Suchergebnisse

Hybrid threats use conventional and unconventional means to achieve their goals. This paper explores the cyber threat as one possible aspect of hybrid threats. It also discusses the background of the term hybrid warfare, how it emerged and travelled as the empirical situations evolved and needed new definitions. Russia aims at attaining this by applying a holistic mix of military, political and economic means to weaken the West and to strengthen its own role as a global player (with the "West" I for simplicity mean the states which constitute EU and NATO, but it is really more a cultural approach than an organizational). The Russian approach builds on a strategy of reflexive control which as such is an old method, but the outcome of the application of this approach results in hybrid warfare which as such is a new emerging concept of warfighting. This short article looks at one particular aspect of this Russian strategy, namely using Hybrid, or non-linear, Warfare against its Western direct neighbors in particular and the West in general. The cyber arena is very important in this practice. The attack of this weaponized situation is that the trust in the West. Primarily the EU (European Union) and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), is eroded for every day which these countries challenges the international system which the western democracies say that they present and defend. This is part of what can be described as an example of reflexive control, exercised by Russia. ; Las amenazas híbridas utilizan medios convencionales y no convencionales para lograr sus objetivos. Este documento explora la ciberamenaza como un posible aspecto de las amenazas híbridas. También se analizan los antecedentes del término guerra híbrida, cómo surgió y viajó a medida que las situaciones empíricas evolucionaron y necesitaron nuevas definiciones. Rusia apunta a lograr esto aplicando una combinación holística de medios militares, políticos y económicos para debilitar a Occidente y fortalecer su propio papel como actor global (con "Occidente", para simplificar, me refiero a los estados que constituyen la UE y la OTAN, pero es más un enfoque cultural que organizativo). El enfoque ruso se basa en una estrategia de control reflexivo que, como tal, es un método antiguo, pero el resultado de la aplicación de este enfoque da como resultado una guerra híbrida que, como tal, es un nuevo concepto emergente de lucha bélica. Este breve artículo analiza un aspecto particular de esta estrategia rusa, a saber, el uso de Guerra Híbrida, o no lineal, contra sus vecinos directos occidentales en particular y Occidente en general. La arena cibernética es muy importante en esta práctica. El ataque de esta situación armada es que la confianza en Occidente. Principalmente la UE (Unión Europea) y la OTAN (Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte), se erosiona cada día que estos países desafían el sistema internacional que las democracias occidentales dicen que presentan y defienden. Esto es parte de lo que puede describirse como un ejemplo de control reflexivo, ejercido por Rusia. ; Ameaças híbridas usam meios convencionais e não convencionais para atingir seus objetivos. Este artigo explora a ameaça cibernética como um aspecto possível das ameaças híbridas. Ele também discute o pano de fundo do termo guerra híbrida, como surgiu e viajou conforme as situações empíricas evoluíram e precisaram de novas definições. A Rússia pretende atingir isso aplicando uma mistura holística de meios militares, políticos e econômicos para enfraquecer o Ocidente e fortalecer seu próprio papel como um ator global (com o "Ocidente" I para simplificar significa os estados que constituem a UE e a OTAN, mas é realmente mais uma abordagem cultural do que organizacional). A abordagem russa se baseia em uma estratégia de controle reflexivo que, como tal, é um método antigo, mas o resultado da aplicação dessa abordagem resulta em uma guerra híbrida que, como tal, é um novo conceito emergente de combate. Este breve artigo examina um aspecto particular dessa estratégia russa, a saber, o uso da guerra híbrida ou não linear contra seus vizinhos diretos ocidentais em particular e o Ocidente em geral. A arena cibernética é muito importante nesta prática. O ataque desta situação armada é que a confiança no Ocidente. Principalmente a UE (União Europeia) e a OTAN (Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte), estão corroídas a cada dia que esses países desafiam o sistema internacional que as democracias ocidentais dizem que apresentam e defendem. Isso faz parte do que pode ser descrito como um exemplo de controle reflexivo, exercido pela Rússia.

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. In the aftermath of the Crimea annexation in March 2014, the idea of 'hybrid warfare' quickly gained prominence as a concept that could help to explain the success of Russian military operations in this conflict. Although the concept continues to enjoy widespread popularity in both scholarly and policy circles, its utility as an analytical tool is also heavily contested. This article adds to the literature critical of the 'hybrid warfare' concept. It argues that in addition to the fact that what is now described as a 'hybrid' approach to war is nothing new, the problems pertaining to its utility for the study of contemporary Russia go deeper than this. 'Hybrid warfare' inadequately reflects the direction of Russian military modernisation and as such has led to a skewed understanding of Russian military capabilities. Moreover, the tendency to use 'hybrid warfare' not only to conceptualise developments in the Russian military, but in the country's foreign policy in general, can lead to serious unintended consequences.

Hybrid warfare has almost become new orthodoxy in the defense community. The term is regarded as a new phenomenon that allegedly interprets the characteristics of contemporary warfare. Furthermore, within the international community, ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is almost unanimously referred to as a model for hybrid warfare. However, hybrid warfare as a term itself or the referring Russia's war to a model for hybrid warfare might lead analysts, defense planners, and policymakers down an unhelpful path. There is a risk of rediscovering old ideas in the efforts of defining the parameters of modern warfare, which might fall short of expectations.

Hybrid warfare has almost become new orthodoxy in the defense community. The term is regarded as a new phenomenon that allegedly interprets the characteristics of contemporary warfare. Furthermore, within the international community, ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is almost unanimously referred to as a model for hybrid warfare. However, hybrid warfare as a term itself or the referring Russia's war to a model for hybrid warfare might lead analysts, defense planners, and policymakers down an unhelpful path. There is a risk of rediscovering old ideas in the efforts of defining the parameters of modern warfare, which might fall short of expectations.

This special issue explores how and to what extent 'hybridity' informs national policy, doctrines, and military transformation in Asia. The introduction engages with three preliminary issues as a way to set the broader analytical context. It reviews the concept of 'hybrid warfare' to make the case that versions of this notion have long been a feature of regional strategic thinking and practice. It similarly argues that maritime geography has had an impact on how 'hybrid' courses of actions in the region have been conceptualised, notably in regards to 'grey zone' operations. Lastly, it reviews the question of how to engage with the issue of the effectiveness of such strategies.

The article summarizes the arguments and counterarguments within the scientific discussion on the identification of features of hybrid warfare. The purpose of the study is to identify the key features of hybrid warfare, their systematization for further study of trends, patterns, and principles in the subject area. To achieve the goal of the study: analysis of scientific sources to identify the existing features of the phenomenon of hybrid warfare, their systematization, and grouping by relevant areas, formulated conclusions and prospects for further research. The relevance of the study is confirmed by the presence of a wide range of both domestic and foreign scientific publications, which collectively emphasize the general trend of changing the priority in the use of non-military instruments (methods) in resolving interstate conflicts over the military. The identification of the peculiarities of hybrid warfare in the article is investigated in the following logical sequence: domestic and foreign scientific publications, individual guidelines are analyzed. Methods of analysis, synthesis, and systems approach became the methodological research tools. The object of the research is the phenomenon of hybrid war as a modern form of resolving contradictions at the interstate level. The article notes an increase in all-around readiness to rapidly adapt to changing vectors and instruments of possible aggression through flexible adaptation of state institutions, the armed forces, and the consciousness of the population to new challenges. The results of the study can be useful for scientists and managers who study problems of national security, development of the security and defense sector, and defense planning.

Hybrid warfare is about using military and non-military measures in a non-linear and complimentary fashion. Different means and methods are not necessarily effective separately, but it is their synergy that leads to the desired outcome. Law has also become a method of warfare. States exploit deliberately legal complexities to strengthen their own positions and to undermine the positions of their opponents. They may wish to keep the intensity of the employed measures below the threshold of the use or threat of force in order to argue that international law has not been breached and that the opponents may not exercise self-defense. States may equally try to avoid the application of the rules of warfare by claiming that the situation has not crossed the threshold of an armed conflict. Because the rules governing the resort to armed force and the conduct of hostilities were drafted for conventional warfare, the ambiguities, loopholes and thresholds in these rules provide opportunities, for better or for worse, in the era of modern warfare.

Hybrid warfare is about using military and non-military measures in a non-linear and complimentary fashion. Different means and methods are not necessarily effective separately, but it is their synergy that leads to the desired outcome. Law has also become a method of warfare. States exploit deliberately legal complexities to strengthen their own positions and to undermine the positions of their opponents. They may wish to keep the intensity of the employed measures below the threshold of the use or threat of force in order to argue that international law has not been breached and that the opponents may not exercise self-defense. States may equally try to avoid the application of the rules of warfare by claiming that the situation has not crossed the threshold of an armed conflict. Because the rules governing the resort to armed force and the conduct of hostilities were drafted for conventional warfare, the ambiguities, loopholes and thresholds in these rules provide opportunities, for better or for worse, in the era of modern warfare.

Hybrid warfare is about using military and non-military measures in a non-linear and complimentary fashion. Different means and methods are not necessarily effective separately, but it is their synergy that leads to the desired outcome. Law has also become a method of warfare. States exploit deliberately legal complexities to strengthen their own positions and to undermine the positions of their opponents. They may wish to keep the intensity of the employed measures below the threshold of the use or threat of force in order to argue that international law has not been breached and that the opponents may not exercise self-defense. States may equally try to avoid the application of the rules of warfare by claiming that the situation has not crossed the threshold of an armed conflict. Because the rules governing the resort to armed force and the conduct of hostilities were drafted for conventional warfare, the ambiguities, loopholes and thresholds in these rules provide opportunities, for better or for worse, in the era of modern warfare.

Hybrid warfare is the latest of the terms/concepts that have been used within the defense community in the last three decades to label contemporary warfare. It has been officially adopted in the core strategic documents of NATO, EU, and national governments and has already inspired many articles, policy papers, and books. However, hybrid warfare is a concept as controversial as it is popular. Frequently criticized for being ambiguous and weak as a concept, it carries the risk of misleading the defense community and obscuring the sound strategic thought. Carrying out a content analysis over 66 media items, this study has demonstrated that hybrid warfare is indeed an ambiguous concept. It is revealed that the authors used hybrid warfare term in its true meaning only 20 (30%) media items. Most of the time (70%), the authors imply another concept when they use hybrid warfare. We believe, it is high time that international defense community built consensus over the actual meaning of hybrid warfare.

Hybrid warfare is the latest of the terms/concepts that have been used within the defense community in the last three decades to label contemporary warfare. It has been officially adopted in the core strategic documents of NATO, EU, and national governments and has already inspired many articles, policy papers, and books. However, hybrid warfare is a concept as controversial as it is popular. Frequently criticized for being ambiguous and weak as a concept, it carries the risk of misleading the defense community and obscuring the sound strategic thought. Carrying out a content analysis over 66 media items, this study has demonstrated that hybrid warfare is indeed an ambiguous concept. It is revealed that the authors used hybrid warfare term in its true meaning only 20 (30%) media items. Most of the time (70%), the authors imply another concept when they use hybrid warfare. We believe, it is high time that international defense community built consensus over the actual meaning of hybrid warfare.

The concept of 'hybrid warfare' has gained and continues to gain traction in Western strategic and military circles over the last decade-plus. However, truth to say, it is still a highly contested concept. This article argues that the main reason for this is that the concept of 'hybrid warfare' has been taken out of its original context over time and applied to new cases that lack essential characteristics of the concept. The mismatch that happens when the concept of 'hybrid war-fare' does not fit new cases exemplifies what political scientist Giovanni Sartori has called 'conceptual stretching'. Using Sartori's notion of conceptual stretching, this article analyses the conceptual confusion surrounding hybrid warfare and discusses its possible implications for the West's defence policy.

Hybrid warfare is the latest of the terms/concepts that have been used within the defence community in the last three decades to label contemporary warfare. It has been officially adopted in the core strategic documents of NATO, EU and national governments and has already inspired many articles, policy papers and books; however, this paper is unique in the sense that it analysis the hybrid warfare concept through the lens of strategic theory. It is argued that hybrid warfare does not merit the adoption as a doctrinal concept. Strategic theory instead, which lies at the nexus of all dimensions of warfare, provides a better viewpoint to approach contemporary warfare. It concludes that efforts should be directed towards exploring warfare under the light of eternal principles instead of proving the emergence of new types of warfare.

Hybrid warfare is the latest of the terms/concepts that have been used within the defence community in the last three decades to label contemporary warfare. It has been officially adopted in the core strategic documents of NATO, EU and national governments and has already inspired many articles, policy papers and books; however, this paper is unique in the sense that it analysis the hybrid warfare concept through the lens of strategic theory. It is argued that hybrid warfare does not merit the adoption as a doctrinal concept. Strategic theory instead, which lies at the nexus of all dimensions of warfare, provides a better viewpoint to approach contemporary warfare. It concludes that efforts should be directed towards exploring warfare under the light of eternal principles instead of proving the emergence of new types of warfare.

Hybrid Warfare refers to a military strategy that blends conventional warfare, so-called 'irregular warfare' and cyber-attacks with other influencing methods, such as fake news, diplomacy and foreign political intervention. As Hybrid Warfare becomes increasingly commonplace, there is an imminent need for research bringing attention to how these challenges can be addressed in order to develop a comprehensive approach towards Hybrid Threats and Hybrid Warfare. This volume supports the development of such an approach by bringing together practitioners and scholarly perspectives on the topic and by covering the threats themselves, as well as the tools and means to counter them, together with a number of real-world case studies. The book covers numerous aspects of current Hybrid Warfare discourses including a discussion of the perspectives of key western actors such as NATO, the US and the EU; an analysis of Russia and China's Hybrid Warfare capabilities; and the growing threat of cyberwarfare. A range of global case studies – featuring specific examples from the Baltics, Taiwan, Ukraine, Iran and Catalonia – are drawn upon to demonstrate the employment of Hybrid Warfare tactics and how they have been countered in practice. Finally, the editors propose a new method through which to understand the dynamics of Hybrid Threats, Warfare and their countermeasures, termed the 'Hybridity Blizzard Model'. With a focus on practitioner insight and practicable International Relations theory, this volume is an essential guide to identifying, analysing and countering Hybrid Threats and Warfare.