OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS OF INFORMATIONAL AND POLITICAL DIMENSIONS OF WESTERN HYBRID WARFARE
https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2021-3-1078
Abstract
Aim. This paper critically examines these political and informational aspects of hybrid as used and defined in the West. Methodology. The paper applied critical discourse analysis to the collected research materials. In this manner, the power relations and dynamics are revealed more clearly for the reader. Results. It reveals that Western hybrid warfare consists of constraining the strengths and opportunities of other targeted powers while minimising their own weaknesses and threats within the context of the decline of the US-led Western global hegemony. Research implications. Hybrid warfare is a very commonly heard, used and abused concept in the 21st century. On the one hand, it is subjectively used as a concept of non-conventional warfare, often in the context of what the hostile and ‘aggressive other’ inflicts upon a ‘defensive us.’ It is also at times an accusation used against a foreign policy opponent or competitor as a means of constraining their operational choices.
About the Author
G. Simons
Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies (IRES) at Uppsala University; Ural Federal University; Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Alberts D. S., Garstka J. J., Hayes R. E. & Signori D. A. Understanding information age warfare. Washington DC, CCRP Publication Series, 2001. 320 p.
2. Blommaert J. & Bulcaen C. Critical discourse analysis. In: Annual Review of Anthropology, 2000, no. 29, pp. 447-466.
3. Brooks S. G., Wohlforth W. C. America abroad: The United States’ global role in in the 21st century. New York, Oxford University Press, 2016. 288 p.
4. Caliskan M. Hybrid warfare through the lens of strategic theory. In: Defence & Security Analysis, 2019, no. 35(1), pp. 40-58.
5. Cooley A., Nexon D. Exit from hegemony: The unravelling of the American global power. New York, Oxford University Press, 2020. 256 p.
6. Fabian S. The Russian hybrid warfare strategy - Neither Russian nor strategy. In: Defence & Security Analysis, 2019, no. 35(3), pp. 308-325.
7. Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. In: Discourse & Society, 1993, no. 4(2), pp. 133-168.
8. Fridman O., Kabernik V., Pearce J. C. (Editors). Hybrid conflicts and information warfare: New labels, old politics. Boulder (CO), Lynne Rienner Publishing, 2019. 271 p.
9. Fridman O. Hybrid warfare or gibridnaya voyna? Similar, but different. In: The RUSI Journal, 2017, no. 162(1), pp. 42-49.
10. Galeotti M. Hybrid, ambiguous, and non-linear? How is Russia’s ‘new way of war’? in: Small Wars & Insurgencies, 2016, no. 27(2), pp. 282-301.
11. Gerasimov V. Ценность науки в предвидении: Новые вызовы требуют переосмыслить формы и способы ведения боевых действий. In: Военно-промышленный курьер, 27 February 2013, URL: http://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/14632 (accessed: 27.05.2021).
12. Hoffman F. G. Hybrid warfare and challenges. In: JFQ, 2009, no. 52 (1st Quarter), pp. 34-48.
13. Johnson R. Hybrid war and its countermeasures: A critique of the literature. In: Small Wars and Insurgencies, 2018, no. 29(1), pp. 141-163.
14. Kofman M. Russian hybrid warfare and other dark arts. In: War On the Rocks, 11 March 2016. URL: https://warontherocks.com/2016/03/russian-hybrid-warfare-and-other-dark-arts/(accessed: 27.05.2021).
15. Kress G. Critical discourse analysis. In: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1990, no. 11. pp. 84-99.
16. McCulloh T., Johnson R. Hybrid warfare. Report 13-4. MacDill Air Force Base (FL): The Joint Special Operations University JSOU Press, 2013.
17. Marlin R. Propaganda and the ethics of persuasion. Ontario, Broadview Press, 2002. 392 p.
18. Mullins S., Spence S. A. Re-examining thought insertion: Semi-structured literature review and conceptual analysis. In: British Journal of Psychiatry, 2003, 182, pp. 293-298.
19. Mumford, A. Understanding hybrid warfare. In: Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2020, no. 33(6), pp. 824-827.
20. NATO. Next steps in NATO’s transformation: To the Warsaw Summit and beyond. Washington DC, NATO & Atlantic Council. URL: https://www.act.nato.int/images/stories/events/2015/nts/NATO_NTS_2015_White_Paper_Final_Public_Version.pdf (accessed: 26.05.2021).
21. Pawar A. V., Spence S. A. Defining thought broadcast: Semi-structured literature review. In: British Journal of Psychiatry, 2003, no. 183, pp. 287-291.
22. Renz B. Russia and ‘hybrid warfare.’ In: Contemporary Politics, 2016, no. 22(3), pp. 283-300.
23. Sproule J. M. Propaganda and democracy: The American experience of media and mass persuasion. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1996. 332 p.
24. Suchkov, M. Whose hybrid warfare? How ‘the hybrid warfare’ concept shapes Russian discourse, military, and political practice. In: Small Wars & Insurgencies, 2021, no. 32(3), pp. 415-440.
25. Taylor P. M. Munitions of the mind: A history of propaganda from the ancient world to the present day. Third Edition. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2003. 360 p.
26. Tsygankov, A. P., Tsygankov, P. A. & Gonzales, H. Putin’s “global hybrid war”: U.S. experts, Russia, and the Atlantic Council. In: Russia in Global Affairs, January-March 2021, no. 19(1), pp. 146-172.
27. Van Dijk, T. A. Discourse semantics and ideology. In: Discourse & Society, 1995, no. 6(2). pp. 243-289.
28. Van Dijk, T. A. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 1993, no. 4(2). pp. 249-283.
29. Waldman T. Vicarious warfare: American strategy and the illusion of war on the cheap. Bristol, Bristol University Press, 2021. 320 p.
30. Wither, J. K. Making sense of hybrid warfare. Connections, 2016, no. 15(2), pp. 73-87.
Review
Views:
482
Email this article 