, or acting as a vCISO, having a clear, documented protocol for external intelligence sharing is no longer optional. It’s a resilience requirement.

Here’s how to build it:

Define What You Share—and When

Start by defining what qualifies as shareable threat intelligence versus sensitive internal telemetry. Use tagging to distinguish between:

• Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) and behavioral patterns

• TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, Procedures) relevant to hybrid threats

• Incident summaries that can support broader sector awareness without disclosing sensitive details

Create a triage matrix to assess what’s mandatory to report under GDPR, NIS2, or sector regulations—and what can be shared voluntarily for threat enrichment.

Establish External Relationships Now

Before an incident occurs, identify and make contact with:

• National CSIRTs or sectoral SOCs (like CERT-EU)

• Industry ISACs (Information Sharing and Analysis Centers)

• Law enforcement cyber liaison contacts, if applicable

Document these relationships, POCs, and contact methods in your IR playbooks. Make this accessible to your SOC or incident handling team.

Automate Where Appropriate

Leverage STIX/TAXII or OpenDXL if you’re dealing with machine-readable intel. Automate deconfliction where possible using internal clearance tiers—so your analysts don’t manually parse legal and regulatory conditions during an active incident.

Log and Audit Everything

Track what’s shared, when, and with whom. Maintain a record for compliance audits and post-incident reviews. This log is critical if regulators ever question your transparency or intent.

Train and Rehearse

Make intel sharing part of your tabletop exercises. Practice handling classified, embargoed, or time-sensitive threat information. Include both legal and technical stakeholders—because one poorly timed disclosure can create legal exposure or diplomatic friction.

Why This Matters for Your Business

ProtectEU isn’t just a policy document—it’s a shift in how Europe expects organizations to manage risk, respond to threats, and engage with public-sector partners. Whether you're running infrastructure in the EU, servicing clients with EU operations, or operating in adjacent supply chains, the ripple effects will hit fast and deep.

Here’s how it may show up in your world:

• Cloud and telecom vendors will face increased scrutiny, especially those hosting sensitive data or providing core infrastructure. If your platform handles identity, messaging, or edge processing, assume tighter reviews of your architecture, encryption posture, and sovereign data boundaries.

• Cyber insurance providers may start mapping coverage to compliance with ProtectEU’s resilience standards—meaning you’ll need to show alignment with regulatory benchmarks to maintain favorable terms or even qualify for coverage.

• Clients in regulated sectors will expect providers to align with evolving EU mandates, including response time expectations, cross-border data coordination, and vendor security disclosures. If you're part of their extended enterprise, you’ll likely be asked to validate your own protocols.

• Incident response timelines will compress. Disclosure windows, coordination demands, and expectations around multi-agency reporting will tighten. This changes how you prepare your teams, your legal response, and your messaging strategy.

Practical steps to get ahead of this:

• Conduct a ProtectEU impact assessment across your services and client engagements. Flag data residency, legal reporting pathways, and control overlaps.

• Update SLAs and client agreements to reflect incident response and disclosure alignment with new EU frameworks.

• Build a communications plan that includes regulators, clients, and EU intel partners. Know who you’ll contact and how you’ll frame it—before you’re in crisis mode.

This is about more than staying compliant—it’s about staying trusted. If your clients believe you can navigate these shifting requirements and defend your part of the ecosystem, you become not just a provider—but a strategic partner.

Final Thoughts

ProtectEU is more than just another internal EU strategy—it’s a signal that the lines between national security, enterprise security, and infrastructure resilience are now fully blurred. The threats Europe faces—coordinated cyberattacks, supply chain compromise, disinformation, and physical sabotage—are the same ones most organizations face, just at a different scale.

What makes ProtectEU different is the operational follow-through. This isn’t about raising awareness—it’s about raising expectations:

• Faster threat sharing.

• Stricter vendor controls.

• Real-time coordination across national borders.

• Stronger mandates for action, not just analysis.

For security professionals, this means the status quo won’t cut it. Clients, regulators, and partners are watching how we adapt—not just to single incidents, but to a threat landscape that’s persistently contested.

If you operate in, support, or touch the European ecosystem, now’s the time to align. Build protocols that work. Harden infrastructure that matters. And be ready to show how your organization contributes to collective defense—not just your own perimeter.

Need to Align with ProtectEU or Strengthen Your Security Posture?

Whether you're navigating new EU security expectations, managing multinational risk, or simply need a trusted partner in cyber or physical security—we can help.

Red Cell Security provides vCISO services, cybersecurity management, and integrated risk advisory to help you stay ahead of evolving threats.

Let’s talk about how we can support your mission.

📅 Book time with us