Introduction
The warfare in most of the twentieth century was characterized by distinct battle line, uniforms and open declaration of hostilities. But nowadays, the character of conflict has changed radically. States and non-state actors are now depending on a combination of military, technological, economic and informational instruments to undermine their rivals without necessarily escalating to the point where war breaks out. This is a multidimensional strategy known as hybrid warfare, this strategy erases the boundary between peace and war. This paper discusses three of the most salient facets of hybrid warfare, which are cyber operations, information campaigns and proxy wars. Collectively, these instruments show how contemporary opponents fight to gain power, influence and legitimacy in manners that the ancient war theories could scarcely have envisaged.
What Is Hybrid Warfare?
The concept of hybrid warfare is the integration of conventional and unconventional operations to meet the strategic goals. Instead of relying on the use of military force only, hybrid campaigns combine cyberattacks, disinformation, economic coercion, political subversion, and even a network of criminals. Compared to the conventional warfare that is usually open-ended and kinetic in nature, hybrid warfare capitalizes on the grey zone- the uncertain area that lies between the border of official war and regular diplomacy. The aim is not always to capture a territory but to destroy the spirit of an opponent, confuse him, and obtain strategic benefits without evoking a mass military reaction.
The Cyber Dimension: Borderless Attacks.
Among the most vivid features of hybrid warfare is the cyber operations based nature of this warfare. Due to the geographic it offers, state and non-state actors are able to attack any location and in most cases with plausible deniability. Cyber operation can be carried out by stealing data and spying on networks of government or companies with the aim of stealing confidential information. They can also hit key infrastructure e.g. power systems, water systems, or even banking networks to create panic in the population or financial losses. The other tactic is ransomware or sabotage with malicious code to lock essential systems or destroy industrial processes. The main benefits of cyber war are its asymmetry. A little player who has competent hackers can cause a much bigger opponent to suffer an out of proportion damage at a fraction of the expense of conventional arms. In addition, the attribution of cyberattacks is famously hard, and this gives attackers free range to commit their atrocities without facing consequences.
Information Warfare: Reality-crafting.
Whereas cyber operations are aimed at systems, information warfare is aimed at minds. Manipulation of social-media, propaganda and disinformation are now part of the hybrid warfare. Aggressors are able to destroy a society internally by influencing the majority opinion, undermining faith in institutions, and stoking social rifts. This can be fake news and deep fakes aimed at distorting the truth or smearing adversaries. It is also manifested in the form of organized action of troll farms and bot networks that boost divisive news on social media. Another common element is psychological mechanisms that capitalize on the pre-existing grievances or identity politics. The best thing with these is that they fly under the wings of the conventional defensive mechanisms. Democracies, where the decision is taken through open debate and free media, are particularly susceptible to manipulation. What is created is a new battlefield in which narrative supremacy can be as decisive as military power.
Proxy Wars: Other Wars.
The third pillar of hybrid war is the use of proxy warfare through local militias, insurgency, private military contractors or even criminal organizations. Instead of sending their own forces, the states are funding, training, or equipping proxies. This method has a number of benefits. States are able to have plausible deniability and affect the result. They also save political cost, since casualties and scandals do not affect the sponsoring state, but proxies. Foreign forces will often have less knowledge about the terrain, culture and politics than the proxies themselves, and have a local legitimacy. The history of proxy warfare is long, since the Cold War and the fights in the Middle East and Africa. However in the modern globalized world, it is becoming more and more interacted with cyber and information technology- such as, online propaganda support of a proxy force or cyberattacks to weaken a target to a proxy attack.
The reason why Hybrid Warfare is so effective.
The hybrid warfare lives off ambiguity. Since it seldom penetrates the transparent borders of international law, including an explicit invasion, victims find it hard to react accordingly. An example is NATO, facing a problem with the application of its collective defense provision to cyberattack or disinformation operations. Cost effectiveness is another reason. Cyber tools, disinformation networks, and proxies cost much less than tanks, or fighter jets. They enable weaker actors to test their might against the stronger ones, and make the playing field more even. Lastly, hybrid methods take advantage of speed and deniability. It can take a disinformation article just a few hours to go viral; malware can be installed and triggered remotely. The damage is already created before the target realizes the aggressor.
The Civil-military Borderland.
Traditional war makes a distinction between combatants and citizens. Hybrid war erodes that difference. Not only civilians are victims- they can be participants who share or believe misinformation, host malware unwittingly on their devices, or are employed at the company targeted in a cyberattack. Infrastructure that is critical and was thought to be taboo is turned into a battlefield. This poses complicated ethical and legal issues. What is the place of international law in respect of state-sponsored hacking of hospitals or election data manipulation? In what circumstances is a cyberattack an armed attack by the UN Charter? These questions have not been resolved, leaving a dangerous grey space.
Countering Hybrid Threats
Resilience on the whole-of-society basis is necessary in counteracting hybrid warfare, rather than military preparedness. The government and business organizations should increase network hardening, exchange threat information and have frequent exercises in order to test their defenses. Citizens should be educated to identify disinformation, and social-media sites should come up with more laws that govern bot networks and fake accounts. Unacceptable conduct in cyberspace can be defined with the assistance of international norms and agreements and punish violations. Simultaneously attacking more than one state, hybrid threats are usually coordinated and, thus, the actions of different states, such as intelligence exchange and synchronization of punishments, can make the attacks more expensive. Governments should also collaborate with companies in regard to risk assessment and crisis management due to the fact that much critical infrastructure is privately owned. Finally, resilience is not technical only but psychological as well. A people with confidence in its institutions and a critical ability to assess the information is much more difficult to destabilize.
Looking Ahead
It is not likely that the hybrid warfare will take the form of the conventional war. Missiles and tanks are also not irrelevant as the Ukrainian war demonstrates. However, the next generation of conflicts is almost bound to involve hybrid combination of kinetic and non-kinetic approaches. New capabilities will be tested by both states and non-state actors that include artificial intelligence-driven propaganda, autonomous cyber weapons, and even quantum computing to decryption. Policymakers and citizens should know their hybrid warfare. The front line is not across the pond anymore; it is in your power grid, and your news feed, and your vote. Security in this setting is not only the protection of the borders, but also about the protection of minds and networks.
Conclusion
Hybrid warfare-a blend of cyber warfare, manipulation of information and proxy warfare-is a radical reorientation of power contests. It lives on ambiguity, deniability and blurred civilian and military space. Consequently, traditional security control is no longer enough by itself. States will have to invest in cyber defenses, educate people on disinformation, build alliances, and reconsider legal rules to find their way through this new era. Vigilance and digital literacy are the new civic responsibilities to people. The faster that societies understand the issue of hybrid threats, then the more they will be ready to endure them.
