Hybrid War: Perception or Reality?

[bdique]

I'm overseas now, replying from mobile, apologies in advance regarding formatting.

Pukhov's entire argument is that there is no such thing as a hybrid war. That this war uses quite traditional methods, that happen to be uniquely effective in Ukraine at this time.

In my opinion, yes there is a hybrid war going on, and I'm arriving at this based on Pukhov's own definition really. I can find you several other authors whose definitions are pretty much the same i.e. Bernard Loo of RSIS describes hybrid war as such:

There is no great secret to understanding hybrid warfare. As the term implies, it refers to military operations that encompasses a range of scenarios and missions—including conventional high-intensity force-on-force combat missions that lay persons intuitively understand as war, the so-called low-intensity operations that are the characteristic of guerrilla operations, non-military operations in the information and propaganda spheres. Potentially any number of other scenarios that can be imagined might also be included in an understanding of hybrid warfare. What is important about these scenarios and missions is that they tend to occur simultaneously, and in the case of high-intensity and low-intensity operations within the same physical battlespace.

https://bernardloo64.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/preparing-the-saf-for-hybrid-warfare-puh-lease/

In yet another article on the challenges faced by the Singapore Armed Forces in future, Cpt Chong cites it as such:

hybrid warfare, whose main
advocator is hoffman, argues
that war is moving towards a
convergence of categories,7
a blurring of neat distinctions
between conventional and
irregular, combat actions
and nation-building, terrorism and sabotage
by commandos or paramilitaries. furthermore,
hybrid war can be conducted by states as well as
non-state actors that share the same strategic
interests, making a war against them complex and
intractable.8
it becomes both an advantage for the
country who can wage asymmetric and conventional
warfare simultaneously, through the use of their
uniformed soldiers and civilian-dressed irregulars.
the problem hoffman raised was that armies tend to
settle for elegant categories of threats and fail to
acknowledge the complex “blending of threats that
could exist.”9

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&s...d3rBhI&usg=AFQjCNGlOInAiCP-Sgc6XUO1ur6Ubz1NDQ

I hope this also addresses your comment about what I formally define hybrid war to be.

They are practically third world economy wise, and I understand that your point refers to disparity. My question to you is... disparity compared to what? Certainly not the rest of Ukraine (save maybe Kiev).

I'm afraid I won't have an answer for that. Military economists will probably be regressing GDP and life satisfaction data to try and shed some light on this 'unhappiness sweet spot', but for now I'm certain 'sufficiently high' economic disparity leading to 'sufficiently high' unhappiness will be one of the factors...

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.

Ok I don't really know much about how Russia conducts her disinformation campaigns, so I avoid saying if Russia conducted a successful campaign or not. I only can say of such a campaign exists, and its a yes. Btw, the enabler bit, I'm still trying find the quote.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

What could some guy possibly do walking around in civi cloths with out access to missiles. There must some be kind of correlating ratio between conventional forces and little green men. If one guy can't take on 200 guys then there isn't anything new about hybrid warfare.

Realising now I'm describing my favourite DC character Batman.

 

[Feanor]

What could some guy possibly do walking around in civi cloths with out access to missiles. There must some be kind of correlating ratio between conventional forces and little green men. If one guy can't take on 200 guys then there isn't anything new about hybrid warfare.

Realising now I'm describing my favourite DC character Batman.

You seem to be confused. The "little green men" were Russian military personnel. They were conventional forces. They were Russian military regulars that occupied Crimea.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

You seem to be confused. The "little green men" were Russian military personnel. They were conventional forces. They were Russian military regulars that occupied Crimea.

Did any one actually die when Russia annexed Crimea. I don't recall. You'd think to apply terms of war, some blood would be exchanged.

 

[Todjaeger]

What could some guy possibly do walking around in civi cloths with out access to missiles. There must some be kind of correlating ratio between conventional forces and little green men. If one guy can't take on 200 guys then there isn't anything new about hybrid warfare.

Realising now I'm describing my favourite DC character Batman.

No offence, but I am having a hard time understanding what you are attempting to convey, both in this thread as well as a number of others.

Not to be mean, but following the direction of your posts here has been much like attempting to have a conversation with several people I was 'dealing with' this weekend. Given the cocktail of chemicals in their respective systems (LSD, PCP, ETOH & THC) plus the ketamine to make them safer to be around, none of them were making much sense.

Speaking more broadly on 'Hybrid War' it is my take that it does exist, and does have elements of 'conventional war' in it, or at least it can. However, conventional warfare revolves around (devolves to?) direct engagement between the armed forces of one side vs. another. With hybrid warfare, non-force elements have a much more significant role in both the direction of, as well as the outcome, a conflict.

Something people have been speaking much more of, is the importance of soft-power in the interactions of nation-states. Much of that has, at least from my perspective, been to achieve a desired or acceptable outcome of a nation-state without devolving into armed conflict, instead there has been essentially economic warfare, diplomatic, technological/cyber, etc.

Hybrid warfare seems to be a more integrated 'marriage' between the use of hard- and soft-power to achieve desired results in a conflict.

Using the example of Russia, the Ukraine, and the impact the Internet/Social Media has had on a conflict, who can honestly state which side in what, where, and was it justified/justifiable, without there being significant bias in the information sources.

Or consider the role of information another way. The term 'fog of war' has been used for ages to describe the limitations a commander would have in knowing the disposition of his, and his opponent's forces, as well as how they performed during a battle. With the drastic advances made in communications, much of the 'fog of war' has evaporated, to the point that not only the commanders, but in some cases regular people can have quite a good idea in terms of whose forces are where, what they are doing, etc. Enter Social Media, and used properly, the actual dispersal of forces can be made much more confusing again.

Even if the armed forces of a nation-state are able to keep track of where they detect hostile forces, the citizens of that nation-state are very unlikely to be able to do so, thus allowing strategies used to be questioned for appropriateness by people likely to have a false sense of understanding about a conflict.

In a way it is like propaganda, but able to be made much less attributable, as well as potentially broadcast to a much larger audience, much faster.

 

[Goknub]

Hybrid warfare seems to be a more integrated 'marriage' between the use of hard- and soft-power to achieve desired results in a conflict.

I think that is the cleanest definition of hybrid warfare.

Another example as I see it would be China's use of Coast Guard ships in the South China Sea. Utilising large white ships with little armament, they are able to achieve national objectives whilst staying under the threshold of open warfare. America's conventional warfare advantage is essentially nullified. If they escalate they can be portrayed as the aggressor.

This also demonstrates the weakness of hybrid warfare. It requires the other side be unwilling to risk conventional war. This can be seen as the "lesson learnt" from the German occupation of the Sudetenland. NATO's seemingly over-the-top announcements and reactions to the Russian "threat" make it clear that conventional war is an option so reduces the likelihood of Putin getting adventurous. A more conciliatory approach risks a "peace in our time" moment and Poland 1939.

 

[ngatimozart]

Did any one actually die when Russia annexed Crimea. I don't recall. You'd think to apply terms of war, some blood would be exchanged.

I am echoing Tods post . I am finding it somewhat difficult to follow the narrative of your posts. I am loathe to use term logic because that implies some order and I don't see any on this thread or others that you posted on. So regarding this thread, one has to wonder whether or not you are a Putin apologist? On that note I am leaving my options open but evidence given tends to support the proposition that you are.

 

[Feanor]

Did any one actually die when Russia annexed Crimea. I don't recall. You'd think to apply terms of war, some blood would be exchanged.

I believe a single Ukrainian service member was killed by accident. That having been said, I don't see your point.

 

[Feanor]

Speaking more broadly on 'Hybrid War' it is my take that it does exist, and does have elements of 'conventional war' in it, or at least it can. However, conventional warfare revolves around (devolves to?) direct engagement between the armed forces of one side vs. another. With hybrid warfare, non-force elements have a much more significant role in both the direction of, as well as the outcome, a conflict.

Something people have been speaking much more of, is the importance of soft-power in the interactions of nation-states. Much of that has, at least from my perspective, been to achieve a desired or acceptable outcome of a nation-state without devolving into armed conflict, instead there has been essentially economic warfare, diplomatic, technological/cyber, etc.

Hybrid warfare seems to be a more integrated 'marriage' between the use of hard- and soft-power to achieve desired results in a conflict.

But that's just it. Soft power has always been a part of conflicts. The extent to which it was used differed depending on the situation, but I don't see how there is a principal distinction to be drawn. The term "hybrid war" seems to imply that there is something entirely new here, or at least a combination unseen before. I simply don't see how. Soft power has been used extensively, where appropriate, throughout history.

Using the example of Russia, the Ukraine, and the impact the Internet/Social Media has had on a conflict, who can honestly state which side in what, where, and was it justified/justifiable, without there being significant bias in the information sources.

I agree that information control has become more sophisticated and the truth more muddled as a result. However, does this truly create a new type of war? Information has been muddled many times before in the past. I think that you're right when you say that there is a bigger grey area, but this is more the result of the breakdown of straightforward and state-run methods of dispersing information, rather then some new type of warfare to be waged. US media systematically under-reported Iraq war protests, playing down the scale and frequency of the protests. Does this make the US war in Iraq a hybrid war? I think not.

Or consider the role of information another way. The term 'fog of war' has been used for ages to describe the limitations a commander would have in knowing the disposition of his, and his opponent's forces, as well as how they performed during a battle. With the drastic advances made in communications, much of the 'fog of war' has evaporated, to the point that not only the commanders, but in some cases regular people can have quite a good idea in terms of whose forces are where, what they are doing, etc. Enter Social Media, and used properly, the actual dispersal of forces can be made much more confusing again.

I don't think that's true. In terms of actual units deployed on the front line, social media has made it easier to follow the disposition of forces. I think what social media has done is given easy access to fragmented information (information that either was absent before, or fragmented all the same) to casual observers. Those casual observers then proceed to formulate opinions and draw far reaching conclusions based on fragmented information or even isolated data points. However this does not create some new type of war. This merely makes public opinion more difficult to control. Not that western powers aren't up to the task. If you look at western media coverage even in the Georgian War (where Russia was essentially in the right), it was extremely skewed, and perception in the west was skewed in the same direction. In a war like the current Ukrainian one, it's even easier to direct said opinion in the desirable direction. Granted it's nothing like the war-fever whipped up at the advent of WWI, but is something like that even necessary?

Either way, I don't see how the type of war being waged is changed by a shift in the means of information control back home.

Even if the armed forces of a nation-state are able to keep track of where they detect hostile forces, the citizens of that nation-state are very unlikely to be able to do so, thus allowing strategies used to be questioned for appropriateness by people likely to have a false sense of understanding about a conflict.

Exactly. Only decisions in foreign relations aren't made by plebiscite. They're made by the executive. And domestic opinion is still fundamentally malleable to one with the resources to do so. So how does this change the type of war being waged?

In a way it is like propaganda, but able to be made much less attributable, as well as potentially broadcast to a much larger audience, much faster.

Sure. And politically speaking all of this matters a great deal. But militarily speaking, I don't see a fundamental new type of war. I see an old type of war being presented and discussed differently.

 

[Ranger25]

I think that is the cleanest definition of hybrid warfare.

Another example as I see it would be China's use of Coast Guard ships in the South China Sea. Utilising large white ships with little armament, they are able to achieve national objectives whilst staying under the threshold of open warfare. America's conventional warfare advantage is essentially nullified. If they escalate they can be portrayed as the aggressor.

This also demonstrates the weakness of hybrid warfare. It requires the other side be unwilling to risk conventional war. This can be seen as the "lesson learnt" from the German occupation of the Sudetenland. NATO's seemingly over-the-top announcements and reactions to the Russian "threat" make it clear that conventional war is an option so reduces the likelihood of Putin getting adventurous. A more conciliatory approach risks a "peace in our time" moment and Poland 1939.

Agree totally with Todjaeger's definition. Spot on

The Chinese are actually raising a large fleet of Government owned Fishing trawlers now with the intent to use them for national purposes in the Spratleys. They are expanding their maritime militia with Armed fishing boats Another use of Soft/hybrid style to achieve or advance national goals.


Beijing expands its maritime militia in South China Sea｜WCT

 

[Goknub]

I think if looked at historically then it is accurate to say "hybrid warfare" isn't a new concept.

Compared to the British East India Company or the Spanish in South America, China's efforts are quite limited in scope. The British Empire was only as successful as it was because of the astute mix of hard and soft power. This is the same for the Romans too.

I think the concept is mostly focused describing to the average TV viewer what is going on in the simplest (and most exciting) terms. For a Western audience used to facing either Cold War Armageddon or Islamic Jihadis, it is something new. Describing it as "hybrid" allows the public to understand what the new threat is, why it is dangerous and how it is intended to be counted.

 

[Todjaeger]

But that's just it. Soft power has always been a part of conflicts. The extent to which it was used differed depending on the situation, but I don't see how there is a principal distinction to be drawn. The term "hybrid war" seems to imply that there is something entirely new here, or at least a combination unseen before. I simply don't see how. Soft power has been used extensively, where appropriate, throughout history.

AND

I think if looked at historically then it is accurate to say "hybrid warfare" isn't a new concept.

Compared to the British East India Company or the Spanish in South America, China's efforts are quite limited in scope. The British Empire was only as successful as it was because of the astute mix of hard and soft power. This is the same for the Romans too.

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...

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.

 

[John Fedup]

AND



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...

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.

. I think your comment makes a lot of sense. The application of soft military force must always factor in a possible nuclear response by powers with vested interests and nuke capability.

I do not pretend to have a great understanding of what hybrid really means other than it is a sort of convergence of several techniques. I think cellular and satcom communications in conjunction with social media is a game changer if the players involved know how to use it to their advantage. How soft is state sponsored terrorism, just asking for opinions?

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Each conflict heightens people's morality of war and drives technical change

 

[Todjaeger]

Each conflict heightens people's morality of war and drives technical change

Again, the point of your post eludes me. The syntax and structure, as well as apparent definitions and usage of words seems off somehow.

At this point I have to ask, is English your primary language?

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Again, the point of your post eludes me. The syntax and structure, as well as apparent definitions and usage of words seems off somehow.

At this point I have to ask, is English your primary language?

I come hear to learn. That's all.

 

[Todjaeger]

I come hear to learn. That's all.

You are of course welcome to come and learn and participate. What can cause issue though, if people are unable to understand you.

In the above quoted text for instance, I think you meant "here" as in a location, instead of "hear" like listening. The same word phonetically, but with very different meanings. If you are using a mobile device (tablet, smartphone, etc.) or something else with autocorrect, then what you intend when posting, could be written as something entirely different, thus causing confusion.

Until people can get a better grasp of what one is posting about, then it becomes difficult to discuss or debate potentially different perspectives.

 

[bdique]

How soft is state sponsored terrorism, just asking for opinions?

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'd think state-sponsored terrorism is a predominantly military option, hence there's nothing 'soft' about it.

 

[gazzzwp]

Excuse my interruption into this important debate. I would like to come at this hybrid war from a different dimension. Coming at this from an economic analyst dimension. You two Feanor and Tod need your own podcast so you can beam this talk out to a wider audience than just the 11 viewings now. Others who talk about this new Cold War sound like bankers swallowing glass while giving speeches to U.S senate committees.
.

Good post and some good points covered. The US does need to keep a close eye on strategic efforts to undermine the dollar, and no doubt they are watching the game extremely closely.

The US is never beaten easily especially on matters economic. If the US has it's back against the wall economically then that is when it becomes an extremely dangerous player militarily.

Notice how the big powers are deadly keen to show off their latest military hardware at the moment? Look at RT. "All Russian equipment is vastly superior yet the US subs and aircraft have serious design and manufacturing defects"......and so the propaganda gets ever fiercer.

Everyone is investing heavily in high tech weaponry; anticipating a showdown. That will come when the emerging powers have attacked the dollar sufficiently for the US to justify a response.

Either way a military solution is the obvious fall back. Of course the scenario applies equally to the Rouble being threatened further.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Chinese are actually raising a large fleet of Government owned Fishing trawlers now with the intent to use them for national purposes in the Spratleys. They are expanding their maritime militia with Armed fishing boats Another use of Soft/hybrid style to achieve or advance national goals.

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.