Goals of hybrid warfare. What is the fundamental difference between past similar wars and modern ones? An actor waging a hybrid war - what is he

Release:

Bibliographic description of the article for citation:

Pozubenkov P. S., Pozubenkov S. P. Hybrid wars in the modern information space // Scientific and methodological electronic journal "Concept". – 2016. – T. 11. – S. 1121–1125..htm.

Annotation."Hybrid warfare" is modern look a war waged not so much by military equipment as by forces of political propaganda, terror, disinformation and economic pressure on the enemy. "Hybrid warfare" also includes subversive activities of special services on enemy territory and various techniques for distorting information. This article summarizes the theoretical sources on the main elements of a hybrid military impact.

Article text

Pozubenkov Sergey Petrovich, master student of FGBOU VO "Penza State Agricultural Academy", Penza

Supervisor – Pozubenkov Petr Sergeevich, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Penza State Agricultural Academy, Penza [email protected]

Hybrid wars in the modern information space

Annotation. "Hybrid war" is a modern type of war, which is waged not only by military equipment, but by the forces of political propaganda, terror, disinformation and economic pressure on the enemy. "Hybrid warfare" also includes subversive activities of special services on enemy territory and various techniques for distorting information. This article summarizes theoretical sources about the main elements of hybrid military influence. Key words: world domination, distortion of information, opposition, pressure.

Under the "hybrid war" in political science is understood the simultaneous use of geopolitical spaces of all types as a theater of military operations. In each of the established types of geopolitical spaces, a "hybrid war" is waged with the use of institutions, resources and technologies that correspond to a specific type of geopolitical spaces. At present, the dominant geopolitical space is information-ideological. Therefore, to obtain or maintain world domination, the institutions and technologies of mass consciousness control are of the greatest importance. "Hybrid war" covers the entire population, fills the niches of the information space, including print and electronic media, cyber attacks, organization of seminars, training courses with lectures for supporters of opposition movements etc. It extends to various spheres of public life - political, economic, social, cultural. Its target is the mental component and the very system of social organization of the enemy. Ultimately, "hybrid wars" are not only armed conflicts that have no limits in time, space or means used. Their main difference is that they blur the boundaries that separate war from other forms of political, economic or ideological confrontation. One of the essential features of the "hybrid war" is the disregard for all norms of morality and morality, the use of the dirtiest social technologies, including the spread of rumors, lies, slander, distortion of facts, falsification of history. This war draws the entire population into antagonism and covers all spheres of public life: politics, economics, social development, culture. As part of this strategy, the United States provides support for the political opposition using illegal actions to overthrow the legitimate government. In addition, "hybrid wars" are used by them to undermine the sovereignty of the state from within in order to subsequently put them under direct external control. In most cases, the result was the economic and political weakening of states. "Hybrid wars" deal a significant blow to social stability and lead to domestic political tension. Thus, the "hybrid wars" waged by the US are aimed at weakening or destroying the "rising" powers of the emerging polycentric world. It is no coincidence that states such as Russia, Iran, the BRICS countries, and Venezuela are under attack. The events in Ukraine are seen not as the end, but as the first stage aimed at destabilizing the situation in Russia. There is a great danger of transferring this to the republics of the Central Asian region, which will also become a challenge to Russia's security. It is highly likely that the technology of "hybrid warfare" can be used against China, in particular, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. At present, the United States, faced with the erosion of the economic foundation of its global dominance, seeks to compensate for this by increasing pressure and, as a result, weakening its competitors. This situation makes the United States interested in a world war. However, on present stage lead world war using traditional weapons seems to be extremely risky because of the possibilities of using weapons of mass destruction. In return, the US is pursuing a strategy aimed at unleashing a series of regional wars and political conflicts. Together, these wars and conflicts, from the point of view of S.Yu. Glazyev

- adviser to the President, form a "global hybrid war", during which competitors can either be destroyed or destabilized and significantly weakened. In doing so, Americans decide their own economic tasks. Today we can say that Russia is trying to counteract the unilateral interpretation of the concept of this war. The Russian media point out that the technology of "hybrid wars" is often used by the United States. In order to convey the Russian point of view to the international community, in November 2014, the Rossiya Segodnya news agency launched the Sputnik project. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that the information production centers will be located and operate directly on the territory of the countries receiving this information. To weaken their main competitors, among which Russia and China occupy the first place, the Americans are actively using the strategy of indirect actions and the technology of creating “controlled chaos” by organizing “color revolutions”. But not only these countries are involved by the West in the orbit of "hybrid wars". In Colombia and Mexico, to maintain a certain level of control of instability, the US uses drug cartels. And in Libya and Syria, armed opposition forces are supported. Information resources and their agents are in a state of readiness in Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine to organize new “color revolutions”. Here, all means of geopolitical confrontation are fully applied: economic sanctions, embargoes, transport blockades, genocide of civilians, destruction of economic infrastructure, terrorist acts and information-psychological operations.

The combination of the newest and traditional forms, means and methods of confrontation is also characteristic of the civil war in Donbass. It meets the interests of radical forces in Europe and especially in the USA. These forces do not hide the fact that the current situation in Ukraine is part of a geopolitical offensive against Russia, which has as its main goal the weakening of its domestic and international positions and, ultimately, the change of its political system. Economic sanctions against Russia, attempts to oust it from international trade and political markets, distortion of history and discrediting the decisive contribution of the Soviet people to the victory over fascism in World War II are elements of a global offensive against our country, in which an important role is given to the "hybrid war". The probability of a classic war against Russia is still small today, but all for the same reason: the preservation and strengthening by our country of its Armed Forces and means, including nuclear capability guaranteeing infliction of unacceptable damage to any aggressor. However, the desire of the United States at any cost to maintain a world order that meets their interests is pushing political elites to use new forms and means in the fight against dissent that go beyond the traditional face of war. An important role is given to the method that combines support for existing armed conflicts, ideological aggression, economic sanctions, attempts at political isolation with the search for new domestic political vulnerabilities, the use of advanced information technologies etc. "Hybrid war" is becoming a reality that is hard to deny and which actualizes the need to study their essence and the possibilities of countering them in defending the interests of the Russian Federation. Understanding that war is a developing reality, led to the need to clarify at the end of 2014 some provisions of the military doctrine of Russia .The shift of hostilities into the information space led to the appearance in the military doctrine of the Russian Federation of 2014 of a clause on the use of information and communication technologies for military-political purposes to counteract actions contrary to international law, directed against the sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity of the state. A clause has been added to the doctrine about the tendency to shift military dangers and threats to the internal sphere. Among the new internal dangers are activities aimed at forcibly changing the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, informational impact on the population, primarily on young citizens of the country, in order to undermine the historical, spiritual and patriotic traditions in the field of defending the Fatherland. The provision in the new document remains fundamental that Russia will resort to the use of military force to repel aggression against it and its allies, maintain peace by decision of the UN Security Council, and also to ensure the protection of its citizens outside the Russian Federation, in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law.

In the modern historical period, a global form of conscientious war is unfolding, i.e. e. the process of replacing the basic values ​​of the mass consciousness of a certain society to ensure its latent controllability from the outside. Conscientious warfare has several forms of implementation. Among the key ones are the so-called "archaeological war" and "rewriting of history", as well as the desacralization of the prophets and the main postulates of world religions. It is impossible not to see that over the past 10-15 years the global process of the so-called "archaeological war" has been actively unfolding, i.e. • deliberate destruction of monuments of history and culture of a certain civilization: buildings, works of art and written sources - on several continents simultaneously. The destruction of a civilization undermines the basis for the functioning of this geo-civilization, and at the same time, all the states corresponding to it, to the extent that they have absorbed the values ​​of the “mother civilization”. The key mother cultures of mankind are the cultures of the Near and Middle East, India, China and Mesoamerica. It is precisely these targets that the strikes of the conscientious war in the form of an archaeological war are aimed at. Thus, during the Iraq war, the museums of Baghdadi and Basra were looted. The National Library of Iraq was burned down. Looting in the museums of Baghdad and Basra received the following comment former Minister US Defense D. Rumsfeld: “Iraq is in transition from a police state to a democratic one. The people received freedom and the right to do those acts that they consider necessary. The US military is aware of the responsibility for security, but they do not intend to take on the functions of the police. Meanwhile, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Course of Armed Conflict (adopted in The Hague on May 14, 1954) prohibits (Art. 4, paragraph 1) the use of architectural monuments of history and culture “for purposes that may lead to the destruction or damage of these valuables during the armed conflict. During the "Arab spring" were looted the Cairo Museum of Antiquities, museums and treasuries of the National Bank of Libya. Radicals of the Islamic State destroyed ancient artifacts in the cities, monasteries and museums of Syria. During the armed conflicts of our time, Christian churches and shrines are always destroyed. Thus, the targeted elimination of the material memory of mankind is being carried out. The distortion of the history of the Second World War is an important integral part global information war, namely, the fight against the Orthodox-Slavic civilization, as the basis for the development of Russia, the main state of this civilization. In terms of civilization, rewriting the history of the Second World War and hushing up or distorting the real role of Russia in the victory over Nazi Germany aims to impose on the mass consciousness the perception of our geocivilization through following characteristics: aggressiveness, immorality, authoritarian thinking and activity, civilizational non-competitiveness. Thus, the Russians are denied the status of a great people, i.e. a people who previously and are now making a significant contribution to the progressive development of mankind. Consequently, the Russian people must "listen to the elders", i.e. obey the truly great European peoples, the bearers of the most progressive principles of the existence of mankind. Russia must completely renounce the principles of Orthodoxy and collectivism and base its civilizational development on the principles of a liberal worldview. The rewriting of the history of the Second World War is intended to impose on the mass consciousness of Europeans, Americans and Russians the notion of Russians not only as a loser people, but as a criminal people. The main directions of the rewritten history of the Second World War are as follows: ; Nazism and communism are doctrines of equal magnitude in their inhuman nature. 2. The United States and Great Britain are the winners in World War II. Accordingly, the key battles of the Second World War are the Battle of El Alamein in Africa and the Midwayne Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. 3. The Anglo-American troops waged war humanely, while the Nazi and Soviet troops committed many war crimes. several countries of Eastern Europe, moreover, he annexed some of them, thus annexed to his territory, using the "right of force". Now in every post-socialist and post-Soviet country there is a “museum of the Soviet occupation” with the corresponding exhibits. Since Russia is the legal successor of the USSR, as well as the actual successor of the aggressive foreign policy of the USSR (Yatsenyuk said that the USSR attacked Germany and Ukraine), then modern Russia constantly, in various forms, manifests its aggressive nature towards all its neighbors. Russia's aggression must be stopped by the progressive global world, i.e. Anglo-Saxons and their allies, and for this, first of all, it is necessary to change political regime and the President of the country, who is the main source of political authoritarianism and political aggression in modern Russia. An active “archaeological war” is being waged against monuments to Soviet soldiers in all European countries: monuments are destroyed, desecrated, at best, transferred from the center to the outskirts. The main propaganda impact is aimed at young people. It is the young generation, which is currently under powerful pressure, that will be the bulk of the population of most countries in a few years, and working with them in advance allows you to form the necessary mass perceptions in the short and medium term. The distortion of the history of the Second World War against Russia is a direct consequence of two main historical factors. Firstly, the disappearance of the USSR as a global center of power, which is tantamount to the destruction of historical monuments during the "archaeological war": the visible, materially perceptible winner in World War II has disappeared. Russia, of course, is the legal successor, but today a different political and economic system, other legislation, other official ideology. Secondly, after the defeat in the Cold War, Russia began to emerge from a state of geopolitical humiliation and is taking concrete steps to return the status of a great power, including actions to return the former historical territories. It is important to take into account such a socio-psychological factor as the unheroic behavior of European countries in the matter of resistance German fascism. Poland resisted the invasion from September 1, 1939 to October 6 of the same year. Denmark on April 9, 1940 fought with the Nazi troops for one hour, killing two German soldiers and wounding ten, after which the king ordered the troops not to resist. Norway confronted Germany from 9 April to 2 May 1940. The offensive of the Nazi troops on France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg began on May 10, 1940. Luxembourg surrendered on May 11, the Netherlands capitulated on May 14, Belgium on May 26, France held out the longest and capitulated on June 21, 1940. And only the Soviet Union almost single-handedly fought against the troops of Nazi Germany and its European allies that invaded the country for four years (June 22, 1941 - May 9, 1945) and ended this war by capturing Berlin and the capitals of several German allied states. The gap was marked not only with Soviet period, but also with the entire history of Russia, including post-Soviet. The Ukrainian elite constantly emphasized this. L. Kuchma in his book "Ukraine is not Russia" designated the national identity as negative in relation to Russia. During the reign of V. Yushchenko, the departure from Russia took on the tone of a nationalist anti-Russian ideology. L. Kravchuk said in 2010 that Ukraine and Russia are not partners. Ukrainian school history textbooks also played their role. The politicization of relations with the people of Russia is also noticeable in the so-called “wars of memory”. The purpose of such strategies is to break a single cultural space, deform historical memory, replace the Soviet symbols of the Victory in the Great patriotic war-own, true Ukrainian. Among such actions is the creation and promotion under V. Yushchenko of the mythology of the “Holodomor” as a purposeful genocide of Ukrainians by the Soviet government. The same series included manipulations with the holiday date of May 9: the adoption of a special act declaring May 8 as a holiday. In Ukraine, a very controversial system of national symbols has been formed, which is increasingly focused on the displacement of the Soviet experience, its achievements, heroes, memorable places and dates. At the same time, new heroes come to the fore - participants in national political movements, accomplices of the Nazis. So, for example, it is very difficult to explain how the decisions of the Ukrainian authorities regarding the awarding of the title Hero of Ukraine correlate. Along with well-known scientists, workers, test pilots, such a high title was awarded to R. Shukhevych, and then to S. Bandera. And, despite the fact that under President V. Yanukovych these decisions were canceled by the court, they played their role. For some time, schools in Ukraine were taught from history textbooks prepared in the United States, where many events in Russia and Ukraine were viewed from a position that reflected the national interests of the United States, not Ukraine. The stay of Ukraine as part of Russia is interpreted in some textbooks as “impeding the cultural and political development of the Ukrainian people” as the reason for “breaking away from European civilization”, “liquidating independent Ukrainian statehood”.

Links to sources1. Bocharnikov, I.V. On the State Ideology of Russia and International Relations. 2013 No. 1. P. 2227.2. Gadzhiev, D. M. Management of "color revolutions": some regional signs and features// Criminology: yesterday, today, tomorrow. 2014.No.3.S.7780.3. Karpovich, O.G., Manoilo, A.V., Naumov, A.O. Opposition to technologies of color revolutions about the youth environment. Teaching aid. M., 2015.91 p.4. Ovchinnikov A.I. "Controlled chaos" as the main threat to Russia's national security // Philosophy of Law.2014.No.3.С.98101.5. Tsygankov, P.A. universal values ​​in world and foreign policy. M., 2012

Internet broadcast "Finding Meanings"
Theme: "Hybrid war"
Issue #134

Stepan Sulakshin: Good afternoon friends! Today's term, as we agreed, is "hybrid warfare." We will analyze its very phenomenon and content, and this term is still interesting from a methodological point of view, because if we remove the predictor, the determinant, then it simply means war.

Everyone, of course, knows what war is, there is no need to explain anything here, but the addition of a description, characteristics, the word “hybrid” gives rise to a new synthetic term, and it needs to be dealt with. Because it is very difficult for us to immediately look inside ourselves and say exactly and definitely what is meant by this term. That is why this term is very relevant. So, Vardan Ernestovich Baghdasaryan begins.

Vardan Baghdasaryan: I’ll start with a quote from a Russian classic: “ If there is a whistle and uproar about the love of power and the lust for conquest in Russia, know that any of the Western European powers is preparing the most shameless seizure of someone else's land ". This was said by Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov in 1876 in connection with the events in Serbia.

At that time, Russia had not yet intervened in the war, Russian troops had not yet been sent, but she supported the rebels - Serbs, Bulgarians, against whom the Turkish massacre was carried out with the approval of the West.

It is clear that today this concept - "hybrid war" is used against Russia. It is clear that this concept was introduced in order to say that Russia is an aggressor and that she is waging war. But Western countries do the same. Both the Americans and the British do not seem to be participating in the war, but there are instructors, there are so-called private armies, and so on. It seems to be not a belligerent, but they take part in the war.

There is a matrix. In our post-Soviet period, they imitate the West in everything, but the old Russian formula on which the Russian political position was built is forgotten: "God is not in power, but in truth." If you play chess with the devil, you will still lose, because you play by his rules, so it is more correct to play from the position of truth.

If there is aggression, and this aggression comes from the West, then Russia's participation is direct. War means war, and there are no halftones here, when we seem to have nothing to do with it, but with the other hand we provide support. This position is vulnerable, and the concept of "hybrid war" that has developed in the West hits Russia directly.

What is a hybrid? A hybrid is a new product that results from crossing varieties of this product. Hybrid war seems to be not a war, but at the same time a war. In general, such intersecting concepts are characteristic of postmodernity.

The concepts of "hybrid", "hybrid form" were applied to political organizations - "hybrid political organizations". It seems that the organizations are not political, but at the same time they carry out political functions.

In particular, the literature refers to the Milan football club fan organizations founded by Berlusconi. It seems that these are Milan fans, but in fact they provided political support, solved the political tasks that Milan President Berlusconi set for them.

We, when there was no concept of "hybrid war", had the same format, the perestroika opposition movement began as an environmental movement. It would seem that this movement is ecological, but at the same time it was not ecological, but political, and it played an important political role, including in destabilizing the social situation in the USSR.

The development of this concept - "hybrid war", is a very characteristic indicator. Initially, when it was just introduced into circulation, it was not applied to the context of Russia and the content was completely different. When this concept was used, it was interpreted as a combination of war in its classical sense, guerrilla warfare, terrorism, cyber warfare, in general, completely different components. They referred, in particular, to the actions of Hezbollah in the Lebanese war and in other regional wars. Here there was no active participation in the war, but rebels, elements of guerrilla warfare, and so on were used.

By and large, although they try to present this phenomenon as something fundamentally new, such elements can also be found in history. For example, the concept of "Scythian war" also falls under this definition, but here the change in discourse is indicative.

When the situation of 2014 arises - Russia's participation in the events in the Donbass, the paradigm of the interpretation of the hybrid war changes. Here, a hybrid war is no longer a mixture of various tactics, it is actually a war without a direct declaration of war, without direct participation. The discourse has changed, and this discourse is used in an accentuated manner against the Russian position.

Further more. In publications in the media, the concept of "hybrid war" is used more and more often. Several publications have appeared that not only in Ukraine, Russia is waging a hybrid war, it is waging a hybrid war globally. According to publications in Russia Today, Russia is a global aggressor because it uses cyber techniques, propaganda tools, and so on, and Russia turns into a kind of aggressor, and not just a regional aggressor, but a planetary aggressor.

In the latest National Security Strategy of the United States of America, the topic of Russian aggression sounds like a threat to the whole world, and not just to Ukraine, as a global threat, and it is accentuated inflated. Thus, the concept of "hybrid warfare" can be classified as a cognitive weapon, it is used in this way, and as this cognitive weapon it must be perceived, and the reaction to it must be organized accordingly.

Stepan Sulakshin: Thank you, Vardan Ernestovich. Vladimir Nikolaevich Leksin.

Vladimir Leksin: The phrase "hybrid war", on the one hand, is understandable, that is, it is something mixed - military, non-military actions, and so on, on the other hand, it is a holistic thing. The concept of the integrity of what is called a hybrid war is increasingly taking over the minds of the military, analysts, political scientists, but first of all, of course, the military.

Military strategy, as we were taught at one time, includes several types of wars: ordinary wars, small wars, regional wars, but these are all wars when the armed forces of one side act against the armed forces of the other side.

In these wars, nuclear, biological, chemical, and various non-traditional weapons are used, but still, in conventional, classical wars, the main ones are conventional weapons, or, as the Americans have come to call them now, “lethal weapons.” Lethal weapons primarily lead to the death of military personnel, the military forces of the state with which the war is being waged.

There is also the concept of "symmetrical warfare". This is a war between the armed forces pursuing an aggressive policy and various potential participants in this war, who then become its real participants. The classic example is afghan wars, the one in which the Soviet Union participated, and the one that is still being fought in Afghanistan.

What do they think about hybrid wars abroad and here? There are official documents, such as the "white paper" of the US Army Special Operations Command. It is freely available, it can be found on the Internet, and it is called "Counteraction to unconventional warfare." It has a separate concept, which is called "Win in a complex world."

I will briefly outline the essence of a two-page definition on this matter. This is war, real military action, which implies mainly undeclared, covert, but nonetheless typical military operations, during which the belligerent side attacks the state structures and / or the regular army of the enemy with the help of local rebels and separatists, supported by weapons and finance from abroad and some internal structures: oligarchs, organized crime, nationalist, pseudo-religious organizations.

The same US and NATO documents that I have already mentioned indicate that, given the fundamental role of the armed forces, for successful confrontation in hybrid wars, most often at the middle or final stage of such a war, one should unite the efforts of their governments, the army, and intelligence under the auspices of the United States in this case, within the framework of, I quote, "a comprehensive interdepartmental, intergovernmental and international strategy."

That is, we are still talking about the fact that not only those two countries that are clearly in conflict, but also the forces of other countries are connected to hybrid wars at the same time. What are the actions of these external forces? I quote: "Actions consist in assisting the rebels and recruiting supporters, their training, operational and logistical support, impact on the economy and the social sphere, coordination of diplomatic efforts, as well as in the conduct of individual military operations." All this, without any exception, is now taking place on the territory of Ukraine.

In conducting hybrid wars, a significant role is given to what is called “public diplomacy”. It is understood as forces capable of exerting the necessary influence on the parties to the conflict in order to give events the desired direction. It is enough to recall the Maidan, how its vector changed depending on how external forces applied their specific efforts to this. At the same time, opposition to information attacks of the enemy is organized.

In hybrid wars, intelligence plays a much greater role than in typical or classic wars, when “army against army”, because here you need to know well what is happening on the territory of a potential enemy. You need to know all its internal capabilities, and most importantly, you need to know the layout of social forces in this country: opposition, pseudo-opposition structures, as well as structures that can stir up the masses when necessary.

Two quotes. Boss General Staff of the Armed Forces, General of the Army Gerasimov at the military-scientific conference of the Academy of Military Sciences in January 2014 says: “The role of non-military methods of achieving political strategic goals has increased, which in some cases, in terms of their effectiveness, I emphasize, are significantly superior to military means. They are supplemented by covert military measures, including information confrontation measures, the actions of special operations forces, and the use of the protest potential of the population.”

Once again, this is a speech by the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. According to authoritative experts, military and political observers, everything that has just been said is extremely important for Russia. There is a concrete proposal that under the existing conditions the concept of "hybrid war" should be included in the context that we have just talked about, in what is called the doctrinal documents of the Russian Federation.

A hybrid war is not a phantom, it is not a fantasy, it is a reality that has long had its own clear contours, its own ideas about the alignment of forces and, most importantly, about its effectiveness. I emphasize once again that the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation believes that the means that are used in hybrid warfare are superior to military means before the military ones enter into action, if they enter at all. Thank you for attention.

Stepan Sulakshin: Thanks, Vladimir Nikolaevich. The concept of a classic war is shaped in our routine consciousness by patriotic historical education and upbringing. What is it? There is a front line, on one side of it ours, on the other not ours. We're invading, we're reclaiming land, and that's a thing of the past.

But in reality, new forms of war are emerging as an armed confrontation between states. These three key words - armed confrontation between states - will be needed here. There are many new types of armed confrontation between states, this is a consequence of technical, technological development, offensive and defensive weapons, technologies, technologies of confrontation.

In this regard, weapons are no longer only a means of physical destruction, when a bullet flies and hits the body of a soldier, and a projectile explodes material objects, here the means and goals of destruction are somewhat changing.

For example, the mass consciousness of the population, the expert consciousness of those who make government decisions, up to deputies, congressmen, ministers, and presidents of the country, changes when they are instilled with certain theories, certain value positions, and they motivate people for certain actions. And this is also a state confrontation.

This confrontation is armed, because it is achieved by special technologies, special information, including technical devices, global network information distributed devices, and so on.

Therefore, when the phrase “hybrid war” arose quite recently, it had all this prehistory under it - the improvement of the means and types of armed confrontation between states. This term reflects the real achievements and realities of the use of means of struggle in the modern political world, the world of confrontation between states.

I want to give a definition, which we will still hone and polish in the future interdisciplinary dictionary. So, “a hybrid war is a type of military confrontation between states that involves in armed actions, in addition to the regular army or instead of the regular army, special services and special missions, hired forces, partisan forces, mass protest riots, terrorist attacks, while the goal of a hybrid war may be not an occupation, but a change of political regime or state policy in the attacked country.”

The last part of this definition means that the classic goals of war are the capture material resources, which once were slaves, territories, natural resources, treasury, wealth, gold, are not a thing of the past. The goals of the aggressive armed struggle of states have changed their form of being, and they are achieved differently. It is enough to make the political regime of the enemy country puppet, desovereign, subordinate to the country aggressively attacking, and it will make decisions in favor of the victorious country.

But the position of Russia in this balance is unenviable, the consumerism coefficient is significantly less than one. We produce and give to the global consumer balance more than we consume domestically. Here's the bottom line. There was no "hot" war with Russia, but the goals were achieved, the goals that Hitler set. Hitler failed to achieve them, but the West did.

Therefore, there is a generic, nuclear, semantic similarity between a hybrid war and a conventional war. Their goals are the same - to receive benefits at the expense and as a result of victory over the enemy state.

The West knows very well how hybrid wars are made, and the term itself came from there. Testing of hybrid wars was carried out in Iraq, in Syria, in Ukraine. According to the political world, the West, Russia is now waging a hybrid war against Ukraine. The mass of objective signs that fit into our definition confirm that modern methods of state confrontation are not alien to Russia.

A similar war was waged by the West 30 years ago in Afghanistan while the contingent was there. Soviet Union. It is quite obvious that such a war is being prepared against Russia. Understanding the content of this term, this category, we see these preparatory works. We see approbation, trainings, accumulation of resources, development of infrastructures within our country. A soft and related form of hybrid warfare is the already well-known “color” revolutions.

Thus, it turns out that hybrid war is a modern evolutionary form of war as such. The newest forms of war include a number of wars: information, network, cognitive war, cyber war, distant war in Yugoslavia, war in the first phase in Iraq. And then came the hybrid war.

But, my friends, what is amazing? We take and read very fresh, 2014, documents: "The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation", "The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation", "The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation". You will be amazed, but none of these documents contain the concept of “hybrid warfare”, they do not contain the concept of information warfare, network warfare, cognitive warfare, distant warfare, cyber warfare. There is not a single concept of modern wars there.

Well, what can I say? It remains only to shrug. Therefore, it seems to us that our attempt not only to streamline our brains, but also to bring into the discourse an understanding of the latest precise semantic interpretations, including about things that threaten our country, is a very important matter.

Thank you. Next time we go to find the meaning of the term "political responsibility". It will be interesting, because responsibility is also not an unambiguous thing, but a kind of multi-meaning one. All the best. See you.

In recent years, the topic of hybrid warfare has been actively discussed in the media and at various scientific forums. Specialists give different, often mutually exclusive, definitions of this phenomenon, which has not yet acquired terminological stability and clarity.

Such disagreement is due, for example, to the fact that, according to some Russian political scientists, “there are no scientific criteria that would allow us to identify the war as a hybrid one or to assert that we are talking about a revolution in military affairs.” And if so, then there is no need to deal with this problem, they say. However, practice shows that the terms "hybrid wars" (as well as "color revolutions") describe objective, real-life phenomena that have a noticeable impact on national and international security. Moreover, the qualitative evolutionary leap of these two phenomena took place at the beginning of the 21st century.

DETERMINANTS OF A REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS

It is known that the revolution in military affairs is associated with fundamental changes taking place under the influence of scientific and technological progress in the development of means of armed struggle, in the construction and training of the Armed Forces, in the methods of warfare and military operations.

The modern revolution in military affairs began after the Second World War in connection with the equipping of the Armed Forces with nuclear, electronic equipment, automated control systems and other new means. Thus, the determinants of the revolution were technological changes.

Hybrid war brought nothing of the kind with it. It has been repeatedly noted that it does not require the development of new weapon systems and uses what is available. Rather, it represents a model based on slower evolution, in which technological progress plays a smaller role in comparison with organizational, information technology, managerial, logistical and some other general non-material changes. Thus, if a revolution in military affairs is taking place, then without drastic changes in the methods and organization of confrontation, which includes non-military and military means. Apparently modern science only "gropes" for the criteria of this phenomenon, but the significance and necessity of this work cannot be overestimated. So the absence of revolutionary changes is not yet a reason for refusing to study this phenomenon.

Moreover, one of the founders of the term "hybrid war" American military expert F. Hoffman claims that the 21st century is becoming the century of hybrid wars, in which the enemy "instantly and coherently uses a complex combination of legal weapons, guerrilla warfare, terrorism and criminal behavior on the battlefield to achieve political goals". From such large-scale and bold forecasts, it is not far from the assertion of another revolution in military affairs related to the development of hybrid technologies.

So far, as a result of the existing uncertainty, the term "hybrid war" is widely used in scientific discussions, however, it is practically not found in open Russian official documents and in the speeches of politicians and the military. The vagueness of this term is noted by some Russian political scientists: the term “hybrid war” “is not an operational concept. This is a figurative characteristic of the war, it does not contain clear, unambiguous indicators that reveal its specifics. This is followed by the conclusion that in the military professional discourse today this term is counterproductive, and “focusing attention and efforts on preparing for a hybrid war is fraught with forgetting the invariant foundations and principles of military strategy and tactics and, consequently, incomplete, one-sided preparation of the country and armies for a possible war.

This is true on the understanding that it is impossible to prepare the country and the Armed Forces only for a hybrid war. That is why the Military Doctrine, the National Security Strategy and other doctrinal documents of Russia should be comprehensive and take into account the whole gamut of possible conflicts from a color revolution - a hybrid war - a large-scale conventional war and up to a general nuclear war.

However, not everyone agrees with the idea of ​​abandoning the study of problems associated with the hybridization of modern conflicts. Thus, political scientist Pavel Tsygankov, for his part, notes that “the prevailing point of view has become, the authors of which believe that hybrid wars are a completely new phenomenon”, they “become a reality that is difficult to deny and which actualizes the need to study their essence and the possibilities of countering them in defending the national interests of the Russian Federation”.

Such discord among domestic military experts is one of the reasons why the concept of “hybrid warfare” is not found in Russian strategic planning documents. At the same time, our adversaries, under the guise of sophisticated information warfare strategies, on the one hand, are already using the term itself for far-fetched accusations of Russia of cunning, cruelty and the use of dirty technologies in Ukraine, and on the other hand, they themselves are planning and implementing complex "hybrid" subversive measures against our country and its CSTO allies in Ukraine, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Given the use of a wide range of subversive hybrid technologies against Russia, the prospect of turning a modern hybrid war into a special type of conflict is quite real, which is fundamentally different from the classic ones and risks transforming into a permanent, extremely cruel and destructive confrontation that violates all norms of international law.

A FLUSHED BORDER BETWEEN MODERN CONFLICTS

In the confrontation with Russia, the US and NATO rely on the use of the basic strategies of any kind of war - the strategies of crushing and exhaustion, which the outstanding Russian military theorist Alexander Svechin spoke about. He noted that "the concepts of crushing and exhaustion extend not only to strategy, but also to politics, and to the economy, and to boxing, to any manifestation of the struggle and must be explained by the very dynamics of the latter."

In this context, the strategies of crushing and starvation are implemented or can be implemented in the course of a full range of conflicts of our time, which are interconnected and form a kind of multi-component destructive tandem. The components of the tandem: color revolution - hybrid war - conventional war - war using the entire spectrum of WMD, including nuclear weapons.

The color revolution represents the initial stage of destabilization and is based on the strategy of crushing the government of the victim state: color revolutions increasingly take the form of armed struggle, are developed according to the rules of military art, and all available tools are used. First of all - the means of information warfare and special forces. If it is not possible to change the government in the country, then conditions are created for an armed confrontation with the aim of further “shattering” the objectionable government. It should be noted that the transition to the large-scale use of military force is an important criterion for the development of the military-political situation from the stage of a color revolution to a hybrid war.

On the whole, color revolutions are built mainly on non-military methods of achieving political and strategic goals, which in some cases far exceed military means in their effectiveness. As part of the adaptive use of force, they are supplemented by information confrontation measures, the use of the protest potential of the population, a system for training militants and replenishing their formations from abroad, covert supply of weapons, the use of special operations forces and private military companies.

If it is not possible to achieve the goal of a color revolution in a short time, at a certain stage, a transition to military measures of an open nature can be carried out, which is another step in the escalation and brings the conflict to a new dangerous level - a hybrid war.

The boundaries between conflicts are rather vague. On the one hand, this ensures the continuity of the process of “flowing” of one type of conflict into another and contributes to the flexible adaptation of the political and military strategies used to the realities of political situations. On the other hand, the system of criteria has not yet been sufficiently developed to clearly define the basic characteristics certain types conflicts (primarily the "bundle" of the color revolution - hybrid and conventional war) in the process of transformation. At the same time, conventional war is still the most dangerous form of conflict, especially in terms of its scale. However, conflicts of a different kind are more likely - with mixed methods of warfare.

It is for such a confrontation with Russia that the Ukrainian armed forces are preparing the West. To this end, in the south-east of Ukraine, conditions are being created for a further escalation of violence from a hybrid to a full-scale conventional war using all modern weapons systems and military equipment. Evidence of qualitative changes is the transition to the tactics of sabotage and terrorist actions on Russian territory. The authors of such a strategy seem to underestimate the threat of the local conflict provoked by them escalating into a large-scale military clash in Europe with the prospect of its expansion to a global scale.

THE HYBRID WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS ALREADY ON. AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING...

The intensification of subversive actions of the West against Russia in the early 2000s coincided with the refusal of the new Russian leadership to obediently follow in the wake of US policy. Prior to this, the consent of the ruling "elites" of Russia to the role of a slave country for a long time determined the internal and external strategy of the state in the late 80s and in the final decade of the last century.

Today, in the face of increasing threats, much more attention needs to be paid to multidimensional conflicts or hybrid wars (it's not the name) than has been done so far. Moreover, the preparation of a country and its armed forces for a conflict of this type should cover a wide range of areas and take into account the possibility of transforming a hybrid war into a conventional one, and later into a war using WMD, up to the use of nuclear weapons.

It is in this context that last years Russian allies in the CSTO are beginning to speak seriously about the phenomenon of hybrid warfare. Thus, the real danger of a hybrid war was noted by the Minister of Defense of the Republic of Belarus, General Andrei Ravkov, at the 4th Moscow Conference on International Security in April 2015. He emphasized that “it is the “hybrid war” that integrates in its essence the entire range of means of confrontation - from the most modern and technological (“cyber warfare” and information warfare) to the use of terrorist methods and tactics that are primitive in nature and tactics in the conduct of armed struggle, linked by common plan and goals and aimed at destroying the state, undermining its economy, destabilizing the internal socio-political situation. It seems that the definition contains a fairly clear criterion that determines the difference between a hybrid war and other types of conflicts.

Developing this idea, it can be argued that a hybrid war is multidimensional, since it includes many other subspaces (military, informational, economic, political, sociocultural, etc.) in its space. Each of the subspaces has its own structure, its own laws, terminology, development scenario. The multidimensional nature of a hybrid war is due to an unprecedented combination of a set of measures of military and non-military influence on the enemy in real time, the diversity and different nature of which determines the property of a kind of "blurring" of the boundaries between the actions of regular forces and the irregular insurgent / guerrilla movement, the actions of terrorists, which are accompanied by outbreaks of indiscriminate violence and criminal acts. The absence of clear criteria for hybrid actions under conditions of a chaotic synthesis of both their organization and the means used significantly complicates the tasks of forecasting and planning preparations for conflicts of this type. It will be shown below that it is precisely in these properties of hybrid warfare that many Western experts see a unique opportunity to use this concept in military studies of past, present and future conflicts in strategic forecasting and planning of the development of the Armed Forces.

FOCUS ON US AND NATO MILITARY PREPARATIONS

So far, there is no consensus on the issue of hybrid warfare in the US military circles either. The US military prefers to use the term “full-spectrum operations” to describe modern multi-dimensional operations that involve regular and irregular forces, use information technology, conduct cyber warfare, and use other means and methods characteristic of hybrid warfare. In this regard, the concept of "hybrid warfare" is practically not found in the strategic planning documents of the US Armed Forces.

NATO demonstrates a different approach to the problem of future conflicts in the context of complex non-traditional or hybrid wars. On the one hand, the leaders of the alliance argue that a hybrid war in itself does not bring anything new, and mankind has been encountering various hybrid variants of military operations for many millennia. According to the secretary general of the alliance J. Stoltenberg, "the first hybrid war known to us was associated with the Trojan horse, so we have already seen it."

At the same time, while recognizing that there is little new in the concept of hybrid war, Western analysts see it as a convenient tool for analyzing past, present and future wars and developing substantive plans.

It was this approach that led NATO to move from theoretical discussions on the topic of hybrid threats and wars to the practical use of the concept. On the basis of Russia's far-fetched accusations of waging a hybrid war against Ukraine, NATO became the first military-political organization in which this phenomenon was discussed at the official level - at the summit in Wales in 2014. Even then, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General F. Breedlove, raised the issue of the need to prepare NATO for participation in a new type of war, the so-called hybrid wars, which include a wide range of direct hostilities and covert operations carried out according to a single plan by the armed forces , partisan (non-military) formations and also includes the actions of various civilian components.

In the interests of improving the ability of the allies to counter the new threat, it was proposed to establish coordination between the ministries of the interior, to involve police and gendarmerie forces to suppress non-traditional threats associated with propaganda campaigns, cyber attacks and the actions of local separatists.

Subsequently, the alliance made the problem of hybrid threats and hybrid war one of the central issues on its agenda. The 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw took concrete “steps to ensure its ability to effectively meet the challenges of hybrid warfare, in which state and non-state actors employ a wide, complex range of diversely intertwined conventional and non-traditional means, overt and covert military, paramilitary and civilian measures. In response to this challenge, we have adopted a strategy and substantive implementation plans for NATO's role in countering hybrid warfare."

The text of this strategy did not appear in the public domain. However, an analysis of a rather extensive body of scientific research and NATO documents on the problem of hybrid wars allows us to draw some preliminary conclusions on the alliance's approaches.

An important place in NATO strategy is given to the question of how to convince the governments of the allied countries of the need to use all organizational capabilities to fend off hybrid threats and not try to act only on the basis of high tech. In this context, the special role of ground forces in hybrid warfare is emphasized. At the same time, it is considered necessary to develop the potential for cooperation with non-military actors, quickly build military-civilian relations, and provide humanitarian assistance. Thus, it is planned to use the hybrid war format for a kind of up and down play, the use of “soft and hard power” technologies on the blurred border between peace and war. Such a set of means and methods provides the aggressor state with new unique tools for putting pressure on the enemy.

One of the main tasks of a hybrid war is to keep the level of violence in the state-object of aggression below the level of intervention by existing organizations for ensuring international security in the post-Soviet space, such as the UN, OSCE or CSTO. This, in turn, requires the development of new adaptive concepts and organizational structures for the creeping collapse and suffocation of the victim state and its own protection against hybrid threats.

TRANSFORMING NATO SECURITY THREATS ASSESSMENTS

Challenges, Risks, Dangers and Threats (HRDS) are a key, system-forming factor in the current strategic concept of NATO, and the results of the analysis of VRDS in the document "Many Threats in the Future" provide a scientific and practical basis for strategic forecasting and planning of the military component of the alliance's activities. Some of these threats have already become real.

According to analysts, the most significant are the threats associated with climate change, lack of resources and a widening gap between states with a developed market economy and countries that have failed to fit into the processes of globalization and innovative development. Friction between these countries will increase due to the growth of nationalism, an increase in population in poor regions, which can lead to massive and uncontrolled migration flows from these regions to more prosperous ones; threats related to the underestimation of security issues by the governments of developed countries. It is believed that many NATO countries are paying unreasonably much attention to solving internal problems, while the supply routes of strategic raw materials are under threat or have already been violated, pirates at sea are becoming more active, drug trafficking is growing; threats associated with the unification of technologically advanced countries into a kind of global network, which will be subject to increased pressure from less developed states and authoritarian regimes in the context of increased dependence on access to vital resources, increased terrorism, extremism, and exacerbation of territorial disputes. And finally, the threats associated with an increase in the number of states or their alliances that use economic growth and the spread of technologies for the production of WMD and their means of delivery to pursue a policy from a position of strength, deterrence, ensuring energy independence and building up military potential. The world will not be dominated by one or two superpowers, it will actually become multipolar. This will take place against the background of the weakening authority of international organizations, the strengthening of nationalist sentiments and the desire of a number of states to improve their own status. It should also be noted that the threats in each of the groups are of a hybrid nature, although this term was not used in NATO documents at that time.

In recent years, alliance analysts have clarified the geography and content of the ARDU that NATO faces in modern conditions. These are two groups of strategic challenges and security threats, the sources of which are located on the eastern and southern borders of the bloc. Threats are of a hybrid nature, due to different subjects - the sources of threats, the scale, composition and density of the threats themselves. The definition of hybrid war is also given, which is seen as “a combination and mixture of various means of conflict, regular and irregular, dominating the physical and psychological battlefield under information and media control in order to reduce risk. It is possible to deploy heavy weapons to suppress the will of the enemy and prevent the population from supporting the legitimate authorities.”

The unifying factor for threat complexes is the likelihood of using ballistic missiles against NATO forces and facilities in the east and south, which requires the improvement of the European missile defense system. At the same time, if in the east there is an interstate confrontation in which the alliance deals with a fairly wide range of threats with different characteristics, then the threats in the south are not related to interstate contradictions, and their spectrum is noticeably narrower.

According to NATO military experts, the set of threats on the "eastern flank" is characterized by a sophisticated, integrated adaptive approach to the use of force. A combination of non-coercive and coercive methods is skillfully applied, including cyber warfare, information warfare, disinformation, the surprise factor, proxy fighting and the use of special operations forces. Political sabotage, economic pressure are used, intelligence is being actively conducted.

NATO member states, as a strategic key task, are required to timely uncover subversive actions aimed at destabilizing and splitting individual members of the alliance and the entire bloc as a whole. At the same time, the solution of this problem is primarily within the competence of the national leadership.

Threats on the "southern flank" of NATO are fundamentally different from the confrontation that is developing in the interstate format in the east. In the south, NATO strategy aims to prevent and protect against the threats of civil war, extremism, terrorism, uncontrolled migration and WMD proliferation. The detonators of these types of threats are lack of food and drinking water, poverty, disease, the collapse of the management system in a number of African countries. As a result, according to NATO, in the arc of instability that stretches from the countries of North Africa to Central Asia, a pronounced “European branch” has appeared, which requires the alliance to increase its ability to respond immediately. NATO's Rapid and Ultra-Rapid Response Force, which is designed to be used in all directions from which hybrid threats originate, is the most important tool for planning operations taking into account the specifics of threats from the east and south. In the southern direction, to parry threats, it is planned to additionally attract partners after they are appropriately equipped and trained.

INTERACTION OF NATO AND THE EU

Hybrid warfare involves the measured use of arsenals of hard and soft power. In this context, NATO, as a military-political organization, is aware of the limitations of its own capabilities in the field of "soft power", economic sanctions and humanitarian operations. To compensate for such systemic deficiency the alliance is actively enlisting the EU as an ally in countering hybrid threats.

As part of a unified strategy, the United States, NATO and the EU intend to unite the efforts of their governments, armies and intelligence agencies under the auspices of the United States in the framework of a "comprehensive interagency, intergovernmental and international strategy" and to make the most effective use of the methods of "political, economic, military and psychological pressure, taking into account the fact that that hybrid warfare is the use of a combination of conventional, irregular, and asymmetric means combined with constant manipulation of political and ideological conflict. The Armed Forces play a fundamental role in hybrid wars, for which NATO and the EU agreed in 2017-2018 to deepen the coordination of plans for military exercises to develop the task of countering hybrid threats.

The joint efforts of the US, NATO and the EU are bearing tangible results. Lost (perhaps temporarily) Ukraine. Under the threat of Russia's position in Serbia - our only ally in the Balkans, where there is not a single party in parliament advocating an alliance with our country. Possibilities of "soft influence" of the Russian mass media, public organizations are poorly used, military, educational and cultural contacts are insufficient. Correcting the situation is not cheap, but the losses will cost more.

In this context, coordinated measures to create an appropriate “soft barrier” against the penetration of disruptive technologies aimed at the collapse and disunity of both Russian society and Russia’s ties with allies and partners. The task is to unite and coordinate the efforts of the expert community.

The urgency of such a step is determined by the fact that today NATO is actively developing strategies for the so-called transition period from the relatively vague military-political situation typical of a hybrid war to a classic conventional war using the entire spectrum of conventional weapons. At the same time, the possibility of events getting out of control due to an erroneous assessment, an accidental incident or a deliberate escalation, which can lead to an uncontrolled expansion of the conflict, remains outside the brackets.

CONCLUSIONS FOR RUSSIA

The most important component of the deterrence strategy, approved at the NATO summit in Warsaw, is a hybrid war waged against Russia and the CSTO member states with the aim of weakening and disintegrating them. Information warfare strategies, which cover the cultural and ideological sphere, interfere in sports, educational and cultural exchanges, and in the activities of religious organizations, have reached a special scope and sophistication today.

The hybrid war against Russia has been going on for a long time, but it has not yet reached its climax. Within the country in major cities and in the regions, with the support of the fifth column, springboards for the color revolution are being strengthened, preparations are underway for the deployment of large-scale actions in all areas of the hybrid war. Alarming "calls" have already sounded from a number of central and southern regions.

The cumulative effect of military preparations and subversive information technologies forms a real threat to the national security of the Russian state.

For national security structures, important organizational conclusions from the current threatening situation should be to ensure the adaptation of doctrinal documents, the personnel of the RF Armed Forces and other power structures and equipment to the changing spectrum of threats and the build-up of military training measures with the decisive role of intelligence based on both new technologies, as well as humanitarian and cultural instruments. It is important at the state level to ensure a balanced balance of "hard and soft power" potentials. Particular attention should be paid to the protection of the Russian language and its study in Russia and abroad, especially in countries historically and culturally gravitating toward Russia.

In this context, a discussion in the Russian military-scientific community on issues of hybrid warfare and countering hybrid threats is certainly necessary and is already laying the foundation for more detailed assessments and recommendations. Given the real danger of modern subversive actions of the West in the framework of creating state system promising research and development in the field of science and military technologies, it is necessary to provide for the creation of a special center with the task of in-depth study of the entire spectrum of modern conflicts, including color revolutions and hybrid wars, as well as strategies for combining them with information wars and controlled chaos technologies.

Hybrid war against Russia - this term appeared in the everyday life of the citizens of our country a decade ago. It has been known to professionals since the 1990s. The Western media refer to the ongoing events on the world stage as Putin's hybrid war against Ukraine. Is this really so?

What is the essence of hybrid warfare?

The logical outcome of the confrontation between states (blocs, coalitions) is victory. Modern technologies provided an opportunity to inflict defeat without millions of casualties on the battlefield. The participation of the armed forces is part of the overall strategy:

1. Undermine the economy of the state. Methods: sanctions, embargo, maneuvering on world prices of strategic raw materials and currency;
2. Reduce the morale of the population and the armed forces. Methods: the collapse of the domestic and foreign markets, the initiation of a jump in inflation, rising unemployment, terrorist attacks, intimidating events, and so on;
3. Blocking the opinion of the world community through the media. Monopolization of international information resources, provision of distorted data, deliberate concealment of facts, simulation of non-existent events;
4. Depletion of financial resources, the collapse of the state budget. Method - involvement in a military conflict, entailing material costs;
5. Undermining trust in the current government. Manipulation of public consciousness, support for the radical opposition, initiation of riots, "color revolutions", protests;
6. Other economic, informational, sociological and political components.

What is NATO hybrid warfare on the battlefield?

NATO's hybrid wars have changed the classic understanding of warfare. Tactics take on new forms distinctive features which are:

• hostilities take place on the territory of other states that are not direct participants in the confrontation;
• units formed from civilians (volunteer detachments, extremist armed groups, human shields from those not liable for military service, etc.) participate in the civil war;
• overseeing hostilities by NATO consultants;
• provision of weapons, supplies, uniforms, ammunition, equipment.

The theory of conducting hybrid wars of the USA and NATO at the domestic political level

It is possible to gain control over the state serving as a springboard for further actions if the current government, which is loyal to the enemy state, is neutralized. Instead, you need to put in a government that will unquestioningly carry out orders, even to the detriment of its own country.

This means that the hybrid war strategy allows:

• impeachment of the president;
• armed coup;
• the overthrow of power by the method of insurrection;
• liquidation of the first leader of the country and persons holding key positions;
• recruitment of opposition leaders;
• bribery of parliamentarians and deputies;
• material support for radical forces;
• other violent and non-violent ways to remove the president and the government from office.

Hybrid war is a conspiracy between states against one country. This fact means that the participants are not only the United States, but also all those included in the NATO bloc.

The foreign policy side of the hybrid war against Russia

The reasons for the Ukrainian destabilization lie in the reluctance of V.F. Yanukovych to become part of the alliance. Awareness of the benefits of cooperation with Russia, understanding the importance of strategic partnership, the desire to return loans to the International Monetary Fund. These factors served as a catalyst for unleashing the conflict.

This does not mean that the war could not happen. The behavior of the United States and Western partners indicated that a global confrontation was inevitable. It started in the last decades of the twentieth century. Hybrid war on the territory of Ukraine is another round.

Place of battles in hybrid wars

The definition of a mixed war (hybrid) does not imply a specific territorial feature. Modern world economy implies close ties between states that do not border each other. Location on different continents is also not decisive.

The place of action can be any state that is in the orbit of the interests of the Russian Federation. By causing a revolutionary conflict, a coup, a civil war, or sponsoring a terrorist group, the United States can force the Russian Federation to participate in solving the problem. This fact means material costs, the ability to expose what is happening as an invasion, capture, establishment of a regime or annexation.

Modern technologies involve conducting hybrid wars in cyberspace. Blocking Internet information sources, attacks on control and management systems of strategic objects of military and civilian importance. Restrictions on the exchange of technologies and developments. These factors are levers of pressure directed against Russia.

world markets. Here the battles are just as fierce. The decline in prices for strategic raw materials provokes the fall of the national currency. We will not enumerate all the ways to influence the economy of the state. Suffice it to say that the defense capability of countries directly depends on the world market (raw materials, foreign exchange, production).

Signing agreements on interstate cooperation, wooing states to their side with promises, loans, deceit, bribery of key officials are methods to reduce the influence of the enemy on the world stage and to initiate the fall of the domestic economy.

The place of conducting hybrid wars is the entire globe and near-Earth space(battle for supremacy within the orbit). The sphere of influence is any activity of human civilization. At present, Russian Federation takes a hit and is able to respond to it without violating international ethical standards.

If you have any questions - leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them.

A really sharp and harsh aggravation of relations between Russia and the collective West gives rise to a huge number of questions - is this already a war or are there still some opportunities and chances to avoid a hot conflict?

Western politicians have been talking about a hybrid war unleashed by Russia for several years. At the same time, it is argued that it was the insidious Russians who came up with the hybrid war, who, due to their innate aggressiveness and cunning inherent in Asians, invent and implement plans to conquer the peace-loving and full of democratic values ​​of the West.

Let's, for starters, try to figure out when and where the term "hybrid war" came from. Wikipedia claims that humanity has been waging hybrid wars for many centuries, and the Peloponnesian war can be considered the first example of such a war. However, Wikipedia, as it sometimes happens, lies.

The term "hybrid warfare" first appeared in American and military documents at the beginning of the 21st century. At about the same time (2005-2009), the works of Western experts and analysts appeared on the methods and techniques of conducting a hybrid war. In Russia, they began to seriously write about hybrid warfare (analysis, study of experience, forecasts, etc.) after 2015. These are facts.

What is, in short, a hybrid war?

A hybrid war is clearly a type of hostile action in which the attacking side masks its aggression: conditionally covert operations of special services and special forces, cyber attacks, fairly open support for the opposition and rebels on enemy territory, followed by, at the last stage, the involvement of its own armed forces.

The attacking side exercises strategic leadership of aggression, while denying in every possible way its involvement in the conflict and not openly calling itself a party to the conflict.

The purpose of a hybrid war is the subjugation of a certain territory. At the initial stage, informational aggression is carried out, then diplomatic and economic.

A specific feature of a hybrid war is that until the moment of actual subjugation of the territory, the layman does not realize the reality of the threat, does not have the ability to determine the true source of the threat and the scale of this threat. As a result, society as a whole does not understand how to counter this threat.

This is how, very briefly, the theory of hybrid warfare developed in the West looks like.

Another funny concept attributed exclusively to Russia is A2 / AD (anti-access and areadenial). The Russians create certain spatial areas in which, due to the concentration of a complex of weapons in these areas, access is prohibited for the curious and peaceful armed forces of the collective West. Which proves the aggressive intentions of Russia.

Let's look at the A2/AD concept first. Surprisingly, the Russians who “invented” this terrible concept have no theoretical justification for the concept, there is no mention of this new phenomenon in military documents either. The Russians came up with it, but the Russians don't know anything about it?

In the documents of NATO and the military ministries of Western countries, Crimea, the Kaliningrad region, the regions of Severomorsk and Murmansk, Nakhodka and Vladivostok, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, some regions of the Russian Arctic, Russian military bases in Syria are mentioned as examples of A2 / AD zones. It is in these zones that the treacherous Russians are concentrating S-300 and S-400 complexes, Bastions and Iskanders, and electronic warfare equipment.

Based on the list of "dangerous" areas and the "aggressive" weapons deployed in them, being of sound mind and strong memory, one should speak of an exclusively defensive concept. It seems to be normal to protect your military and naval bases from attack from the sea and from the air. Moreover, Russia already has rich historical experience in the defense of Sevastopol and the same Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky from curious guests.

But no, Russia is preparing aggression against the Baltic countries - this statement no longer requires any evidence and is perceived in the West as an axiom. The next object of aggression in the Baltic direction will be the Swedish island of Gotland. Why does Russia need the Baltics and the Swedish islands? Firstly, the Russians just love to attack someone, for this reason they create the A2 / AD zone in the Kaliningrad region. And secondly, Russia wants to ensure the operation of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines through aggression.

Funny? Russia wants to attack NATO and EU countries in order to sell gas to NATO and EU countries! And this nonsense is quite seriously discussed, and the validity of their statements is proved by experts with academic titles and generals with a huge number of stars on shoulder straps. They are idiots? Not without it. There are idiots in this company. But there are really strategists who pursue far-reaching goals.

In fairness, it should be said that there are scientists and military men in the West who are somehow trying to prove that in the case of Russia, the “hybrid war” and “A2 / AD” is a very dangerous hoax. However, at present, the plans of strategists and the reasonable voices of realists are safely drowning in the cheerful victorious propaganda mainstream. Marketers and advertisers from politics today are at the top steps of the political pyramid of power.

After the collapse of the USSR, the West decided that, as a winner, they can do everything and any attempt to resist the progressive liberal ideology should be suppressed harshly and without regard to international law. And to suppress such resistance, the theory of hybrid war was developed - an attack on the enemy by informational, diplomatic and economic methods, the organization of revolutions and coups through their own special services, and already at the final stage the use of superior, quantitatively and qualitatively, armed forces to support the democratic opposition and overthrow the next inhuman dictator. So it was in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. etc.

Why did they not start aggression with a banal declaration of war? At the initial stage, there was still a formal desire not to openly violate international law and remain in the form of a bright knight on the side of good.

When Russia became indignant at ignoring its rights and threw down an open challenge to the West, when China and a number of other Asian countries timidly but firmly declared their rights, the Western elite turned their heads from such “impudence”. And then it turned out that resting on their laurels, the Western elite, under the slogans of progressive globalism, managed to de-industrialize their countries and partially disarm them. Anyway, at the moment military force it is impossible to bring Russia and other treacherous Asians into obedience.

It was here that the theory of hybrid warfare was most developed up to the appearance of the Russian A2 / AD zones. How did they manage to create areas in Russia where NATO forces would not be able to break through at their first request? And how did Russia close these areas? Not a nuclear umbrella, but a high-tech weapon. This is more than just an insult. Publicly and in a rude way, the myth about the best victorious Western weapons in the world is refuted. Is there a reason for the couch general's hysteria?

Is this aggression? Of course, Russia has shown its aggressive nature! And what did the Russians encroach on? Have they taken away territories or economic markets, bombed NATO cities? No. Russia allowed itself to stop the advance of NATO on its territory, repulsed the attack of Georgia and even dared to take back the Crimea. Theoretically, this is pure defense and self-defense. No, it's aggression. Only aggression is a kind of hybrid. Russia, first of all, encroached on the myth of the invincibility and infallibility of the West. Since there has never been such aggression in history, an ideological justification for their actions was required. This is how the theory of hybrid war appeared and formed in its current form.

The West would be very happy to start against Russia and the most ordinary war. But there are still people in their right mind who assume that such a war for the collective West, at the moment, will not end well.

On the one hand, there is an unconditional physical quantitative superiority in conventional weapons. But these forces are clearly not enough for a full-scale non-nuclear war in Europe. All these transfers of brigades and battalions to the Russian borders are still more hysteria than a real threat. Troops from the “rear” moved to the “front”, and new units are not being formed in the rear. While there is a rearrangement of terms to our border, which does not increase the amount of military force.

On the one hand, the Americans plan to build up forces in the Air Force and Navy and develop strategic missiles. On the other hand, the NATO countries do not plan to increase the production of tanks, and without them it will be quite troublesome to fight in the European theater. Work on ground air defense is imperceptible, and NATO already has problems in this segment. Especially considering how much the strike potential of the Russian army has grown in recent years.

European countries are simply squealing about the Russian military threat, but apart from Poland and the Baltic states, no one is seriously re-equipping the army. In general, we can say that Europe is not preparing at all for defense against aggressive Russians. Weird?

This is a hybrid war in which no one expects an attack from Russia, since they have already attacked us and so far the fighting is in favor of the West.

There is a lot of talk these days about a new Cold War. And this is not a cold war, because the last cold war there were rules, there were boundaries that, in order to avoid precisely war, should not be crossed.

The hybrid war declared to Russia is being waged on the terms and according to the rules of the West. And in this war the collective West is winning. You have probably heard about the US development of mini-nuclear bombs. The Americans quite seriously assume that if they start bombing Russian cities with such bombs, then Russia will not retaliate with strategic missiles and will adhere to the imposed rules. Where such confidence? But we have accepted the conditions and rules of the hybrid war, haven't we?

In the UK, they are now declaring the possibility of seizing Russian civilian aircraft, seizing property that belongs to the state, and so on. The seizure by one state of the property of another state, is this not a declaration of war? And our Foreign Ministry is silent.

You are expelling our diplomats en masse. Is this a declaration of war? And we regard this as a declaration of war.

Maybe it's time to stop all this disgrace? To declare that war is war and Russia will respond to aggression, including hybrid ones, by military means. If you want to play with terms - this is your fun, but we do not participate in this madhouse.

Not enough courage to wage war - admit defeat and let's discuss the terms of your surrender. Or stop the aggression now while it can still be stopped.

And if we participate in this hybrid idiocy, then we can really lose. Remember what a hybrid war is in accordance with their theoretical developments. This is a template, and the Anglo-Saxons follow the templates.

We have the opportunity to lose the war not in a hybrid way, but quite realistically. Since, in accordance with the American theory of hybrid warfare, everything ends with direct military aggression against a weakened enemy. Hot war is not separate act, a The final stage hybrid war. Here, let me remind you, the main word is war. And in a hybrid war, cowards have a chance to defeat even epic heroes if the heroes' brains do not work.