Suchergebnisse

Pomimo przyjętej narracji przez niektórych polityków czy publicystów próby tworzenia opozycji realizm polityczny–romantyzm (rozumiany
przez "realistów" jako podżegacz wojenny) nie mają w rzeczywistości wiele wspólnego z rozumieniem właściwej teorii realizmu politycznego.
Nawet odwołując się do Hansa Morgenthaua, a w pewnym zakresie również do Johna J. Mearsheimera, można wykazać błędy w argumentacji
zwolenników jak najszybszego zawarcia pokoju z Rosją i ograniczenia pomocy dla Ukrainy. W szczególności nieprawdziwa jest teza, jakoby
Rosja nie przejawiała tendencji imperialistycznych i miała jedynie bronić swojego status quo. Należy również uznać za błędne założenie
"realistów" kwestionujące aksjologiczne spojrzenie na konflikt. Wojna w Ukrainie nie jest wojną o strefy wpływów i interesy, lecz starciem
rzeczywistości demokratycznej z zagrażającym mu imperializmem autorytarnym. Zderzenie tych dwóch porządków przybrało również formę globalnej wojny hybrydowej, której istotną częścią są operacje psychologiczno-informacyjne i sterowanie refleksyjne. Wykorzystywanie pojęcia "realizmu politycznego" do kreowania fałszywego obrazu wojny, narracji pacyfistycznej korzystnej dla Rosji i wywoływania strachu, również nuklearnego, stanowi istotną część tych operacji w ramach zarządzania refleksyjnego. Artykuł analizuje ten problem w oparciu o wybraną narrację w polskiej przestrzeni informacyjnej.

Aim. This paper critically examines these political and informational aspects of hybrid as used and defined in the West. Methodology. The paper applied critical discourse analysis to the collected research materials. In this manner, the power relations and dynamics are revealed more clearly for the reader. Results. It reveals that Western hybrid warfare consists of constraining the strengths and opportunities of other targeted powers while minimising their own weaknesses and threats within the context of the decline of the US-led Western global hegemony. Research implications. Hybrid warfare is a very commonly heard, used and abused concept in the 21st century. On the one hand, it is subjectively used as a concept of non-conventional warfare, often in the context of what the hostile and 'aggressive other' inflicts upon a 'defensive us.' It is also at times an accusation used against a foreign policy opponent or competitor as a means of constraining their operational choices.

Abstract
With the takeover of Crimea by masked Russian soldiers/fighters without national insignia in February/March 2014, with the Kremlin at first denying its involvement, war became 'hybrid' in our minds. The follow-on conflict in Eastern Ukraine, with separatism supported by neighbouring countries and the armed establishment and military securing of pseudo-state people's republics, including recourse to pro-Russian fighters 'on holiday', has reinforced the impression of a hybrid form of warfare, raising the question: what is hybrid warfare? This article argues that the specific nature of hybrid warfare is essentially a strategic matter characterised by three key tendencies and their orchestration within a hybrid 'grand strategy': 1. Focusing the decision of the war/conflict, as such, primarily on a broad spectrum of non-military centres of gravity in a flexible and dynamic manner. 2. Operating in the shadow of various interfaces against specific vulnerabilities of the opponent, thus challenging traditional lines of order and responsibilities, creating ambiguity and paralysing the decision-making process of the opponent. 3. Creative combination and parallel use of different civilian and military means and methods, categories and forms of warfare and fighting, thus creating 'new' mixed, hybrid forms.1 At the same time, there is a growing sense that hybrid forms of warfare will shape the face of war in the 21st century.2 They seem to offer unpretentious political success by smart recourse to limited, deniable and supposedly manageable use of force. The assumption that the risk of military escalation and political damage could be kept within limits may at the same time increase the likelihood of the offensive use of hybrid forms of warfare. For this reason, it is high time to improve our common and comprehensive understanding of hybrid forms of warfare as a precondition for common and comprehensive action in defence and response.

Events that took place in Ukraine in 2014 transparently demonstrated the maladjustment of the national legal and administrative system to the challenges of hybrid warfare in times of peace. Although it took into account the possibility of direct military threats, it proved not to be ready for withstanding unconventional pressure. This state of affairs significantly weakened the state's ability to resist and led to a number of dramatic political miscalculations, organizational failures, and acute social problems. The subsequent update of the national public law and administrative system made it possible to improve the situation, but at the same time it revealed a number of pressing issues related to the need to strike a balance between the state's commitment to ensure the protection of human rights and the necessity to protect national security. In this sense the experience of Ukraine is instructive for many countries of the world, especially for those that are the target of the geopolitical ambitions of the modern Russia. The paper discusses the public law of Ukraine in recent years with the view of highlighting some key problems of legal regulation, as well as identifying some promising ways to develop public administration so that it is capable of effectively coping with the threats of hybrid warfare.

Events that took place in Ukraine in 2014 transparently demonstrated the maladjustment of the national legal and administrative system to the challenges of hybrid warfare in times of peace. Although it took into account the possibility of direct military threats, it proved not to be ready for withstanding unconventional pressure. This state of affairs significantly weakened the state's ability to resist and led to a number of dramatic political miscalculations, organizational failures, and acute social problems. The subsequent update of the national public law and administrative system made it possible to improve the situation, but at the same time it revealed a number of pressing issues related to the need to strike a balance between the state's commitment to ensure the protection of human rights and the necessity to protect national security. In this sense the experience of Ukraine is instructive for many countries of the world, especially for those that are the target of the geopolitical ambitions of the modern Russia. The paper discusses the public law of Ukraine in recent years with the view of highlighting some key problems of legal regulation, as well as identifying some promising ways to develop public administration so that it is capable of effectively coping with the threats of hybrid warfare.

In the defense community, the use of hybrid warfare has expanded. It is generally labeled as contemporary warfare. The term is usually adopted in strategic documents such as the national government of Pakistan, developing regions, as well as developed nation central such as NATO, and EU, based on which various articles have been presented. However, hybrid warfare has not yet been understood with social media and the opportunities it opens for Pakistan. Primarily, the concern is to assess whether the concept is understood clearly for its strategic implementation, which can help to overcome the risk concerning the defense community. It is suggested that efforts must be improved for enhancing and forming content on the meaning of hybrid warfare. While the social network's effect includes transparency, individuals mobilizing, and collective decision making negative effect that results from hybrid warfare include manipulation, an unregulated environment, and misinformation proliferation.