Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

, Volume 88, Issue 5, pp 313–319 | Cite as

The “Hybrid War” Phenomenon in the Coercive Component of Current World Politics

  • A. A. KokoshinEmail author
Science and Society


The growing role of the military factor in world politics calls for considering and philosophizing about an ever-broader spectrum of warfare forms and methods. In recent years, various interpretations of the “hybrid war” formula in this spectrum have been distinguished in our country and elsewhere, assuming the use of not only advanced technologies but also means and methods of armed struggle that go back centuries. A major role in conducting this warfare is given to special operations forces; they are actively being developed by many countries, including the Russian Federation. Hybrid wars are characterized by active information confrontation and struggle in cyberspace, and the actors can be both governmental and nongovernmental forces, including private military companies, within the system of world politics. This phenomenon must be considered when developing modern war theory.


hybrid war information war cyberoperations special operations forces private military companies war theory 



  1. 1.
    A. A. Kokoshin, Yu. N. Baluevskii, and V. Ya. Potapov, “The influence of the latest trends in the development of technology and warfare means on the art of war,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 25: Mezhdunar. Otn. Mir. Politika, No. 4, 3−32 (2015).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Gerasimov, “From Syria’s experience,” Voenno-Prom. Kur’er, Mar. 9, No. 9 (2016). Cited July 10, 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wales Summit Declaration. Cited May 3, 2018.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    “Hybrid Wars” in the Havocking World of the 21st Century, Ed. by P. A. Tsygankov (Izd. MGU, Moscow, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Mahta, “Pentagon developing artificial intelligence center,” Defense News, Apr. 18 (2018). Cited May 8, 2018.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Hoffman, “Hybrid warfare and challenges,” Joint Force Quarterly, No. 52, 34–39 (2009).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Military Balance 2015. Cited January 25, 2018.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Bartosh, “How to rip the ‘anaconda’s coil.’ A hybrid war is becoming the main method of opposition between Russia and the West,” Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, Apr. 27–May 10 (2018).Google Scholar
  9. 9. Cited July 10, 2017.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Bartosh, “A hybrid war becomes a new form of interstate opposition,” Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, Apr. 7–13 (2017).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. A. Kokoshin, “The reconnaissance and subversive activities of Nazi Germany before attacking the USSR,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 25: Mezhdunar. Otn. Mir. Politika, No. 4, 113–139 (2014).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Great Patriotic War 1941−1945, in 12 vols., Vol. 11: The Policy and Strategy of Victory: Strategic Control over the Country and the USSR Armed Forces in the War Years, Ed. by V. V. Gerasimov, I. I. Basik, O. A. Belokonev (Kuchkovo Pole, Moscow, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. P. Belokon’, “Technological aspects of modern armed conflicts and Russia’s military security,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 25: Mezhdunar. Otn. Mir. Politika, No. 4, 23−44 (2015).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ch. S. Chivvis, A. Radin, D. Massicot, and C. Reach, Strengthening strategic stability with Russia. Cited March 25, 2018.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. A. Parshin, “Recent American approaches to the problem of cyberterrorism,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ. Ser. 25: Mezhdunar. Otn. Mir. Politika, No. 3, 85−93 (2011).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. M. Burenok, E. V. Gorgola, and S. F. Vikulov, Russia’s National Security in the Epoch of Network Wars (Granitsa, Moscow, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Great Patriotic War 1941−1945, in 12 vols., Vol. 6: Secret War: Intelligence and Counterespionage in the Years of the Great Patriotic War, Ed. by S. M. Smirnov, N. N. Kostenko, V. V. Ostroukhov (Kuchkovo Pole, Moscow, 2013) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Special Operations Forces Reference Manual, 4th ed. (JSOU Press, MacDill AFB, Florida, 2015). Cited August 15, 2017.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Kozlov and E. Groisman, NATO Special Operations Forces (Arktika 4D, Moscow, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    95th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne). Cited March 24, 2018.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Narayan, “India’s special operations capability,” Indian Defense Review 26 (3) (2011). Cited May 2, 2018.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Israeli Special Operations Units: Part One. Cited March 8, 2018.Google Scholar
  23. 23. Cited March 11, 2018.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    N. M. Uvarov, Private Business Serving Military Departments: The Experience of the Main Foreign Countries (URSS, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. 25. Cited May 10, 2018.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    I. Konovalov, “Private military companies: Past, Present, Future,” Nov. Oboron. Zakaz. Strategii, No. 6, 26–32 (2017).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Khramchikhin, “ChVK: Mercenaries or vehicles of Kremlin’s will?,” Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, Apr. 20–25 (2018).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Khodarenok and A. Zinchenko, Hybrid war weapons. What hybrid wars are. Cited October 31, 2017.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. G. Hoffman, The Contemporary spectrum of conflict: Protracted, gray zone, ambiguous, and hybrid modes of war (2016). Cited January 10, 2018.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joint Operating Environment 2035: The joint force in a contested and disordered world. http://www.dtic.mill/doctrine/concepts/joe/joe_2035_july16.pdf. Cited March 20, 2018.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The military doctrine of the Russian Federation. Cited March 25, 2018.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Israeli Defense Forces’ Defense Doctrine. Cited April 25, 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of World Politics, Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations