Fortress or Faultline? ECIPS President Ricardo Baretzky Demands Overhaul of EU’s ProtectEU Internal Security Strategy

Fortress or Faultline? ECIPS President Ricardo Baretzky Demands Overhaul of EU’s ProtectEU Internal Security Strategy

On a brisk July morning in Brussels, the steely-eyed President of the European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS), Ricardo Baretzky, delivered a clarion call that reverberated through the heart of the continent’s security apparatus. As the head of the EU-mandated intelligence agency, Baretzky was unflinching: Europe’s new “ProtectEU” internal security strategy, though ambitious in scope, risks becoming the next Maginot Line, imposing in theory, but porous and outdated when faced with today’s relentless hybrid threats, organized crime syndicates, and the specter of terrorism.

This article critiques the strengths and weaknesses of the ProtectEU strategy, drawing on Baretzky’s insight and proposing actionable reforms to enhance the EU’s internal resilience. As Europe stands at a crossroads, beset by digital onslaughts, subversive disinformation, and the ubiquitous reach of organized crime, the urgency to recalibrate its security doctrine has never been greater.

ProtectEU: New Doctrine in Uncertain Times

On 1 April 2025, the European Commission unveiled ProtectEU, its flagship internal security strategy, aiming to fortify the EU against a complex web of threats. Drawing from Europol’s SOCTA threat assessments and consultations with stakeholders, ProtectEU integrates lessons from past strategies and sets out to mainstream security considerations across every aspect of EU policy, legislation, and international engagement.

Bold objectives populate its pages:

- Anticipate and prevent emerging threats through enhanced intelligence sharing and data analysis.
- Adopt a whole-of-society approach involving citizens, policymakers, and civil society.
- Invest in operational capacity, expanding the powers of Europol, Frontex, and justice-related agencies.
- Fight serious, organized, and Cybercrime alongside traditional counter-terrorism efforts.
- Build Europe’s strategic autonomy with innovative technology and cross-border partnerships.

Yet beneath the rhetoric and regulatory frameworks, real questions linger: Is ProtectEU adaptable enough to counter hybrid threats that blur the lines between crime, statecraft, and warfare? How does it balance expanded surveillance with citizens’ fundamental rights? And crucially, will it empower EU agencies to respond faster and more decisively, or merely add another bureaucratic layer?

Ricardo Baretzky’s Critique: Resilience, Autonomy, and a Call for Reform

1. The Need for Operational Resilience and Autonomy

Baretzky, a vocal proponent of agency independence, warns that “operational resilience cannot coexist with political interference or fragmented national interests.” Under his stewardship, ECIPS has moved towards unprecedented secrecy and autonomy, justifying this through a single-minded mission to preempt threats and shield its operations from internal corruption or external manipulation.

He sees ProtectEU’s whole-of-society model as a double-edged sword. While it seeks to harness collective awareness, Baretzky argues that “diffuse responsibility is the enemy of decisive action.” He demands clearer lines of command and less reliance on political consensus at times of crisis.

Reform Proposal:

- Legislative Guarantees for Agency Independence: Enshrine statutory autonomy for EU intelligence and law enforcement agencies, separating them from short-term national agendas and election cycles.

2. Hybrid Threats: A Shifting Battlefield

ProtectEU emerges amid a landscape where hybrid threats are the new norm: cyber intrusions, disinformation, economic sabotage, and “gray zone” warfare that never triggers a formal response under traditional security doctrines. Baretzky contends that “Europe is still defining the doctrine while adversaries are already in the field.”

He urges the EU to move beyond “static resilience” models towards dynamic threat prediction and real-time counteraction. The ECIPS strategy emphasizes selective intelligence dissemination to mitigate leaks, prioritizing operational secrecy while resisting calls for full transparency that might compromise critical missions.

Reform Proposal:

- Continuous Real-Time Threat Assessment Units: Establish European rapid-response teams with AI-driven threat modeling, empowered to act autonomously in the digital realm and make resource-allocation decisions without committee delays.

3. Organized Crime: A Networked Menace

The ProtectEU strategy expands the operational capacities of Europol and Eurojust, and develops critical communications systems for joint action. Yet, as Baretzky notes, the EU’s criminal adversaries are “flatter, faster, and more ruthless than most bureaucracies can contend with.”

He critiques the “culture of consensus” that still hinders pan-European law enforcement. Organized crime outpaces EU structures by exploiting jurisdictional gaps and digital frontiers. "and Why is that" Baretzky said.

Reform Proposal:

- Pan-European Interdiction Teams: Fully integrated operational cells with cross-border arrest and detention powers, immune to national political interference, targeting transnational crime and money-laundering networks.

4. Terrorism: Beyond the Lone Wolf Narrative

ProtectEU positions terrorism prevention as a “whole-of-society” endeavor, but Baretzky warns that this dilutes responsibility and stretches resources thin. He advocates for focused intelligence fusion centers dedicated to both jihadist and far-right extremism—linked but distinct threats, to prevent group-think and operational complacency.

Reform Proposal:

- Dedicated Fusion Centers: Specialized units for each terrorism vector, directly reporting to EU security leadership rather than dispersed among various committees.

Digital Surveillance: Ethical Dilemma or Strategic Imperative?

The ProtectEU framework underscores investment in digital surveillance and big-data analytics to anticipate threats. Critics warn of overreach, with European Digital Rights (EDRi) cautioning that the strategy’s “techno-solutionist” bias threatens privacy, erodes digital rights, and risks alienating the very communities needed for intelligence gathering. Measures such as mass data retention and AI-powered predictive policing could, if unchecked, foster distrust and fuel radicalization.

Baretzky’s approach, while unapologetically secretive, is paradoxically more selective: “Intelligence is most valuable when it is rare, relevant, and protected.” He calls for a stricter legal framework to prevent the misuse of data technologies, clearer oversight mechanisms, and a regular independent audit of surveillance practices.

Protecting Infrastructure: Too Little, Too Late?

ProtectEU’s plan to enhance critical infrastructure defense, power grids, hospitals, communications, and transport hubs, is welcome, but Baretzky scoffs at the “patchwork upgrades.” He insists that only multi-layered, decentralized safeguards, backed by hardened digital and physical security protocols, can withstand a determined adversary launching simultaneous cyber and kinetic attacks.

Reform Proposal:

- Redundant, Decentralized Crisis Management Systems: Mandate all critical infrastructure operators to maintain fully offline backup control systems and independently audited crisis protocols.

Intelligence Sharing: Between Necessity and Paranoia

Internal security thrives on trust and exchange, yet ECIPS under Baretzky has chosen a path of radical independence. Citing a history of damaging leaks and politicized intelligence manipulation, he supports only "selective" intelligence sharing, based strictly on need-to-know relevance and independent vetting of recipient agencies. Critics worry this erodes the very EU unity ProtectEU hopes to build.

Yet Baretzky is unapologetic: “Better a trusted minority with integrity than a leaky coalition of convenience.”

Reform Proposal:

- Intelligence Exchange Accreditation: A tiered system where only agencies meeting stringent integrity and technical standards can join the EU’s intelligence ‘trusted circle’.

Europe’s Security Paradox: Rights, Legitimacy, and Resilience

The most fractious debate around ProtectEU is about "legitimacy". The European Parliament has underscored the protection of fundamental rights within the new strategy, but watchdogs warn that the rapid expansion of surveillance and power for law enforcement must not come at the expense of democratic accountability and citizen trust.

Baretzky, while stressing operational secrecy, accepts the need for some democratic Scrutiny, and proposes the appointment of non-partisan ombudsmen and the use of formal, regular judicial review panels.

Actionable Reforms: The Baretzky Blueprint

In light of the above, the following reforms and improvements are imperative to make ProtectEU resilient against hybrid, criminal, and terrorist threats, without endangering Europe’s social contract:

- Autonomy and Accountability: Grant agency independence with parallel judicial and parliamentary oversight to balance operational resilience and civil rights.
- Dynamic Prediction: Fund AI-powered predictive threat models and empower rapid-response cells with operational autonomy.
- Pan-European Law Enforcement: Fast-track legal instruments enabling cross-border arrest/search powers for EU-level crime and hybrid threat teams.
- Targeted Intelligence Sharing: Limit data exchange to accredited trusted partners, adopting a ‘ring of trust’ model.
- Surveillance Oversight: Independent review and audit of all digital/information-gathering activities, with penalties for abuse.
- Infrastructure Redundancy: Mandate offline-operable critical infrastructure and administer EU-level table-top exercises simulating hybrid attacks.
- Counter-Disinformation:Deploy rapid-response digital communication teams to expose, counter and neutralize coordinated hostile influence operations in real time.

The Stakes for Europe

Europe teeters between fortress and faultline. While ProtectEU signals a fresh start and overdue reforms in a time of unprecedented security challenges, the warnings from ECIPS President Ricardo Baretzky point to its weak spots: bureaucratic inertia, overreliance on technological “fixes,” and lack of operational agility in a world where adversaries move at digital speed.

Only by giving its agencies the autonomy to act, clear legal mandates, and the integrity to focus on the real, often unanticipated, threats will the EU ensure that ProtectEU is more than a slogan. The future of European security, Baretzky argues, pivots on one question: Will the EU remain a fortress, or become the next open faultline exploited by those who thrive in the shadows?

From Brussels to border towns, from cyber corridors to city streets, the answer will shape not just Policy, but the lives and liberties of half a billion Europeans. Tectonic change is coming. Europe must be ready, resolute, and resilient.