HYBRID WARFARE

Term Warfare simply refers to the methods of fighting a war. Conventionally it meant armed conflict between two mass enemies, who may be armies or the like.

Hybrid warfare remains a concept for which there is no universally agreed definition. The concept provides key insights into contemporary and future security and defence challenges.

WHAT IS HYBRID WARFARE

The concept of hybrid warfare is not new to experience. Nevertheless, it has gained significant relevance in recent years when states employ non-state actors and information technology, to subdue their adversaries in the absence of a direct armed conflict.

Hybrid warfare in the contemporary era became increasingly popular in policy debates after two important developments:

• 1st: In 2005, two US military officials wrote an article on the “rise of hybrid wars” in which they emphasised the combination of conventional and unconventional strategies, in contemporary warfare. They also mentioned the psychological or information-related aspects of modern conflicts.

• 2nd: In 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and achieved its objectives through local armed actors, disinformation, economic clout, and exploitation of socio-political polarisation in Ukraine.

In layman’s language, hybrid warfare entails a fusion of conventional and unconventional instruments of power and tools of subversion. These instruments or tools are blended in a synchronised manner to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy and achieve synergistic effects.

Two distinct characteristics of hybrid warfare.

First, the line between war and peacetime is uncertain: This means that it is hard to identify the war threshold. War becomes difficult to operationalise. 

Second, ambiguity and attribution: Hybrid attacks are marked by a lot of vagueness. A puzzling situation is wittingly created and enlarged by the hybrid actors to complicate attribution as well as response. 

Mostly, the country that is targeted is either not able to detect a hybrid attack or not able to attribute it to a state that might be sponsoring it. By exploiting the thresholds of detection and attribution, the hybrid actor makes it backbreaking for the targeted state to develop policy and strategic responses to deal with the situation.

ASPECTS OF HYBRID WARFARE

1. A non-standard, complex, and fluid adversary: an adversary can be state or non-state. the non-state actors can act as proxies for countries (may have independent agendas as well). A non-standard, complex, and fluid adversary. A hybrid adversary can be state or non-state. For example:

•  Israel–Hezbollah War

•  Syrian Civil War

On the other hand, Russian involvement in Ukraine can be described as a traditional state actor waging a hybrid war, although Russia denies involvement in the 2014 Ukraine conflict.

2. Use of the combination of conventional and irregular methods: Methods and tactics may include politics, diplomacy, irregular tactics, irregular formations, terrorist acts, indiscriminate violence, and criminal activity. These methods are used simultaneously as a unified strategy.

The best example is the Islamic State's transnational aspirations, blended tactics, structured formations, and cruel use of terrorism as part of its arsenal.

3. Use of advanced weapons systems and other disruptive technologies: novel technologies are used on the battlefield. In 2006 Hezbollah was armed with high-tech weaponry, like precision-guided missiles. Hezbollah forces shot down Israeli helicopters, damaged a patrol boat with a cruise missile, and destroyed armoured tanks by firing guided missiles. 

Hezbollah also used aerial drones to gather intelligence, used encrypted cell phones for communication, and observed Israeli troop movements with thermal night-vision equipment.

4. Use of mass communication: The growth of mass communication networks offers powerful propaganda and recruiting tools. The use of fake news websites and social media to spread false stories is a possible element of hybrid warfare.

EFFECTS OF HYBRID WARFARE

Traditional militaries find it difficult to respond the hybrid warfare. This is so because it is hard to agree on the source of the conflict. the notion of hybrid warfare to the Russian concept of "non-linear" warfare, defines as the deployment of "conventional and irregular military forces in coexistence with psychological, economic, political, and cyber assaults."

To counter hybrid warfare, hard power is often insufficient as traditional militaries lack the flexibility to shift tactics, priorities, and objectives constantly. In such situations, soft power emerges as the need of the hours and is fruitful too. 

Hybrid warfare often takes place below traditional war methods. The centre stage in such a situation is the role of civilians and how they think and act about the state. Contemporary digital and social media platforms allow hybrid actors to influence civilians to the detriment of the adversary state with considerable ease. Online disinformation campaigns are proved very powerful to the grave.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid threats are proved vulnerable to the target state or inter-state political communities. Hybrid warfare translates into the erosion of the core values of coexistence, harmony, and pluralism in democratic societies. 

In any situation erosion of coexistence should not be appreciated, this will create trust issues making it hard for people to live in harmony.

-BHAVNA GEED.