Leipzig today, London tomorrow.
Don't poke the bear and then cry like a Jew. Face the consequences of your warmongering and constant attacks. Stop engaging in the ritual slaughter of Ukrainians and Russians. The battlefield is distant from central Europe, yes, but it is not that distant. You are not America. You are not Britain. You are not Israel. When the chickens come home to roost, they'll be coming for you. Germans, French, and all that's in between. Choose your battles and your allies wisely.
An excerpt from, "Perceptions of hybrid war in Russia: means, targets and objectives identified in the Russian debate" by Katri Pynnöniemi & Minna Jokela, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 33, 2020:
In this article, we analyse what hybrid war entails in the context of Russian military periodicals. Two dominant interpretations emerge from the debate. Hybrid war involves a conflict between civilizations and a geopolitical struggle for power. In both cases, the West is represented as an active participant in the conflict, intent upon undermining Russia’s geopolitical status, cultural code and political system. The debate emulates Russian official rhetoric about national security threats and thus consolidates official interpretations, rather than offers alternatives to them. Russian analysts have also engaged in more abstract theoretical analysis in which hybrid terminology is rarely used or is approached critically. Further research is required to assess the ways in which this debate has been used in shaping public perceptions of threats towards Russia.
Raymond Aron has insightfully observed that strategic thought draws itsinspiration from ‘problems which events themselves pose’ (Aron 1970, 25). Later, Colin Gray paraphrased Aron and argued that ‘strategic thought draws its inspiration at each moment of history from the problems and opportunities flagged by officials acting as opinion leaders’ (Gray 2002, 1). Curiously, both of these formulations could be used to describe the emergence of the hybrid war concept in the lexicon of strategic thought. The Aron-style origin of the term is the second Lebanon War and the analysis derived from it by Frank Hoffman (2006a, 2006b). Accordingly, hybrid warfare refers to ‘a range of different modes of warfare including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts including indiscriminate violence and coercion, and criminal disorder’ (Hoffman 2007, 14). At this point, the concept was not known beyond the military theoretical literature.
. . .On the basis of our analysis we argue that, although Russian authors did in fact borrow foreign terminology, they have interpreted it anew. In the context of Russian debate, hybrid war offers a general framework to explain threats towards Russia. More specifically, the ensuing debate on hybrid war does notreflect the concept’s analytical feasibility, but instead, applies it in explaining consistent Western attempts to subvert and destabilize Russia. In this context, hybrid war denotes three interlinked but separate objectives. First, hybrid war is civilizational conflict aimed at the self-destruction of the target by means of hidden subversion. Second, hybrid war is a tool used in an effort to maintain Western hegemony in world politics. And third, hybrid war—and, thus, Western expansion—can be limited by fostering alliances and other means ofconstructive influence. The debate emulates Russian official rhetoric about national security threats and thus consolidates official interpretations, rather than offering alternatives to them.
An excerpt from, "Waging hybrid warfare" by Balaji Chandramohan, New Zealand International Review, Volume 45, 2020:
Hybrid warfare is an emerging, though as yet ill-defined, notion in the discipline of war and conflict studies. It underlines the realism principle in international relations, where the use of force is considered a normal option for a state seeking to achieve its political objectives. In other words, hybrid warfare refers to the use of unconventional methods as part of a multi-domain war fighting environment. The unconventional approach is deeply embedded overall in military thinking. Hybrid warfare methods aim to disrupt and disable an opponent’s actions without engaging in open hostilities — the opposite of the traditional linear integral battle of annihilation followed by modern militaries. The main focus of hybrid warfare is on disruption rather than destruction.
The roots of the modern approach to hybrid warfare stem primarily from the traditional Russian way of warfare, Maskirovka, which has always given importance to indirect and asymmetrical operations supplanting its conventional approach to strategy. The Russian way of warfare, which enables both state and non-state actors to be used for deception at the operational level, has had significant impact at the strategic level.
Hybrid warfare, which could be termed Maskirovka 2.0, refers to the use of specific means to achieve a goal by an adversary. It could be viewed as a blend of the lethality of conventional inter-state conflict with the fanatical and protracted fervour of irregular war. It is an approach that draws upon a number of types of force from across the full spectrum, including terrorism, insurgency and regular combat, along with the extensive use of information operations apart from conventional forces. Put more simply, hybrid war is a doctrine utilising all the instruments of power to compensate for military weakness by developing alternatives to corrode the will to resist of adversary societies.
