Hybrid Warfare and the Complicated Nature of Conflicts

If you were to ask someone two decades ago what war looks like, you’d likely get a different answer than you would today. The archetype of soldiers marching into battle, the clang of steel, and the deafening sounds of artillery have been replaced — though not completely eradicated — by less visible but equally potent forms of warfare. Welcome to the age of hybrid warfare, a period where kinetic and non-kinetic tactics merge, blurring the boundaries between war and peace, state and non-state actors, and even between adversaries and allies.

The Evolving Face of Modern Warfare

Modern warfare is constantly evolving and adapting to the changing circumstances of the world. It is influenced by technological innovation, such as drones and cyberattacks, changes in international law, such as the prohibition of chemical weapons and the protection of human rights, and shifts in global power structures, such as the rise of China and the decline of the US. One of the most significant developments in modern warfare is the emergence of hybrid warfare, a strategy that combines conventional and unconventional methods of conflict, kinetic and non-kinetic actions, and state and non-state actors, to create a complex and multifaceted array of threats and challenges. In an era of hybrid warfare, the tools of destruction vary from missiles and tanks to hashtags and fake news, aiming to exploit the vulnerabilities of the adversary and achieve strategic objectives. Hybrid warfare blurs the lines between war and peace, making it difficult to identify the enemy, attribute responsibility, and respond effectively.

The Challenge of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid warfare is a theory of military strategy that combines conventional and irregular forces or tactics, such as urban guerrilla warfare, drones, disinformation, and terrorism. Hybrid warfare particularly excels at exploiting vulnerabilities of the adversary, whether it’s targeting a nation’s political divisions, its fragile economic state, or its social cohesion. Hybrid warfare aims to destabilize from within and without, using a mix of activities, including cyberattacks that cripple infrastructure, disinformation campaigns that erode public trust, economic sanctions that can lead to crippling poverty or famine, and diplomatic pressure and military actions. The complex nature of this warfare strategy renders the old rules of war almost obsolete, creating a quagmire for international law and raising pressing ethical questions. It also blurs the line between war and peace time, making it hard to identify the war threshold or the responsible actors. This poses new challenges and threats to the security and stability of the international system.

A Case Study: Russia and the United States

The geopolitical struggle between Russia and the United States serves as a case study in the complexities of hybrid warfare. Information warfare is a critical aspect of this; Russia’s interference in the U.S. elections in 2016 and 2020 is a clear example of non-kinetic tactics designed to undermine democratic processes, sow discord, and influence public opinion. On the other side, the U.S. has engaged in counter-information operations to expose Russia’s activities, such as revealing details of a purported Russian plot to install a pro-Moscow regime in Kyiv and a Russian scheme to film a fake attack on Russian territory or speakers in eastern Ukraine. The U.S. has also imposed sanctions and other punitive measures on Russia for its malign behavior. The information war between the two powers reflects the evolving face of modern warfare, where the battle for hearts and minds is as important as the battle for territory and resources.

Sanctions are a common tool of hybrid warfare, used by both Russia and the United States to exert pressure and influence on each other and their allies. Sanctions can have various forms and objectives, such as targeting individuals, entities, sectors, or entire economies. Sanctions can serve as both a punitive measure and a deterrent, signaling displeasure and warning of further consequences. However, sanctions can also have unintended and negative consequences, such as asset freezes and trade restrictions that can have ripple effects, impacting nations not directly involved in the conflict. For example, the U.S. sanctions on Russia over its annexation of Crimea and interference in Ukraine have affected European countries that depend on Russian energy supplies. The political arena is equally fraught, as both nations have engaged in backing opposition groups or influencing politics in other countries, aiming to destabilize or leverage their adversaries indirectly. For instance, Russia has supported separatist movements and political parties in Europe that are hostile to the EU and NATO, while the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Moldovan and Russian individuals and entities for their alleged role in undermining democracy and elections in Moldova. These actions reflect the complex and multifaceted nature of hybrid warfare in the modern world.

Military measures are still relevant in this complex conflict, but they are also changing with the times. Proxy wars are wars fought by smaller countries or groups that represent the interests of larger powers, and may have their help and support. The introduction of advanced technology has also transformed military warfare in the modern age, making it more lethal, precise, and diverse. For example, drones, robots, cyberattacks, electronic warfare, and nuclear weapons are some of the technologies that have been used or developed for military purposes. All these factors make military warfare in the modern age more complicated than a simple show of force, as they involve multiple actors, domains, and methods.

Multidimensional Responses

Hybrid warfare is a complex and multidimensional challenge that requires a holistic and flexible response, one that transcends the traditional military domain. To counter hybrid threats, diplomatic, legal, humanitarian, and civil society actors must work together to enhance resilience, deterrence, and defence. Building and maintaining trust among allies and partners is essential for effective cooperation and coordination. Moreover, dialogue with adversaries should not be excluded, as it can help prevent escalation and manage crises. The dynamic and evolving nature of hybrid warfare demands that the response is also adaptable and innovative, drawing on a wide range of capabilities and tools.

Conclusion

The theater of war has extended beyond the battlefield. It has permeated our information spaces, influenced our political systems, and has even made its way into our economies. As the lines between conventional and unconventional warfare blur, new challenges arise that test the limits of international law, ethics, and governance. These are issues that cannot be solved through military might alone. They require a holistic approach that considers the full spectrum of influence and power in the modern world.