Wars have always been dangerous, destructive, and detestable for the liberalists, but preferable and easier to wage by the realists under the banner of National Interests. However, at the beginning of the 21st Century, a relatively new term, hybrid warfare, was introduced into the strategic literature, though the concept dates back to the Chinese sage Sun Tzu’s prophetic dictum that one must aim to win a war without fighting. In my opinion, he meant the same thing: winning the war by other means.
This article aims to define a new term that is likely to be used in modern wars by powerful nations. To date, hybrid warfare has been defined as a combination of non-kinetic tools of warfare: psychological operations, media campaigns, economic strangulation, digital warfare, intelligence-based operations (IBOs), and, if necessary, the selective application of conventional armed forces. That is what India has been doing to Pakistan since 2005, as revealed in India Chronicles by the European Watchdog, DisInfoLab.
Similar allegations are made against Russia in the Ukraine war as well. However, I think that the war in Ukraine is going beyond any other contemporary wars of the 21st century and hence falls within the domain of Neo-hybrid war. Why do I say this? Because, after horizontal and vertical expansion of kinetic applications, Russia is threatening that it might go for a lateral application of Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons (LYNW), from a third country, perhaps Belarusian territory, against the vast, barren land of Ukraine, to cause minimum fatalities. This lateral application of once considered non-usable weapons due to their immense destructive power would place this war under the broad category of Neo-hybrid war.
Why would Russia do that? Primarily, to test NATO’s commitment to support Ukraine. Moreover, to assess whether Ukraine continues to resist Russia’s intrusion with NATO’s support. Ukraine might demand a similar response by NATO against Russia’s vast uninhabited land; however, that may not happen due to the fear of Russia’s retaliation against other European nations.
The Russia-Ukraine war, nearing completion of its fourth year, must not be treated as any other war that the US-led Allies so frequently wage in the Middle East or elsewhere against Unequal Military Powers (UMPs). The US dream of turning Ukraine into Afghanistan for Russia, as was done for the Soviet Union, may never see the light of day for various reasons.
Firstly, Russia may have been part of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Still, there is no similarity between its approach to and applications of global affairs and those of the old masters. Secondly, Russia has been preparing for a military showdown with Ukraine over the issue of its possible joining of NATO since 2008. Thirdly, Russia’s economic muscle is sufficiently strong to sustain the ongoing war for at least another two years.
Ukrainians are not as robust as Afghans and not as fragile as Iraqis or Libyans. Therefore, they must determine their own future rather than rely on NATO’s ad hoc support, which is not helping their cause.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, Russia has a solid support of China, unprecedented in the history of their relationship. However, the lateral application of LYNWs might prove to be a game-changer in the ongoing war, which is basically not with Ukraine, but the US-led NATO. Ukraine, unfortunately, though, is providing the soil and blood to fuel the contest. Only one thing might hurt the Russians: Mission Creep. President Putin must exercise extreme care in extending Russian frontiers deep into the Ukrainian homeland and carefully draw his lines that he can defend even after the ceasefire, as and when it happens.
On the other hand, NATO must develop a more comprehensive and synergistic strategy if it sincerely wants to stop Russia’s westward expansion. The piecemeal support by Allies would be of no benefit to Ukraine’s armed forces, the government, or the people, primarily because it has failed to deter or dent Russia’s motives and capacity since February 24, 2022, when the Russian forces first crossed into Ukrainian territory.
For Ukraine, I am not suggesting that it should abandon its struggle to preserve its sovereignty; rather, it must reassess its position, which is based on NATO’s military and financial support. In my opinion, it is not enough to convince the Russian leadership that they will not be able to attain their politico-military objectives anytime soon. Moreover, Ukraine’s leadership must draw its own red line regarding losses in terms of soil and blood.
In my opinion, Ukrainians are not as robust as Afghans and not as fragile as Iraqis or Libyans. Therefore, they must determine their own future rather than rely on NATO’s ad hoc support, which is not helping their cause. An early decision in this regard, such as an immediate referendum, might help them avoid further degradation and devastation of their motherland. The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”