![]() ![]() Recent discussions, including last week’s speeches, focus on the newer aspects of these concepts – specifically activities in the information domain. That might be due to the ambiguity of international law, ambiguity of actions and attribution, or because the impact of the activities does not justify a response. Such warfare is conducted in the “grey zone” of conflict, meaning operations may not clearly cross the threshold of war. Related to hybrid warfare, the term political warfare commonly refers to power being employed to achieve national objectives in a way that falls short of physical conflict. ![]() They included guerilla warfare, innovative use of technology and effective information campaigning.įollowing that war, in 2007, American defence researcher Frank Hoffman expanded on the terms “hybrid threat” and “hybrid warfare” to describe employing multiple, diverse tactics simultaneously against an opponent. For example, in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, Hezbollah employed a host of different tactics against Israel. The term hybrid warfare originally referred to irregular non-state actors with advanced military capabilities. It has involved a combination of activities, including disinformation, economic manipulation, use of proxies and insurgencies, diplomatic pressure and military actions. Russia’s approach to Ukraine is an example of this form of warfare. While the concept is fairly new, its effects and outcomes are often in the headlines today. These methods aim to disrupt and disable an opponent’s actions without engaging in open hostilities. It refers to the use of unconventional methods as part of a multi-domain warfighting approach. Hybrid warfare is an emerging, but ill-defined notion in conflict studies. The internet is now an arena for conflict, and we're all caught up in it
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |