One of the European Union’s least visible security challenges is protecting its digital nervous system from some of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence services. Among the organisations that European security agencies and allied governments have repeatedly identified as a source of concern is the 16th Centre of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

Although Moscow rarely acknowledges the structure or activities of its intelligence apparatus, Western governments and cybersecurity agencies have for years described the Centre as a principal component of Russia’s signals intelligence and cyber-espionage capability. It is widely associated with long-term intelligence gathering rather than disruptive cyber-attacks, targeting government institutions, diplomatic communications, defence organisations and strategic industries.

For Brussels, the significance extends well beyond the technical domain. The European Union has become an increasingly influential geopolitical actor, responsible for sanctions policy, trade negotiations, defence procurement initiatives, industrial strategy and financial regulation. Each of those policy areas generates information of considerable intelligence value. Access to negotiating positions, internal assessments or diplomatic communications could provide a foreign government with insights that are difficult to obtain through conventional espionage alone.

The growing concern has helped reshape how European institutions think about security. Cyber resilience is no longer viewed as an IT function delegated to technical specialists in server rooms. Instead, it has become embedded in questions of strategic autonomy, economic competitiveness and foreign policy. Digital infrastructure now occupies much the same position that transport networks, energy supplies and military logistics once held during earlier periods of geopolitical rivalry.

This evolution has accelerated since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The conflict reinforced the extent to which cyber operations, intelligence collection and information warfare have become integrated instruments of statecraft. European policymakers increasingly assess cyber espionage not as an isolated technical problem but as one element within broader campaigns designed to enhance strategic advantage.

The response has been both institutional and legislative. The European Union has invested heavily in strengthening the security architecture that protects its own institutions. CERT-EU, the Computer Emergency Response Team serving the Union’s institutions, agencies and bodies, has expanded its monitoring capabilities and deepened cooperation with national cybersecurity authorities. Alongside it, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) has assumed a more prominent role in developing common standards and coordinating responses across Member States.

The legislative framework has also matured. The revised Network and Information Security Directive, known as NIS2, significantly broadens cybersecurity obligations across sectors regarded as essential to the functioning of European society. The Cyber Resilience Act extends those principles into the commercial sphere by introducing security requirements for connected products placed on the European market. While neither measure names specific adversaries, both reflect an assessment that sophisticated state-sponsored cyber activity has become a permanent feature of Europe’s security environment.

Diplomacy has evolved in parallel. The EU’s Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox provides a mechanism through which Member States can coordinate political responses to significant malicious cyber activity, including sanctions against individuals and organisations deemed responsible. Since its introduction, the framework has been employed against several actors linked by the EU and its partners to cyber operations targeting European interests.

Intelligence cooperation has similarly deepened. Relations between the European Union and NATO have expanded considerably in the cyber domain, with joint exercises, information-sharing arrangements and coordinated resilience planning becoming increasingly routine. The distinction between military and civilian targets has blurred as modern economies rely upon interconnected digital infrastructure spanning public institutions and private enterprise.

One notable characteristic of the alleged operations attributed to Russian intelligence services is patience. Rather than seeking immediate disruption, advanced cyber-espionage campaigns frequently prioritise persistence. Gaining access to a network is often only the beginning; maintaining covert access over months or years may yield intelligence of substantially greater strategic value. Such campaigns require equally sustained defensive efforts from those responsible for protecting government systems.

This has altered investment priorities within European institutions. Encryption standards have been strengthened, secure communications platforms expanded and supply-chain security subjected to greater scrutiny. Procurement decisions increasingly include cybersecurity considerations alongside cost and functionality. The assumption that digital systems may become targets has become embedded in institutional planning.

Yet the challenge extends beyond technical resilience. Modern intelligence operations frequently combine cyber espionage with influence activities, strategic messaging and disinformation. Information acquired through technical means may subsequently inform political pressure, diplomatic positioning or wider campaigns intended to shape public debate. European policymakers increasingly treat these activities as interconnected rather than discrete threats.

Public attribution has become one of the Union’s preferred instruments. Several Member States, often working alongside allies including the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, have become more willing to identify intelligence organisations believed responsible for significant cyber campaigns. Although attribution in cyberspace is rarely absolute, coordinated public statements serve diplomatic and deterrent purposes, demonstrating political consensus while raising the reputational costs associated with covert activity.

The private sector has assumed an equally important role. Europe’s largest technology firms, telecommunications operators and cybersecurity companies now function as indispensable partners in detecting sophisticated intrusions. Information sharing between governments and industry has become a defining feature of Europe’s defensive posture, reflecting the reality that many cyber operations traverse commercial infrastructure before reaching government networks.

For all the technological sophistication involved, the underlying strategic contest remains familiar. Intelligence has always sought political advantage through access to information. What has changed is the scale, speed and subtlety with which that information can now be acquired. Digital networks have transformed embassies, ministries and boardrooms into potential intelligence targets without a single operative crossing a border.

Brussels’ response reflects this new reality. The European Union cannot eliminate cyber espionage altogether, nor do security professionals claim that such an objective is attainable. Instead, the emphasis has shifted towards resilience: reducing vulnerabilities, detecting intrusions earlier, limiting their consequences and ensuring continuity of government even under sustained cyber pressure.

As artificial intelligence, quantum computing and increasingly interconnected digital infrastructure reshape the technological landscape, the contest between intelligence services and those tasked with defending democratic institutions is likely to intensify rather than diminish. For the European Union, safeguarding the integrity of its digital institutions has become more than an exercise in network security. It is now an essential component of European sovereignty itself.

The most consequential battles between states may no longer be fought in the skies or at sea, but in silent competition for information. In that contest, Europe’s institutions have recognised that resilience, cooperation and technological investment are not simply matters of administrative efficiency. They are now central pillars of the Union’s geopolitical strategy.

NATO cyber exercise shows Europe is still learning how to fight AI-backed disruption