Russian hackers breached a Norwegian dam earlier this April, taking control of its operation for over 4 hours before detection. They opened a floodgate, releasing water at over 500 liters per second. (Bryant, 2025)
Even though damage was limited, this cyberattack, like many others, serves as a tool to spread fear and chaos among populations. These aggressive operations have expanded from espionage or political coercion to vital infrastructures across industries.
Norway’s dam was not energy-producing; it was used for fish farming. This matters because Europe’s lifeline infrastructure is based on dams, hydropower stations, and energy systems. By manipulating even a small dam, Russia exposed weakness, signaling: ‘We can reach your energy systems too.’
Just yesterday, hackers targeted hospitals and urban water supplies in one of Poland’s largest cities. Dariusz Standerski, deputy minister for digital affairs, confirmed that the government is allocating €80mn this month to strengthen the cyber defenses of water management systems (Milne, 2025).
Beyond physical damage, Russian cyberattacks also aim at eroding trust in government. Liverpool City Council has revealed that, for the past two years, its IT infrastructure has been under relentless attack from the Russian state-funded group Noname057(16). Several other UK councils have faced similar assaults during the same period. (Waddington, 2025)
These incidents highlight a broader truth: cyberwarfare represents digital disruption in its most dangerous form (Weill & Woerner, 2015). Europe’s safety is now threatened by its digital vulnerabilities, and thus the bloc needs a swift response. AI-driven monitoring and anomaly detection offer ways to anticipate and neutralize attacks in real time (Zhao et al., 2023; Li, 2023). Moreover, as Furr & Shipilov (2019) argue, building resilience does not require disruption; it can come from incremental adaptation. Europe should add layers of protective systems over its old infrastructure without crippling operations (Birkinshaw & Lancefield, 2023).
In practice, Europe must move past reactive spending and focus on building a reliable, AI-integrated cybersecurity strategy across vital infrastructure. The battleground is no longer just physical or near the Russian border. It is increasingly digital and affects everyday lives across the continent.
This raises the question: Should cybersecurity be treated as a matter of national defense, or as an EU-wide responsibility shared across borders?
Sources:
- Bryant, M. (2025, August 15). Russian hackers seized control of Norwegian dam, spy chief says. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/14/russian-hackers-control-norwegian-dam-norway
- Birkinshaw, J., & Lancefield, D. (2023). How professional services firms dodged disruption. MIT Sloan Management Review, 64(4), 34–39.
- Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. (2019). Digital doesn’t have to be disruptive: The best results can come from adaptation rather than reinvention. Harvard Business Review, 97(4), 94–104.
- Milne, R. (2025, September 12). Russian hackers target Polish hospitals and city water supply. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/3e7c7a96-09e7-407f-98d7-a29310743d28
- Waddington, M. (2025, September 17). Liverpool City Council under “increasing” Russian hack bot attack. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj18z99dx0o
- Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. (2015). Thriving in an increasingly digital ecosystem. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 27–34.
- Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., & Du, Y. (2023). A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.18223
