Comparative analysis of modern concepts of hybrid warfare

Machnev Il'ya Petrovich ORCID: 0009-0005-4343-2692 Postgraduate student; Department of World Economy, International Relations and Law; Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management 'NINH' 630117, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Kamenskaya str., 54 ipmachnev@yandex.ru

Introduction.

The interstate conflict as a phenomenon is the cause of major tragedies that leave deep traumatic traces in history. The present time is no exception, although conflicts have changed their essence, masquerading as latent forms. Undoubtedly, the number of conflicts has decreased today, but their duration is increasing, which negatively affects not only regional, but also international security ^[21].

The subject of international relations is the relations and relationships between the subjects of such relations in the international arena. The emerging contradictions of the interests of such subjects may eventually result in an international conflict ^{[18, pp. 197-198]}.

The essence of interstate conflicts consists of several elements. The first element is their subject composition (states, coalitions and associations act as subjects), the second is their political nature (the plane of decisions taken at the state level is political), the third is their danger (consequences in the form of loss of life), the fourth is their basis in promoting the interests of certain subjects (a clash of national interests generates a conflict situation) and fifth, their impact on international security in general (local conflict can generate instability in the international arena) ^{[18, pp. 200-201]}. Thus, we can conclude that the interstate conflict proceeds from the model of armed violence or violent conflict.

It is obvious that today direct large-scale military campaigns are losing their former importance, since objective reasons in the form of economic interdependence between subjects of international relations and the presence of nuclear weapons in certain countries dictate the need to change the tactics of warfare. Such changes, first of all, consist in mastering a strategic initiative aimed at disorganizing state and military administration ^{[16, p. 45]}.

In response to such changes, the term "hybrid warfare" appears, which, however, causes conceptual confusion that arises when trying to understand the phenomenon of hybrid warfare itself. Unfortunately, this circumstance leads to certain problems in understanding this phenomenon. Let's consider a number of studies and works dealing with attempts to conceptualize hybrid warfare.

Theoretical basis and methods.

The main theory on which this research is based is the theory of constructivism ^[24]. As a methodology, the author used, first of all, a systematic approach used to streamline the above concepts of hybrid wars within the framework of the holistic complex of the subject of this study. In addition, the main content of hybrid warfare concepts has been analyzed using theoretical and empirical methods such as analysis, generalization, comparison, deduction and induction. In the process of working on this study, a comparative historical method was used, including the method of typologization, as well as the method of critical analysis of discourse, which together allowed us to consider all the concepts of hybrid wars, reflecting their main differences and drawing certain conclusions.

The degree of scientific development of the topic.

The source base of this research is the works of foreign and domestic authors. The problem of the conceptual understanding of the term "hybrid war" has existed for a sufficient amount of time, until now there is no single, accepted official doctrine that would put an end to the discourse of understanding this phenomenon. The depth and breadth of scientific coverage indicate a thorough study of the difficulties associated with the attempt to conceptualize the term "hybrid war" within the framework of international security. In particular, the works of such foreign authors as Hoffman F. G., Glenn R. W., Bond M. S., McCuen J. J., Solmaz T. are presented. and others . The works of Bartosh A. A., Lukyanov V. Yu., Manoilo A.V., Panarin I. N. and others are cited as the works of domestic scientists.

Concepts of hybrid wars in foreign science.

The key starting point for the emergence of the term "hybrid warfare" is the publication by Frank Hoffman of his work "Conflictinthe ^21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars" in 2007, in which the first attempts were made to conceptualize the phenomenon of hybrid warfare. In particular, F. Hoffman points out in it that hybrid warfare is a number of different methods of warfare, including conventional military forces and means, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts, indiscriminate violence and coercion, as well as riots ^{[7, p. 29]}. As a characteristic of such a war, he points out that it combines lethality, fanaticism and prolonged duration.

However, F. Hoffman notes that the development of such a concept was influenced by the publication of the National Defense Strategy The United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the USA) in March 2005. This strategy has outlined new approaches to responding to threats emanating from outside towards the United States, since the military superiority of the United States forces its opponents to use other, non-traditional or asymmetric methods and methods ^{[7, p. 13]}.

Analytical article "Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars", written by Lieutenant General James N. Mattis of the United States Marine Corps, as well as U.S. Marine Corps reservist F. Hoffman in November 2005, confirms the need to update the strategy to respond to new threats against the United States ^[11]. The authors note that hybrid warfare is a kind of synthesis of various ways and means of war.

The publication of the National Defense Strategy in March 2005 included the classification of a number of threats that could potentially affect the national security of the United States:

1) Traditional challenges are created by States using recognized military capabilities and forces in well-understood forms of military competition and conflict;

2) Non-standard challenges come from those who use "non-traditional" methods to counter the traditional challenges of strong states;

3) Catastrophic challenges include the acquisition, possession and use of weapons of mass destruction (hereinafter referred to as WMD) or methods that cause effects similar to WMD;

4) Disruptive challenges may come from adversaries who develop and use breakthrough technologies to negate the current U.S. advantages in key operational areas ^[13].

According to F. Hoffman, the main difference between hybrid warfare and other wars is the presence of used components (regular and irregular) in a single combat space. The so-called multimodal approach (combinations of various components) is aimed not at preparing forces for a decisive "hot" battle, but at advancing forces in phases. One of the important destructive components is crime, which serves to support hybrid forces or to promote unrest and destruction in the target country ^{[7, p. 29-30]}.

Thus, summarizing the approach of F. Hoffman, it is worth noting that the phenomenon of hybrid warfare was created to rationalize threats emanating from outside against the United States. This approach was relevant for the 2000s, since increased terrorism and, as a result, terrorist acts, were the Achilles heel in national security for the United States ^{[15, p. 188]}.

Despite the fact that F. Hoffman's work is one of the key milestones in the scientific field, another scientist Thierry Braspenning considered the concept of hybrid warfare back in 2001. A distinctive feature of T. Braspanning's work is his approach from a constructivist perspective. In particular, in his work "The Socio-constructivist theory of deadlock in hybrid wars" (Theorie sociale-constructiviste de l'enlisement des guerres hybrides), the author writes that "states or others are social constructs and products of a complex historical process having social, political, material and ideological dimensions" and by virtue of instead, "actors are constituted through political practices that create intersubjective understandings." Thus, from the point of view of this approach, hybrid warfare is a relationship between actors acting in accordance with the images and identity projected by others (different systems of world vision), which complicates the process of reconciliation of the parties ^[2].

It is worth noting that some scientists use various terms to describe hybrid wars, such as "hybrid threats", "hybrid conflicts" and "hybrid warfare". At first glance, synonymous terms still make up a kind of unified whole, referring specifically to hybrid warfare, but this is not entirely true. Some terms may indicate the scope of action, limited to a specific level of war (tactical, operational, strategic) ^[6]. In this regard, it is necessary to focus on the most frequently used terms and their interpretation.

Another author, Colonel John McKuen, consultant on irregular warfare, counterinsurgency and hybrid warfare, Master of International Relations at Columbia University School of International Relations, in his 2008 work Hybrid Wars, argued that hybrid wars "although they are conventional in form, the decisive battles in modern hybrid wars are not fought on conventional on the battlefields, and on asymmetric battlefields among the population of the conflict zone, the population of the rear and the population of the international community. Irregular, asymmetric battles waged among these population groups ultimately determine success or defeat" ^{[12, p. 107]}. Thus, for him, a hybrid war is a confrontation with an armed enemy and a broader confrontation for the control and support of the population (who make up a certain area), support for the claims of other countries and the support of the international community on issues related to the purpose of the conflict. In his opinion, the key point is to preserve legitimacy and minimize losses for the implementation of internal support from the population, while carrying out its cleansing, control and organization.

Another author, Margaret Bond, commissioner at the U.S. Court of Military Commissions, develops F.'s approach. Hoffman, supporting the creation of new strategies for the use of the US Armed Forces (hereinafter referred to as the US Armed Forces) in an era of new challenges to US national security. In particular, in his work "Hybrid War: A New Paradigm for Stability Operations in Failing States" in 2007, the author points out that the US Armed Forces, in addition to the military component, also need to normalize the post-war situation and restore the economy of the target country. In her opinion, such methods also contribute to nonviolent methods of economic and political pressure on unfriendly governments. Thus, M. Bond understands hybrid warfare as the projection of all elements of national power onto a continuum of actions: from stability, security and reconstruction operations; and to armed struggle ^[1].

Russell Glenn, Director of Plans and Policy, US Army Training and Doctrine Command, in his work "Thoughts on "Hybrid" Conflict" in 2009, defines a "hybrid threat" from the point of view of subjectivity, that is, a hybrid threat is a certain opponent resorting to a certain combinatorics of means (political, military, economic social and informational), methods (conventional, irregular, catastrophic, terrorist and subversive) and methods of warfare, including the participation of both state and non-state actors ^{[5, p. 16]}. Like F. Hoffman, the author examines this term in the light of its applicability to U.S. security challenges.

Thus, the term "hybrid war" was initially considered from the point of view of a challenge to US national security, noting the most likely and relevant threats for that time. In addition, the antagonism emanating from hybrid warfare at that time involved not only violent conflicts, but also nonviolent ones, capturing the population, information spaces, cyber attacks, and opposition movements into its continuum. The main distinguishing feature of understanding hybrid warfare in the 2000s is considered to be a fixation on national security, avoiding the consequences of conducting a hybrid war for international security.

In the strategic discourse of the West, the concept of hybrid warfare continued to develop, which was reflected in its understanding. Today, many Western politicians, researchers, think tank experts and the media often use the term "hybrid warfare" to refer only to nonviolent subversive actions. This fact indicates that there is a rethinking of this concept, since initially it had a strictly military orientation ^[14].

So, after the events in Ukraine in 2014, there was a new round of development of the concept of hybrid warfare. On July 1, 2014, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (hereinafter referred to as NATO) published a video clip where the term "hybrid war" was used at the official level in the context of the situation in Ukraine ^[9]. Subsequently, at the Welsh NATO Summit in September 2014, the term "hybrid war" was uttered several times to describe Russian aggression in Ukraine ^[23]. These interrelated events should be assessed from a political point of view, since the fixation of subjects and objects of hybrid warfare in the context of NATO statements is nothing more than a political statement with the aim of strengthening collective defense and investment, deepening partnerships and other relevant goals.

In its article "Countering hybrid threats", NATO defines hybrid threats as a combination of military and non-military, covert and open means, including disinformation, cyber attacks, economic pressure, the deployment of irregular armed formations and the use of regular forces. In addition to the definition, in this article, NATO analyzes its experience in countering hybrid threats, in particular, they cite the example of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the Russian Federation, Russia) and the People's Republic of China (hereinafter – the PRC, China), where the Russian Federation, according to NATO, uses hybrid strategies such as political interference, malicious cyber activity, economic pressure and coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation; China, according to NATO, uses hybrid operations, including attempts to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, as well as strategic materials and supply chains. To counter hybrid threats, NATO uses centers of expertise, supporting allies in various areas related to countering such threats ^[3].

As a result of the joint communique of the European Commission and the High Representative of the European Parliament and the Council "Joint Framework for countering hybrid Threats – the response of the European Union" ^[10], an initiative was proposed to create a European Center of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (hereinafter – the Hybrid Council of Europe). The Hybrid Council of Europe was established in Helsinki in 2016 by a Memorandum of Understanding on the creation of a European Center of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats ^[4].

The Hybrid Council of Europe is an international autonomous network organization promoting a nationwide and public approach to countering hybrid threats. The mission of this organization is to strengthen the security of participating States and organizations by providing expertise and training in methods of countering hybrid threats ^[8].

The Hybrid Council of Europe defines a hybrid threat as malicious actions aimed at undermining a goal (a state or a political institution) through various means, often combined. The organization refers to such means as "manipulation of information, cyber attacks, economic influence or coercion, covert political maneuvering, diplomacy of coercion or threats of the use of military force" ^[8]. Tellingly, this organization distinguishes the terms "hybrid threat" and "hybrid warfare", where it explicitly notes "hybrid threats describe a wide range of malicious actions with various goals, ranging from influence and intervention operations to hybrid warfare." Unfortunately, this organization does not explain such attitudes, but as we see it, the differentiation of these terms occurs due to the fact that a "hybrid threat" is a certain action, when the term "hybrid war" is a description of a specific type of war.

Despite the usefulness of the existence of the Hybrid Council of Europe as an expert center, it is worth paying attention to its politicization. This organization identifies authoritarian states (emphasizing Russia, China and Iran) and non-state actors as subjects of hybrid threats. And he cites democratic states as the "light" of countering hybrid threats (emphasizing the countries of the Collective West). Such thinking in terms of axioms obviously undermines trust and desire for cooperation with other countries and does not contribute to constructive interaction within the framework of expert analysis and countering hybrid threats.

Summarizing Western approaches to understanding the phenomenon of hybrid warfare, we note that such approaches are characterized primarily from the point of view of the geopolitical interests of the United States and NATO countries, where national and collective security is positioned at the forefront. It is not surprising that the current discourse of hybrid warfare in Western countries boils down to the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, despite the fact that these same countries supported the coup in Ukraine, which is quite suitable for the methods of hybrid warfare described by Margaret Bond in the work "Hybrid War: A New Paradigm for Stability Operations in Failing States" ^[1].

Concepts of hybrid wars in Russian science.

Today, there is an extremely small amount of qualitative and voluminous research on the topic of hybrid wars in Russian science. In our opinion, this may be due to the fact that the phenomenon of hybrid warfare is ideologized due to the geopolitical confrontation. It is obvious that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which began in 2014, generates a certain narrative in the Western scientific and expert community, as well as in the Russian one. Thus, such circumstances add even greater difficulties to understanding what the phenomenon of "hybrid warfare" is, including in Russian science.

Considering the scientific approach to understanding hybrid wars in Russian science, V. Y. Lukyanov can be noted, who defines such a war as a combination of military (violent) and nonviolent methods of influencing the opposing state, used primarily in the field of propaganda, causing the destruction of the cultural and civilizational basis of society ^{[19, p. 6]}. According to the author, the purpose of such a war is to establish total control over the enemy. The methods for achieving this goal are in the cultural and social plane, related to the manipulation of mass consciousness and the abolition of traditional values. Thus, Lukyanov considers hybrid warfare in the context of "color revolutions", namely interference in the internal affairs of a state by another state.

I. N. Panarin defines hybrid warfare as "a set of methods of military-forceful, political-diplomatic, financial-economic, information-psychological and information-technical pressure, as well as technologies of color revolutions, terrorism and extremism, activities of special services, formations of special forces, special operations forces and structures of public diplomacy, carried out by according to a single plan by the governing bodies of the state, the military-political bloc or transnational corporations" ^{[22, pp. 20-22]}.

According to A. A. Bartosh, hybrid warfare is the coordinated use by the aggressor country of numerous types (tools) of violence aimed at the vulnerable places of the target country, covering the entire spectrum of social functions to achieve a synergistic effect and subjugate the enemy to his will ^{[17, p. 9]}.

A. V. Manoilo, on the contrary, shares the concepts of "hybrid war" and "color revolution". The author defines hybrid warfare as follows: "hybrid wars involve the combined use of strategies characteristic of various types of modern wars – traditional, informational, ideological, economic, to inflict military defeat on him, to defeat the forces and means of the enemy, to achieve military-strategic superiority over him and forceful coercion to peace on the terms of the winner" ^{[20, p. 920]}. According to the author, the goal of hybrid warfare is the classic goal of traditional warfare – military defeat, destruction and surrender of the enemy. The author categorically rejects other goals, because otherwise the concept of hybrid warfare is blurred and acquires a speculative coloring ^{[20, p. 921]}. It is difficult to disagree with him, since the term "hybrid warfare" should not be "rubbery" and use various terminological techniques, producing an infinite number of definitions of this term.

Special attention should be paid to the event or to another name for the phenomenon called the "Gerasimov Doctrine". According to foreign experts, the "Gerasimov Doctrine" implies a foreign policy program that contains a rethinking of modern military conflicts and ways of conducting them, which indicates a possible conceptualization of hybrid warfare ^[25]. The above-mentioned doctrine is based on the work of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, First Deputy Minister of Defense, Army General Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov "The value of science in foresight" in the "Military Industrial Courier" of 2013. The work of V. V. Gerasimov was based on his report "The main trends in the development of forms and methods of using armed forces, current tasks of military science to improve them", read at the end of January 2013 at the general meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences ^[26]. V. V. Gerasimov noted in his work that "In the XXI century, there is a tendency blurring the differences between the state of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared, and when they begin, they do not follow the usual pattern. The experience of military conflicts, including those related to the so-called color revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, confirms that a completely prosperous state in a matter of months or even days can turn into an arena of fierce armed struggle, become a victim of foreign intervention, plunge into the abyss of chaos, humanitarian catastrophe and civil war." Taking into account his conclusions, we can note that the author emphasizes the increased role of non-military methods (political, economic, informational, humanitarian, etc.) used, inter alia, in conjunction with the use of the protest potential of the population. In addition, the author stated that Russian military science (at the time of publication of V. V. Gerasimov's work in 2013) has not kept pace with the changes that have developed as a result of the development of new technologies that enable remote contactless interaction with potential opponents.

Thus, we assume that the content of V. V. Gerasimov's work can actually be interpreted as a description of the elements of hybrid warfare. Nevertheless, the author's work is of a scientific nature related to military sciences. But, some professional foreign public drew attention to the work of V. V. Gerasimov from a different angle. The foreign public dubbed the author as the main theorist and strategist of Russia's actions in conflicts, including hybrid ones ^[27]. Accordingly, such a narrative contributed to the development of a "cooling" of relations between the United States and Russia, forming the image of an enemy in the face of Russia for the Collective West.

Summarizing Russian approaches to understanding the phenomenon of hybrid warfare, it can be noted that such approaches are not replete with novelty and standard concepts are declared that are peculiar to Western colleagues who study the phenomenon of hybrid warfare. The only striking difference between the Western approach to the study of hybrid warfare, in our opinion, lies in the quality and quantity of research in this area, including the availability of specialized research centers.

Conclusion.

Thus, having considered the various concepts of hybrid warfare among foreign and Russian researchers, we can say that the term "hybrid warfare" is a collective one, including methods, methods, and goals of conducting such a war. As we pointed out above, the discourse around hybrid warfare in the West is the most comprehensive, which contributes to the development of the concept of "hybrid warfare" towards theory and practice. In Russian science, the discourse around hybrid warfare is often reduced to a narrow consideration of this term without expert assessment at the state level (specialized analytical or scientific centers), which consequently affects the number and quality of research in this area. The phenomenon of hybrid warfare itself is an urgent response to modern realities in international relations, which are currently uncertain, including the global terrorist threat, the geopolitical confrontation between the Collective West, Russia and China, as well as the development of the information technology sector and the global economy.