EDITOR'S CORNER: What is Hybrid War?

In the past few weeks, there has been considerable discussion in Finland about whether the country is at war with Russia. Retired Finnish general and recently elected Member of the European Parliament, Pekka Toveri, has issued a series of tweets on his X wall, essentially stating that Finland is at war with Russia. The use of the word "war" has sparked controversy among other military experts and politicians.

This week, on our blog, we will explore this very question. We will examine what hybrid influence is, how it manifests in the context of Russia, and what we are currently observing in Finland. After breaking these down, I will offer my opinion on whether it is justified to describe the situation as hybrid war or hybrid influence.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF HYBRID WAR?

Hybrid war, also known as hybrid warfare, refers to a multifaceted strategy employed by state or non-state actors that combines conventional military force with irregular tactics, cyber warfare, misinformation, and other non-military means to achieve strategic objectives. Unlike traditional warfare, which typically involves direct military engagement, hybrid war leverages a mix of methods designed to create confusion, destabilize the opponent, and achieve political or military goals without triggering a full-scale war. The objective is often to exploit the vulnerabilities of the target country or entity by using a combination of overt and covert operations, thus complicating the adversary's ability to respond effectively.

One of the defining characteristics of hybrid warfare is its emphasis on ambiguity and deception. Actors engaging in hybrid war often employ tactics such as cyber attacks to disrupt critical infrastructure, spread disinformation to sow discord and undermine trust in public institutions, and use economic pressure to weaken the adversary. These efforts are usually supported by traditional military operations, such as the use of special forces or covert operations, to further obscure the true nature of the conflict. The blending of these elements makes it challenging for the targeted nation to accurately identify the aggressor, formulate an appropriate response, and mobilize domestic or international support.

An example of hybrid warfare in recent history is Russia's actions in Ukraine. Russia employed a combination of military intervention, cyber attacks, propaganda, and support for local insurgents to achieve its aims while declaring they are pursuing a "special military operation". This approach allowed Russia to maintain plausible deniability while achieving small gains. 

Hybrid war's effectiveness lies in its ability to operate in the gray zone between peace and war, creating a state of perpetual conflict that disrupts and destabilizes the target without the need for overt military confrontation.

This is also a reason why Western countries prefer to call it "hybrid influence". Some leaders see the word "war" as a direct provocation to Russia, so they prefer to skate around the term. Experts would quote things such as war "means a state of armed conflict between two or more nations", so this is why we can't call it a hybrid war. 

I will explain later on in the post why this thinking is faulty and why we should consider hybrid war a strong and legitimate threat. A threat that requires a strong, adequate and thoughtful response. 

EXAMPLES OF RUSSIAN HYBRID WARFARE TACTICS

CYBER ATTACKS AND ESPIONAGE 

One prominent example of Russian hybrid warfare tactics is the extensive use of cyber attacks and cyber espionage. Russia has been implicated in numerous high-profile cyber attacks against other countries. One notable instance is the 2017 NotPetya attack, which targeted Ukrainian infrastructure but also caused widespread disruption globally. Other countries affected were Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, America and Australia. 

Additionally, the Russian hacking group Fancy Bear, linked to the GRU (Russian military intelligence), has been involved in various cyber espionage activities, including the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. These cyber operations aim to gather intelligence, disrupt critical systems, and create uncertainty and chaos within the target nations.

DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA 

One crucial tactic in Russian hybrid warfare is the deployment of disinformation and propaganda to sway public opinion and destabilize societies. Essentially, Russia disseminates falsehoods and misinformation to weaken the social cohesion of target nations, making them more vulnerable to other forms of hybrid warfare.

We have seen this disinformation and propaganda at play in Ukraine, the U.S. elections, European parliamentary elections, and even in the context of Brexit. Russia utilizes state-controlled media outlets such as RT and Sputnik, along with social media platforms, to achieve these goals.

By leveraging respected and widely-used media channels, they lend credibility and reach to their false narratives. This enables them to rapidly disseminate propaganda to large audiences who consume their state media. Consequently, the propaganda can indoctrinate significant segments of the population, sparking movements, protests, and potentially riots. The intensity of these protests can influence lawmakers and shape political outcomes.

SUPPORTING PROXY GROUPS AND INSURGENTS 

Supporting proxy groups and insurgents is another tactic employed by Russia in its hybrid warfare strategy. This involves providing financial, logistical, and military support to local armed groups that align with Russian interests. A notable example is Russia's support for separatist movements in eastern Ukraine. 

By arming and training these groups, Russia has been able to wage a low-intensity conflict against the Ukrainian government without committing to a full-scale invasion. This tactic allows Russia to exert influence and control over the region while maintaining plausible deniability. Similarly, in Syria, Russia has provided significant support to the Assad regime, using a combination of direct military intervention and support for proxy militias to achieve its strategic objectives in the region.

This tactic can also be seen playing out in the Israel conflict, with Russia supporting the Hamas terrorists.

WHAT HAS RUSSIA DONE IN FINLAND SO FAR?

We've been relatively fortunate in Finland, as Russia largely left us alone during our NATO application period and the subsequent wait for acceptance. However, the situation worsened significantly after our membership was confirmed.

Last winter, Russia began sending migrants over the border. They also engaged in electronic jamming of radio waves, disrupting flights between Finland and Estonia. More recently, there have been a series of break-ins at water facilities and other critical infrastructure across the country. Although the police downplay these incidents, it appears likely that Russia is involved.

Additionally, Russian propaganda channels have ramped up their rhetoric, portraying Finland as increasingly hostile towards Russia and claiming that relations are beyond repair. Russian Z patriots on these platforms have even suggested that Russia might take military action against Finland.

Furthermore, military bases near the Finnish border have been restocked with equipment and personnel. Despite this, there is no widespread panic in Finland, as these bases were previously emptied to support operations in Ukraine.

IS FINLAND AT WAR WITH RUSSIA? 

The short answer is yes, Toveri's assessment is correct. Modern warfare is vastly different from past conflicts, and Russia frequently claims to be at war with the West. The West cannot afford to show weakness, even if Finland is not engaged in a traditional, kinetic war with Russia. It can be argued that Europe and the entire West are in a state of conflict with Russia.

Experienced leaders like Kaja Kallas provide crucial insights. In a recent interview, she noted that weakness provokes Russia, while strength deters it. Thus, the West must present a strong and united front to deter Putin.

It's evident that Putin is ruthless and dangerous, but he is not foolish. He knows that engaging in a kinetic war with NATO would be disastrous for Russia. NATO's combined manpower, strength, and equipment would overwhelm Russia, leaving it in ruins and likely costing Putin his life. Nevertheless, he exploits the West's mild responses to push boundaries without crossing into full-scale conflict.

In my opinion, hybrid warfare is almost equivalent to traditional war. While it is not an armed conflict, countries must respond appropriately. It does not necessitate martial law or incite panic among the population. However, every hybrid warfare tactic discovered should be taken seriously and met with a legitimate response. A strong message must be sent to Russia that no hybrid warfare tactics will be tolerated.

Unfortunately, this strong response is unlikely to happen.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, hybrid war underscores the evolving nature of modern warfare and the ongoing conflict between Russia and the West. Although Finland is not engaged in a traditional war, the entire West contends with Russia's aggressive hybrid tactics. It is imperative for European leaders to heed the insights of experienced politicians from countries bordering Russia, who emphasize the importance of a strong, united front to deter Russian aggression. Putin, fully aware that a kinetic war with NATO would be catastrophic for Russia, takes advantage of the West's mild responses to push boundaries.

The West's ability to counter these tactics with consistent firmness is crucial for deterring further aggression and maintaining stability. Only through unity and strength can we protect our societies and uphold our values in the face of Russia's persistent threats.