Hybrid Warfare: On the Problem of Interpretation in Political Science

Abstract

The article attempts to make a conceptual interpretation of the hybrid war phenomenon integrating it in the broader fi eld of political science. The authors consistently separate scientifi c and non-scientifi c interpretations of the phenomenon, define various disciplinary frameworks for its interpretation and analyze contemporary literature on the topic. Based on the historical and comparative analysis of diff erent cases of hybrid war through the lens of discourse analysis, the article provides a defi nition of the notion putting it in relationship with concepts of conventional war, smart power, “legal” and “political war.” As a result, hybrid war is defi ned as a combination of concrete military action and other tools able to infl uence political institutions, regimes and processes. Thus, hybrid war as a political phenomenon is part of the (geo)political strategy of an actor and consequently a conscious and goal-oriented action. Furthermore, the article notes that taking into consideration that communication is a system forming process in modern politics, the interpretation of hybrid warfare must look at the role of information and communication as key components of the concept. In fact, it is exactly the domination over the realm of information which determines the specifi cs of the modern confl ict as it appears more and more important not the victory as such, but rather how it is communicated and presented in the information fi eld. In turn, the infl uence on information processes is carried out through political technologies and refl ection management.

References

1. Chikharev, I. A., Poluliakh, D. S., and Brovko, V. Iu. “Gibridnaia voina: rekonstruktsiia protiv dekonstruktsii,” Vestnik Akademii voennykh nauk, No. 4, 2018, pp. 58–65. 
2. Civvis, C. “Hybrid War: Russian Contemporary Political Warfare,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 73, No. 5, 2017, pp. 316–321. 
3. Galeotti, M. Russian Political War: Moving Beyond the Hybrid. London: Routledge, 2019. 
4. Gerasimov, V. V. “Tsennost’ nauki v predvidenii,” Voenno-promyshlennyi kur’er, No. 8 (476), 2013. 
5. Hoffmann, F. Conflict in the 21 st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 2007. 
6. Jonson, M. “Hybrid War and Its Countermeasures: A Critique of the Literature,” Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2018, pp. 141–163. 
7. Kazcmarska, K., and Keating, Ch. “Conservative Soft Power: Liberal Soft Power Bias and the ‘Hidden’ Attraction of Russia,” Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2019, pp. 1–27. 
8. Leonova, O. G. “Dzhozef Nai i ‘miagkaia sila’: popytka novogo prochteniia,” Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye znaniia, No. 1, 2018, pp. 101–114. 
9. Mosquera, A., and Bachman, S. “Lawfare in Hybrid Wars: The 21st Century Warfare,” Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2016, pp. 63–87. 
10. Murray, W., and Mansoor, P. (eds.) Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 
11. Nemeth, W. Future War and Chechnya: A Case for Hybrid Warfare. Monterey: Naval Postgraduate School, 2006. 
12. Roslycky, L. “Russia’s Smart Power in Crimea: Sowing the Seeds of Trust,” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2011, pp. 299–316. 
13. Seely, R. “Defi ning Contemporary Russian Warfare,” The RUSI Journal, Vol. 162, No. 1, 2017, pp. 40–49. 
14. Tsygankov, P. A. (ed.) ‘Gibridnye voiny’ v khaotiziruiushchemsia mire 21 veka. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 2015.