Fighting in the Shadows: A Guide to 21st-Century Hybrid Warfare
- Sanjeev H.
- Sep 23, 2025
- 5 min read
I. Introduction
Contemporary war is no longer a question of soldiers and tanks; it is no longer a question of tanks crossing borders in broad daylight. Rather, the current state of security is characterised by overt and covert military, paramilitary, and civilian action taken in an extremely integrated manner. This emerging realm of conflict exists in a grey zone, which is the strategically ambiguous area between war and peace, friend and foe, civilian and military actors. Activities in this space are strategically maintained below the legal and political reach, which would otherwise cause a traditional military reaction or a UN intervention. War in this sense is not only the armed violence, but also the psychological manipulation, the economic manipulation, and the subversion to widen the social gaps.
II. Hybrid Threats
Hybrid threats have no set definition and are not governed by any international statute. The ambit of hybrid threats is wide, but a uniform, accepted definition of it does not exist. The particular tools and techniques that are employed to work in this grey zone are called hybrid threats. The adversaries resort to a combination of military and non-military measures, including weaponised information, cyberattacks, and economic blackmail, to fulfil their goals. Such actions or threats can remain opaque in the potentially extended and preparatory stage of a campaign, building up impacts that destabilise society.
The general benefit of owning a grey zone is that of plausible deniability. Deniability helps a malicious actor dodge responsibility. For example, an aggressor state can hide its tracks by deploying proxies, going through third countries, or distributing false information via seemingly autonomous actors. This premeditated uncertainty renders the international community unable to develop a consensus and make a strong case to initiate decisive action. The net effect of this, as it leads to the realisation of war-like aims and political ends, is that the aggressor does not have to sustain open, traditional war.
For example, if the United States of America wants to put pressure on Iran and wants to ensure that there is political unrest in Iran, instead of directly involving itself, it can use hybrid means. They may resort to economic sanctions along with cyber-attacks and funding non-state aggressors to cause unrest in the country. This can also be done by investing money to destabilise the ruling government in the country. None of these measures would amount to a war or a direct attack on the sovereignty of Iran in the traditional sense, as the concept of hybrid warfare is not taken into account by major international statutes. This leaves space for the USA to deny any involvement, as no direct link can be established.
Iii. Need For Formalisation of the Definition of Hybrid Threats
There is a need to formalise the meaning and the ambit of hybrid warfare. This is so that wrongdoers, engaging in hybrid warfare, can be penalised according to law and to ensure that important statutes like the Geneva Conventions can apply in case of hybrid threats. This will help ensure that accountability is pinned on a state for malicious actions undertaken by it. The need for formalisation can be understood with three aspects -
To eliminate ambiguity - international law was mostly drafted during a time of traditional war and does not have specific terminology to understand new hybrid warfare. This poses a very unsafe legal grey area. Is a state-funded disinformation campaign that triggers riots an act of aggression? Is a cyberattack paralysing a stock exchange a use of force? In the absence of written laws, the solution is a subject of never-ending controversy. Such ambiguity is not a bug but rather one of the features that aggressors use. Formalisation aims to create a straight line, which is a prohibited hostile act in the 21st century. Eliminating ambiguity is important in every aspect of law. If ambiguity exists in a law, the scope for misuse increases. Therefore, formalising the ambiguity by clearly defining hybrid warfare and including modern means of warfare in statutes will help laws to be applied equitably and prosecute the wrongdoers.
To enable a unified and timely response - Collective action, whether through the UN Security Council or a military alliance, requires a shared understanding of the threat. In the case of a hybrid attack, there is a lack of clarity, which results in indecision and paralysis as the nation’s leaders argue about whether a threshold has been breached or not. Formalised laws are a pre-set mechanism. They offer the bright, objective considerations that the international community requires to reach a rapid consensus, denounce the action, and mobilise the response, whether diplomatic, economic, or military. In the absence of this transparency, the reaction is usually too small, too late. A formalised law removes ambiguity and ensures a timely response.
To establish a credible deterrent - Deterrence is most effective if the consequences of an action are explicit and credible. When an aggressor thinks he is free to act within the grey zone with little threat of a joint, retaliatory action, then there is no point in restraining. Computation alters when statutes are formalised. It establishes a deterrent by making it very clear that hybrid attacks are unlawful acts that are punishable by particular behaviour, such as automatic sanctions or the application of collective defence agreements. Such clarity is also the basis of accountability, as it is the basis of seeking justice against wrongdoers in the aftermath of a conflict.
IV. Means of Hybrid Warfare
Hybrid warfare is a spectrum of coordinated attacks that can bear fruit in multiple ways. Economic warfare is typically used to destabilise a rival economy or force political concessions. Tactics for the same include, but are not limited to, sanctions and trade bans, debt traps, penalising supply chains, deploying malware in financial systems and misusing cryptocurrencies. This is done not only to destabilise economies but also to fund non-state aggressors who can cause harm to the general public. Cyber warfare is another means of hybrid warfare, where the manipulation of cyberspace and the spreading of false information are involved. Information is weaponised by spreading disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Cyber-attacks weaken the nation’s cyber infrastructure and affect artificial intelligence, connections and the use of the Internet of Things. Political and societal subversion aims to weaken the state by exploiting societal frictions. It involves using political narratives and influencing elections and destabilising social cohesion.
Asymmetric warfare by non-state actors is a major concern. This form is used by strong non-state forces against a traditional state army. It is a combination of conventional guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and contemporary hybrid instruments. These groups operate advanced global propaganda activities to recruit and radicalise, and have been involved in organised crime to finance their activities, and through cyber warfare to disrupt government operations and terrorise its citizens. It is the hybrid model in the case of actors lacking the resources of a nation-state. Coercive Statecraft is a more targeted form of hybrid warfare in the hopes of coercing a target nation to alter a particular policy. It's an approach of calculated pressure. It often involves a combination of specific economic coercion (such as threats to block access to important supply chains) and intimidating military posturing (such as large-scale military drills in close proximity to a rival's border). These overt pressures are usually accompanied by covert cyberattacks against particular industries in order to maximise leverage without provoking a full-scale war.
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, the landscape of global security has completely shifted from the clean-cut battlefields of the past to the ambiguous 'grey zone' of the present. Hybrid warfare, with its inventory of economic coercion, cyber war and political subversion, feeds on this deliberate ambiguity using plausible deniability to paralyse a united international response. As has been argued, the most effective countermeasure is the formalisation of international statutes. By setting clear legal benchmarks, facilitating collective action and providing a credible deterrent, the global community can start to lift the veils in which these threats are operating. Ultimately, defence against hybrid warfare is not only a matter of national security, but of a necessary step to strengthen the principles of sovereignty and the rule of law for the 21st century.
References
Comments