3.2 Basic approaches to understanding the phenomenon of Hybrid Wars

In this section I will focus on the main approaches to the definition of hybrid war phenomenon, highlight the main characteristics and features of this phenomenon, and provide examples for the best understanding of the essence of modern wars.

Traditionally it is believed that the term “hybrid” was developed within the framework of the systematic biological theory, in which it was understood as a qualitatively new organism, resulting from the crossing of various forms. Gradually this term began to be used in the humanities, describing similar biological hybrid phenomena. The phenomenon of the hybrid warfare/hybrid war in academic discourse has been discussed for a long time, but the holistic concept appeared only in 2007, in the works of Frank Hoffman⁶⁹ <9>, a former Marine officer and now a scientific officer of the US Department of Defense.

In this work “Conflicts in the 21^st century: the rise of hybrid wars, the author presents an analysis that includes the main approaches to understanding wars of the past and the present, on the basis of which a fundamentally new conception of the wars of the future is derived, which the author calls “multi-modal” or “hybrid”. After studying the experience of the recent wars of the United States of America and its allies: The First (1991) and Second (2003) Iraq Wars, the invasion of Afghanistan (2001), the Second Lebanon War (2006), in which Israel was opposed by the radical Shiite grouping “Hezbollah”, Hoffman believes, that the term “hybrid ” can refer to both the organizational structure of the actors and the means that they use. In terms of organization, participants in a “hybrid war” may have a hierarchical political structure associated with a decentralized cell system and network connections⁷⁰ <9, p.28>.

The means of warfare in the form of application are also "hybrid". In such conflicts, future adversaries (states financed by grouping states or self-financed actors) have access to modern weapons: cryptographic protection communication systems, portable anti-aircraft missile systems and anti-tank guided missiles and other modern systems of lethal and non-lethal weapons; Partisan tactics are used and incitement of mass discontent and subsequent unrest among the enemy population⁷¹ <9, p.29>. In a new type of war, high-tech weapons (for example, radio suppression systems), tactics peculiar to terrorist organizations, cyber war (primarily against state structures) and an information war directed at the entire population of the enemy can be used. The author notes that conflicts of a new type may well take place with the participation of "hybrid organizations", such as Hezbollah and Hamas, who will have a wide range of warfare opportunities. In addition, states can use regular divisions under the guise of irregular or partisan formations and adapt to their tactics, as was the case with the Fedayeen Saddam unit in Iraq in 2003. Of course, states that are strong from the military point of view will use "hybrid operations" to reduce losses and costs, that is, use secretive and indirect forms of striking the enemy.

Turning to the definition of a "hybrid" or "multimodal" war, it must be said that it "incorporates various forms of hostilities, including the use of traditional armed forces, irregular formations and tactics, terrorist acts, using indiscriminate violence [over population] and intimidation, as well as actions of a criminal nature, sowing disorder and discord⁷² "[9, p.29]. Such "multimodal" operations can be carried out by either one or several units, but it is important to note that they are most often coordinated to achieve a synergistic effect that can be obtained at all levels and in all dimensions of the conflict.

Unlike the compound type of war, where irregular units basically complement the traditional forces, the participants in the "hybrid war" tend to achieve victory by integrating all sorts of irregular tactics and using the most modern and time-bound weapons in order to achieve maximum effect and thereby achieve political goals. However, the destructive effect is achieved not so much through the use of high-tech means of destruction, but "through" criminal activity. Such activities, sowing riots and destruction on enemy territory, can serve other regular / irregular units in hybrid operations, or be the main component of such an operation. Using a combination of various, difficult to identify and prevent operations, the aggressor can weaken resistance or defeat the enemy state if it is not fit to repel such unconventional threats.

In the author's opinion, the concept he proposed combines the various components of the previous approaches considered by us in the previous section. From the concept of the fourth generation war, the "hybrid war" "inherited" the idea of ​​a "blurred" nature of the new type of confrontation, the focus on the state losing its monopoly on violence and the growing importance of psychological (information) operations and cyber attacks. Omni-directionality, synchronism and combination-key concepts taken from Chinese military theorists, authors of the concept of "war beyond limits". The "compound" and asymmetric types of war were reflected in an important element of the "hybrid war", namely the synergetic effect from the use of regular and irregular formations, but in the "multimodal war" the latter plays a big role⁷³ [9, p.32]. It is interesting to note that modern war unites not only different tactics, methods and weapons, but also different epochs (modern, pre-modern and post-modern); As Michael Evans noted: "The military conflict today is an amazing combination where the fighter can simultaneously use the Kalashnikov (modern), machete (premodern) and modern gadgets and social networks" ⁷⁴<7, p.6>.

Summarizing the narrative of the concept of the "hybrid war", it must be emphasized that Hoffman defines it as any actions of the enemy that instantly and harmoniously uses a complex combination of actions within the framework of the traditional war-the use of regular armed forces of the state, non-traditional-guerrilla warfare, terrorism and criminal acts, and as well as any events within the information war. The type of military operations considered by us has a number of features: 1) "multimodality" (participation of both state and non-state actors and / or their interaction); 2) due to the participation of states, non-traditional actors get access to modern weapons, 3) the hybrid nature of the war intermixes the lethality of the interstate conflict with fanaticism and the fury of guerrilla warfare, 4) there is no front line, 5) the coordinated actions of regular and irregular units achieve a synergistic effect in the physical, information and psychological dimensions of the conflict.

A classic example, in which, in particular, based his research Frank Hoffman, is the Second Lebanon War of 2006. During this conflict, Hezbollah neutralized the efforts of the Israeli army, using the "hybrid tactics" of conducting military operations. The organization combined guerrilla warfare, based on the actions of small groups, but united under a unified command at all levels of government. "Hezbollah" also brought to naught Israel's advantage in modern combat-ready ground forces and aviation, using modern weapons from Syria and Iran. At the same time, due to constant rocket fire, but even more because of successful tactics of intimidation through the media, about 300,000 residents of the border territories of Israel were evacuated, and the total damage amounted, according to official data, to $ 6 billion. At the same time, Israel, not yielding to conventional, traditional war, was defeated on the information front, as "Hezbollah" managed to profitably present its insignificant successes as a victory over a knowingly strong opponent. The result of the war was the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.

As stated by the prominent American military theorist Ralph Peters: "Hezbollah's military cells were a kind of “hybrid” of partisans and regular armed forces that the US military will increasingly face in the future"⁷⁵ [17, p.39]. Already in 2006 this military-political, in many Western countries recognized terrorist organization has demonstrated to the whole world an example of the emerging new generation war, within the framework of which new "multimodal" or "hybrid" and threats to modern states appear, which in turn need to adapt to changing realities.

To date, the concept of "hybrid war" is a popular political and scientific term, which has many definitions and interpretations. Former adviser to NATO, retired Major-General F. van Kappen believes that "hybrid war is a mixture of classical warfare with the use of irregular armed formations, where the state makes a deal with non-state actors: militants, groups of local people, organizations, communications with which Formally denied. The state is obliged to follow the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention on the laws of land war, therefore it shifts all dirty work to the shoulders of non-state formations "⁷⁶[36].

O.V. Stoletov holds a similar opinion. According to the author, the "hybrid war" is led by "a kind of symbiotic entity" [51, p.108], consisting of a state that can act directly or sponsor and support the "guides" of its policy in the form of media, terrorist and extremist groups, radical opposition, Insurgent paramilitary groups, which can be assisted by special services of the state concerned⁷⁷[51, p.108]. Russian expert A.A. Bartosh refers oligarchic groups, nationalist and pseudo-religious organizations⁷⁸ [26] to domestic actors (besides the above). An important factor in the development of "hybrid wars" is the fact that they are conducted mainly in one particular region, and often they do not go beyond one or two states, since domestic actors need regular "replenishment" from the territory of neighboring countries. Thus, the aggressor in the "hybrid war" can influence the state-the target both from the outside and from within; And a wide range of actors and methods of influence determines the high adaptability of the "symbiotic subject" to the current situation, making it extremely difficult to identify the threat and take measures to respond to such an impact.

Given the presence and increasing importance of intra-state components in modern military conflicts, the question arises of the relationship between the concepts of "color revolution" and "hybrid war"; many mistakenly identify these two phenomena. Russian researcher A.V. Manoilo believes that it is not necessary to equalize these concepts, since they have significant differences. The scientist defines "color revolutions" as "technology of coups d'état in conditions of artificially created instability, when pressure on power is exercised in the form of political blackmail, and the protest movement is the tool of blackmail"⁷⁹ [45, p.263].

Concerning the "hybrid war," here Manoilo does not agree with many theorists, considering it a fundamentally new phenomenon, since in such a war "it is not simply the effect of combining different types and forms of confrontation; On the contrary, author believes, different forms and methods of warfare "hybridize" the traditional concepts of armed struggle, protect them from new challenges and threats, provide the effect of deep mutual integration and symbiosis of various damaging factors and technologies "⁸⁰[45, C.263]. At the same time, in order to avoid blurring, it is necessary to determine the purpose of the "hybrid war" to achieve traditional military goals-damage to the enemy, military defeat, capitulation, establishment of control over the territory and resources. Thus, "color revolutions" and "hybrid wars" differ both in content and in purpose. However, the creation of instability and chaos in the aftermath of the "color revolution" can cause foreign military intervention and a preparatory phase for the "hybrid war"; Technology transformation of political regimes can also be used in the operations of the "hybrid war," but in this case, the overthrow as such will not be the goal of a "hybrid war", but a task to achieve the strategic objectives of the aggressor.

Another important component of the "hybrid war" is the participation of mercenaries and private military companies. A mercenary is not a member of the armed forces of a state party to an armed conflict, is not its citizen, does not have military service in another state, is recruited to participate in the conflict, while receiving material benefits.⁸¹ [2] The activities of such individuals or private military organizations are not controlled by international law, they "fight in extra-terrestrial regimes and use innovative military means and methods"⁸² [52, p.178], and therefore the inclusion of mercenaries in the conflict increases the range of opportunities for subversive and sabotage operations.

Indeed, the changing nature of modern warfare and the emergence of the phenomenon of "hybrid wars" is reflected in official documents of various countries, primarily Western ones. Until recently, in the US security services there was not a single definition, not a single attitude to hybrid wars. However, in 2014, the US Army Special Operations Command issued the White Paper "Counteraction to the Unconventional War"⁸³ [59], in which it was necessary to prepare for "hybrid wars" in the form of "secret, undeclared military actions in which an aggressor attacks state structures or a regular army of the enemy with the help of local rebels and separatists, supporting them with weapons and finances "⁸⁴[31]. To counteract such attacks, the allies led by the United States must unite the efforts of all departments and direct all resources to the creation of a "comprehensive intergovernmental strategy"⁸⁵ [31, p.136]. In addition, at the NATO summit in 2014, it was officially announced that it was necessary to prepare an alliance for the new threats and challenges posed by hybrid wars. It is interesting to note that the West attributes the use of "hybrid wars" to Russia, to Iran, to various terrorist groups, ignoring the fact that the main approaches and concepts to the study of this phenomenon originated in Western countries.

As for the Russian military leadership, as early as 2013, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov wrote about the changing content of modern conflicts in which the rules of war changed significantly, the role of "non-military means of achieving political and strategic goals with the use of the protest potential of the population, which are often more effective than traditional military actions. Furthermore, all this can be accompanied by the implementation of information confrontation and the actions of special operations forces "⁸⁶[31, p.138]. The open use of the armed forces, often in the form of peacekeeping operations or "humanitarian intervention", is usually used to consolidate the final success in a new type of war. Such a perception of contemporary threats to Russia's security is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation in 2015.

The next crucial aspect of studying the phenomenon of "hybrid wars" is the question of the possibility of settling such conflicts. First of all, it is necessary to understand what challenges and threats this phenomenon brings to ensure global and regional security. Often in such a conflict there is no visible subject, therefore the indirect nature of the "hybrid war" can be the reason for using a wide range of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction ⁸⁷[55]. In addition, when it is not possible to hold the state accountable, traditional peacekeeping operations can only exacerbate the situation, since another side will be introduced into the conflict. It is also necessary to take into account a wide range of problems related to the participation of non-state actors. As guides to the ideas of a different state, they can pursue their goals in the conflict, which leads to the complication of the conflict and complicates the resolution process. The use of such actors by another state to achieve their political goals can also lead to the collapse of the attacked state.

However, many authors say that the participants in the "hybrid war" may not aspire to victory; strategic tasks for them will be creation of instability, constant chaos and conflicts in the territory of target states⁸⁸ [31, p.141]. Above all, irregular forces, unlike the state armed forces, are not subject to legal restrictions, which are often expressed in the high lethality and cruelty of the "hybrid wars". Obviously, within the existing system of international law, it is extremely difficult to react to the manifestations of a hybrid war, since the very essence of such a war is the impact of all possible actions for achieving political and strategic objectives, preferably without direct military intervention. In his speech at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly on September 28, 2015⁸⁹ [60] President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin clearly expressed the position of the Russian leadership on the resolution of many military conflicts in various regions of the world:

1) It is necessary to support state structures and institutions to ensure regional security - that is, to rely on state-centered ways of resolving conflicts;

2) To join forces in the fight against international terrorism and cross-border crime, although many countries "flirt" with such actors to achieve their political goals, including through hybrid wars.