Hybrid War: Perception or Reality?

[Feanor]

Honestly I do not really agree with the above two posts. Do to a time crunch (which should be ending in a couple of weeks) I might not be as thorough as I would like, but here I go...

When you get a chance I would really appreciate a more detailed response. It would be very informative, I'm sure.

Soft-power from my POV really started to develop as a tool of conflict, after the development of nuclear weaponry. It really came about in large measure due to the potential dangers of direct conflict between the major powers which had (have) nuclear arsenals. The occurrence of 'brushfire' proxy wars also had a similar genesis.

From a historical perspective, many of the current aspects of soft-power (natural resources control, economic power, control over lines of transit and communications, etc.) have previously been more the objectives of conflicts, as opposed to weapons/tools used in conflicts like today.

This is an excellent explanation of how soft power is different from hard power. However let's keep in mind that we've two points to discuss. Does hybrid warfare exist, and is Russia's involvement in Ukraine a case of hybrid war? Your response explains that soft power is a new thing, and how it was arisen.

Do you think that hybrid war is a conflict fought using primarily soft power? Because then Russia's "gas wars" would apply, but the current war in Ukraine would not. There are economic measures taken against Ukraine by Russia, but they're nothing new, and there has been a dedicated and persistent use of hard power (with and without plausible deniability). One might argue that Russia wanted to fight a hybrid war but failed to do so. But I personally think that they don't have a well defined view of how they want to end this conflict.

 

[Todjaeger]

When you get a chance I would really appreciate a more detailed response. It would be very informative, I'm sure.

When I get a chance, sure. I should have some more free time starting in early September. Remind me though.

This is an excellent explanation of how soft power is different from hard power. However let's keep in mind that we've two points to discuss. Does hybrid warfare exist, and is Russia's involvement in Ukraine a case of hybrid war? Your response explains that soft power is a new thing, and how it was arisen.

I am going to have to hold off on addressing this part for now, just because of the time constraints and need to get some sleezzzzzz....

Do you think that hybrid war is a conflict fought using primarily soft power? Because then Russia's "gas wars" would apply, but the current war in Ukraine would not. There are economic measures taken against Ukraine by Russia, but they're nothing new, and there has been a dedicated and persistent use of hard power (with and without plausible deniability). One might argue that Russia wanted to fight a hybrid war but failed to do so. But I personally think that they don't have a well defined view of how they want to end this conflict.

From my POV, hybrid warfare is not fought primarily with soft-power, instead being a real mix of hard- and soft-power, with the choice of the moment being dictated by what is effective vs. an opponent.

 

[Feanor]

When I get a chance, sure. I should have some more free time starting in early September. Remind me though.

Will do.

 

[Blackshoe]

Is it an enabler? Before you publish what you want in your own newspapers and nobody can question it. Not really anyway. Today I can disprove half the garbage on RT using social media. Modern media can be more effective under the right circumstances and if used correctly. However, I don't think Russia is very good at it. Information technologies in this case don't help Russia nearly as much as they could, or as much as they help the west.

But yet they keep pushing it out there. Confer with the amateurish video of an "intercepted" conversation between "American and British spies" admitting they shot down MH17 recently released. Easy to disprove...if you're willing to put some time in (although I'll freely admit it was more likely for domestic consumption than international audiences).

I don't think they care about being good about their propaganda honestly (I'm reminded of the old-and probably apocryphal-story about deliberately doing the airbrushing in Stalin's day a little sloppy, so that you'd always remember there had been someone named Yezhov in this picture, and he's gone...don't think the same can't happen to anyone else)-I believe the point of the modern efforts is to put so much information out there that it takes a lot of effort to sort through-effort they're willing to bet most Westerners aren't willing to undertake. It's the chaff that hides the target, if you will.

The idea of having mass popular support is very important for Western politicians (whether it's important or not is another discussion), and I think much of the Russian efforts in Crimea sowed enough confusion into the press (and thus, into the public) as to make it hard to muster much popular support for firm action.

I'll have some more thoughts later, but I do agree with Todjaeger that hybrid warfare is a new thing (although obviously descended from other options).

NB: I saw the phrase "hybrid war" recently in a book first published in 1976 about Vietnam (Vietnam, a Long History, by Nguyen Khac Vien, for what it's worth), discussing the US' efforts in Vietnam. However, since this was a book originally written in Vietnamese, then translated into French and later into English, and this edition was c 2007, I can't rule out that it was a later addition or an awkward translation.

 

[Feanor]

But yet they keep pushing it out there. Confer with the amateurish video of an "intercepted" conversation between "American and British spies" admitting they shot down MH17 recently released. Easy to disprove...if you're willing to put some time in (although I'll freely admit it was more likely for domestic consumption than international audiences).

I still have plenty of friends and family in Russia. And while opinions there differ from those in the west, it seems to be the case that people generally distrust that sort of propaganda, and don't buy into Putin's image of the war.

EDIT: I have to say though, I enjoyed the essay you linked to. StopFake notwithstanding.

I don't think they care about being good about their propaganda honestly (I'm reminded of the old-and probably apocryphal-story about deliberately doing the airbrushing in Stalin's day a little sloppy, so that you'd always remember there had been someone named Yezhov in this picture, and he's gone...don't think the same can't happen to anyone else)-I believe the point of the modern efforts is to put so much information out there that it takes a lot of effort to sort through-effort they're willing to bet most Westerners aren't willing to undertake. It's the chaff that hides the target, if you will.

That's an excellent point and you're probably correct. However they're still light-years away from western media manipulation techniques, which is my point. I'm not saying the Russian government isn't using modern media. I'm saying that their use of it is rather inefficient and in large part ineffective, as well as clumsy and obvious.

The idea of having mass popular support is very important for Western politicians (whether it's important or not is another discussion), and I think much of the Russian efforts in Crimea sowed enough confusion into the press (and thus, into the public) as to make it hard to muster much popular support for firm action.

I'll have some more thoughts later, but I do agree with Todjaeger that hybrid warfare is a new thing (although obviously descended from other options).

NB: I saw the phrase "hybrid war" recently in a book first published in 1976 about Vietnam (Vietnam, a Long History, by Nguyen Khac Vien, for what it's worth), discussing the US' efforts in Vietnam. However, since this was a book originally written in Vietnamese, then translated into French and later into English, and this edition was c 2007, I can't rule out that it was a later addition or an awkward translation.

What was the context it was used in then? Did they provide a clear definition?

 

[Feanor]

A special note on StopFake. The idea behind the site is sound, but it's turned from a truth-project to a Ukrainian counter-propaganda project, spending most of its time and effort debunking stories that nobody in their right mind pays any attention to anyways, as a way to point the finger at Russian press. Unfortunately they do not bother to debunk similar nonsense from the Ukrainian media, which makes it a one-sided archive of explanations why tabloid-level stories about Ukraine are not true.

 

[gf0012-aust]

hybrid warfare is really just the contemporary buzz phrase attributed to asymmetric, guerilla or unconventional warfare. ie instead of traditional force on force state based conflict it considers unconventional and non state military forces combating state based actors (in its current guise)

it will change again if its non state against non state etc.....

as a form of warfare you can start going back in time to civilian militias who didn't engage state based actors occupying their country at a force on force level, but engaged using guerilla warfare and picking contact at points of opportunity rather than staged traditional contact events

terms such as this IMO just get wrapped in new terms relevant for the period. eg urban warfare was practiced centuries ago but is dressed as a new construct when its not

 

[Ranger25]

It is my view that the actions taken by the PRC with respect to various maritime territorial claims disputes (at least in the South China Sea) are not really examples of either 'soft power' or hybrid warfare.

The reasoning behind my view is that China's objective in making/sustaining these claims (from my POV at least), is the strategic value provided by the location of the disputed islands, and the associated EEZ possession of the islands would provide, and then the natural resources potentially available within the EEZ.

Much of China's trade with Europe, Africa, the Mideast, Australia/NZ and many ASEAN nations passes either through, or very close to some of the disputed areas within the South China Sea. If some other nation had control over the areas in dispute, positions could be established to threaten China's SLOC to a number of China's major export markets, as well as import markets where China gets raw materials from. Given the amount of energy China has been using, and the rate at which energy usage has been increasing, cutting the flow of petroleum from the Mideast would have a very destructive impact on China.

The fact that China has an enormous population, and has been having difficulty in maintaining an adequate food supply, especially as the standard of living for many mainland Chinese has risen. The addition of the potential fishing grounds found within the EEZ of the disputed areas would help ease that burden, and serves as another strategic reason for the territorial claim(s) and resulting disputes.

Using the areas in terms of 'soft power' would IMO be more like demanding to board vessels in transit to, "ensure that such vessels are not exploiting or damaging/polluting China's EEZ. The situation is not there yet, in part because China's territorial claims are at present unresolved and essentially not recognized.

Jaeger,
I agree totally with the "why" the PRC is pursuing the islands in their "First Island Chain" My thoughts where the large government run fishing fleet is another use of the Soft Power we're discussing as a means toward an end without direct military involvement. Fishing trawlers backed up by an ever growing Coast Gaurd fleet

 

[Blackshoe]

What was the context it was used in then? Did they provide a clear definition?

Not particularly. I'd say he was overall describing hybrid warfare as assymetric warfare, although only on the offensive (or aggressor's, more accurately for that author's point of view).

I wouldn't say it even really was defined, just a term he used. But it stuck out to me because of the recent usage.

 

[Hone C]

hybrid warfare is really just the contemporary buzz phrase attributed to asymmetric, guerilla or unconventional warfare. ie instead of traditional force on force state based conflict it considers unconventional and non state military forces combating state based actors (in its current guise)

terms such as this IMO just get wrapped in new terms relevant for the period. eg urban warfare was practiced centuries ago but is dressed as a new construct when its not

Couldn't agree more. IMHO there is less in the term 'hybrid war' than meets the eye.

While all the debate over the use of the term has been interesting (and informative) to follow, I don't think it is accurate to suggest that the blend of conventional and irregular capabilities and tactics, soft and hard power, terrorist, criminal, cyber, info operations, etc. represents some new and novel category of warfare.

War has always been complicated and defies neat categorisation, which is probably the reason that the buzz phrases and terms come and go (and eventually get recycled) so often. Nearly all wars have been 'hybrid' in the sense that the range of threats within them is varied and interconnected; that is the nature of an activity with such high stakes and that pits adaptive opponents who will look to exploit any weaknesses or opportunities against each other.

 

[John Fedup]

Couldn't agree more. IMHO there is less in the term 'hybrid war' than meets the eye.

While all the debate over the use of the term has been interesting (and informative) to follow, I don't think it is accurate to suggest that the blend of conventional and irregular capabilities and tactics, soft and hard power, terrorist, criminal, cyber, info operations, etc. represents some new and novel category of warfare.

War has always been complicated and defies neat categorisation, which is probably the reason that the buzz phrases and terms come and go (and eventually get recycled) so often. Nearly all wars have been 'hybrid' in the sense that the range of threats within them is varied and interconnected; that is the nature of an activity with such high stakes and that pits adaptive opponents who will look to exploit any weaknesses or opportunities against each other.

Hadn't read this until now, still applicable today and probably will be until war is obsolete.