Suchergebnisse

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.