Prof. Alina Bârgăoanu and Dr. Elena Negrea-Busuioc
“Hybrid warfare”, “information warfare,” “cyber war” are popular buzzwords or catch-all phrases frequently used in the international discourse, especially in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale military invasion of Ukraine that began in February 2022 and continues to this day. However, despite the hype, neither scholars nor practitioners have agreed on a consensus definition of the hybrid warfare phenomenon, in particular, that would add substance to the debate over the informational and public opinion dimensions of contemporary conflicts, diplomacy, and security issues.
This essay seeks to shed some light on two prevailing paradigms in theoretical treatment of hybrid warfare. Clear analysis of these two approaches will enhance reflection on society’s systemic vulnerabilities, and have practical consequences on planning and delivering adequate responses. This essay is premised on an understanding of hybrid warfare as a new type of warfare, waged with novel weapons made possible by the hyper-connectivity of the information space, as described by Mark Leonard in his book The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict. This new type of warfare lies at the hazy intersection between war and peace, and its “battlefield” is constituted both by formal governance processes, and by public perceptions of the legitimacy and relevance of these processes. In this battlefield, both weapons and their intended targets are non-military in nature, and thus appear to be “soft.” However, this does not necessarily make hybrid warfare a lesser, softer form of warfare in terms of its real-world consequences, which is the most consequential error in both understanding and countering it.
No comments:
Post a Comment