▲ Operations in cyberspace may be part of a hybrid warfare status carried out by state or non-state actors [Pixabay].

December 2, 2019

essay / Ana Salas Cuevas

Hybrid threat is a term that encompasses all subject of coordinated actions to influence the decision making of states, making use of political, economic, military, civilian and information means. These actions can be carried out by both state and non-state actors.

The term "Grey Zone" is used to determine the boundary between peace and war. It is a new tactic that has nothing to do with the real war that pits armies of different states against each other. Hybrid warfare consists of achieving results by directly influencing society by demoralizing it. It is an undoubtedly effective tactic and much simpler for the attacking countries, since both the economic and human investment is less than in real warfare. Resources such as propaganda, manipulation of communications, economic blockades, etc. are used... And since there is no strict international legislation in relation to these conflicts, many countries consider this subject actions as tolerable.

Introduction: The hybrid threat

The term hybrid threat became popular after the 2006 clash between Israel and Hezbollah to designate "the integration of unconventional and irregular tactics, techniques and procedures, mixed with terrorist acts, propaganda and connections with organized crime"[1].

The essential goal of the hybrid threat is to achieve results without resorting to real war, confronting societies and not armies, almost completely breaking down the distinction between combatants and citizens. The military goal takes a back seat.

The actions carried out within this subject of conflicts are focused on the employment means such as cyber-attacks, disinformation and propaganda. Their goal to exploit economic, political, technological and diplomatic vulnerabilities, disrupting communities, national parties, electoral systems and having a major effect on the energy sector. These actions are not random, they are planned and organized. These attacks are not linear in nature. They can have direct consequences elsewhere. For example, the drone strike on wells in Saudi Arabia in September 2019 had a direct impact on global Economics .

Cyberspace has become a novel aspect of this scenario. Thanks largely to the technological and information revolution, we are now facing a changing world order, in which the information provided by the media is accessible to anyone from anywhere in the world. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the Internet is one of the most important fronts when talking about hybrid warfare. In this field, the rules are not clearly established and States and non-State actors have a greater margin for action compared to the classic power of States. Fake news, disinformation and opinion-based facts are instruments at anyone's fingertips to influence public order.

Through manipulation in these areas, the hybrid enemy manages to considerably weaken one of the most important pillars of the State or community at which its actions are aimed: the trust of citizens in its institutions.

Ambiguity is one of the distinguishing characteristics of cyber activity. The hybrid enemy not only exploits to its advantage the difficulty inherent in the global network to attribute hostile actions to a specific actor, but reinforces it through the use of hybrid strategies such as synchronization.

Cyberterrorism and hacktivism

As we have just seen, cyberspace is one of the preferred domains of the hybrid enemy. In it, he will frequently resort to cyberthreats, a cross-cutting threat that is very difficult to attribute authorship to. In most cases, it is not possible to substantiate it reliably, and in most cases there are only suspicions, making it very difficult to obtain proof. These cyberthreats can be divided into four blocks, which we will analyze one by one.

First of all, cyberespionage is goal the political, economic and military spheres. Many states routinely resort to cyber espionage. These include China, Russia, Iran and the United States. States can carry out cyberespionage actions directly, using their intelligence services, or through interposed agents such as companies influenced by these states.

Secondly, cybercrime, which in most cases is committed for profit, and whose impact on global Economics is estimated at 2% of the world's GDP. The main objectives of cybercrime are theft of information, fraud, money laundering, etc. It is often carried out by terrorist organizations, organized crime and hackers.

Thirdly, cyberterrorism, whose main objectives are to obtain information and all subject communications to citizens. The main agents, as can be deduced, are terrorist organizations and intelligence agencies.

Cyberterrorism has a number of advantages over conventional terrorism, and is that it guarantees greater security over anonymity, in addition, there is a greater cost-benefit ratio and in the geographical scope there is a great advantage in terms of delimitation. In Spain, a reform of terrorist crimes was given through Organic Law 2/2015, in which articles 571 to 580 of the Penal Code were reformed in their entirety. At the same time, Organic Law 1/2015 also approved the reform of the Criminal Code, affecting more than 300 articles[2].

Finally, in fourth place, hacktivism, whose main targets are web services, along with the theft and unauthorized publication of information. When hacktivism is used for the benefit of terrorism, it becomes terrorism. The Islamic terrorist group DAESH, for example, uses cyber means to recruit fighters to its ranks. Two groups stand out as agents, the "Anonymus" group and "Luizsec," in addition to the intelligence services themselves.

Cyberterrorism has very specific aims: to subvert the constitutional order, seriously disrupt social peace and destroy our global model . It is an emerging threat of leave probability, but high impact. The main problem of all this is the little existing legislation on the subject, but which is gradually emerging; for example, in 2013 the starting point was given with the publication of a communication of the European Union committee on security - the "Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union"[3]- from which every 5 years the strategies must be reviewed. This is in addition to Regulation 2019/881 of the European Parliament and of the committee (EU) of 17 April 2019.

Gray zone

The concept of the gray zone has recently been coined in the field programs of study strategic programs of study to describe the framework of action of the hybrid enemy. The term describes a state of tension alternative to war, operating in a stage of formal peace.

The conflict in the gray zone is centered on civil society. Its cost, therefore, falls directly on the population. It operates in any case within the limits of international legality. The protagonist is generally a State of major international importance (a power) or a non-State actor of similar influence.

The actions of an enemy operating in the gray zone are aimed at dominating certain "zones" that are of interest to it. The types of response within what is defined as a gray zone will depend on the threat faced by the country in question.

Legal point of view

If we speak from a legal point of view, it is more accurate to use the term hybrid warfare, only when there is a declared and not a covert armed conflict.

Indeed, a major problem arises from the difficulty of applying the appropriate national or international legislation to hybrid threat actors. The actors involved, as a rule, deny hybrid actions and try to escape the legal consequences of their actions, taking advantage of the complexity of the legal system. They act by skirting the boundaries, operating in unregulated spaces and never exceeding the legal thresholds.

Hybrid threat responses

The response to the hybrid threat can take place in different, but not mutually exclusive, spheres. In the military sphere, even a direct military confrontation can be conceived, which can be seen as "tolerable" if it avoids a confrontation with a great power such as the United States or China. In the same way, these military confrontations are respected because of the defenselessness of the occupied territories in the face of the threat that the occupying state intends to prevent.

In the economic sphere, response makes it possible to impose financial subject costs on an enemy, which are sometimes more direct than military responses. In this field, one way of adopting non-provocative defensive measures is through the imposition of immediate and formal economic sanctions on an aggressor.

An example of this is the economic sanctions that the United States imposed against Iran for considering this country as a nuclear threat. To this end, it is important to highlight the background of this issue.

In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear program was signed, committing Iran to comply with the agreement and the United States to remove the economic sanctions imposed. However, in 2018 Trump announced the withdrawal of the agreement and the reinstatement of sanctions. In the course of these events, various countries have spoken out about these unilateral decisions taken by the US government. China and Russia, for their part, have expressed their disagreement, making official statements in favor of Iran.

The Iranian case is a clear example of an economic response on the gray zone, in which we see how States use this element of power to deny the aggressor's participation in different institutions or agreements and to control its zone of influence.

The United States, like many other powers, finds this status of superiority a decisive advantage in conflicts within the gray zone. Due to the importance of the financial and political power of the United States, the rest of the countries, including the European Union, cannot but accept this subject unilateral actions.

Conclusions

In closing, we can conclude that hybrid activity in the gray zone has important consequences for society as a whole in one or more States, and produces effects that can be global in scope.

Hybrid threats primarily affect civil society and can have a demoralizing effect that can lead to the psychological collapse of a state. The employment this tactic is often referred to as "formal peace". Although there is no direct confrontation between armies, this technique is much more effective because the attacking country does not need to invest as much money, time and people as in real warfare. In addition, the application of international law or the intervention of third countries in the conflict is minimal, as many consider this subject actions as "tolerable".

Undoubtedly, the gray zone and hybrid threats have become the new military technique of our era due to their effectiveness and simplicity. However, there should be a tighter control so that this subject of such harmful military techniques no longer goes unnoticed.

A characteristic aspect of hybrid warfare is the manipulation of communications and the use of propaganda. With these actions it is possible to sow the distrust of citizens in their institutions, as is happening today in the relationship between China and the United States, weighed down by American statements to the press about the plan presented by Xi Jinping in 2014 on the New Silk Road, and which denote a high Degree distrust and rejection towards the Empire of the Center.

It is therefore desirable that States and international institutions establish "rules of the game" for this subject of action in order to maintain world order and peace.
 

A first essay of this text was presented as a communication at the XXVII International Defense Course held in Jaca in October 2019.

bibliography

Carlos Galán (2018). Hybrid threats: new tools for old aspirations. 2019, from Real Instituto El Cano. Website.

Lyle J. Morris, Michael J. Mazarr, Jeffrey W. Hornung, Stephanie Pezard, Anika Binnendijk, Marta Kepe (2019). Gaining Competitive Advantage in the Grey Zone. 2019, from RAND CORPORATION. Website.

Josep Barqués (2017). Towards a definition of the concept "Grey Zone". 2019, from Spanish Institute programs of study Strategic programs of study . Web site

Javier Jordán (2017). Hybrid warfare: a catch-all concept. 2019, from University of Granada. Website.

Javier Jordan (2018). International conflict in the grey zone: a theoretical proposal from the perspective of offensive realism. 2019, from Revista Española de Ciencia Política. Website.

Javier Jordan (2019). How to counter hybrid strategies. 2019, from University of Granada. Website.

Guillem Colom Piella (2019). The hybrid threat: myths, legends and realities. 2019, from Instituto Español de programs of study Estratégicos. Web site

Murat Caliskan (2019). Hybrid warfare through the lens of strategic theory. 2019, from Defense & Security Analysis, 35:1, 40-58. Website.

Rubén Arcos (2019). EU and NATO confront hybrid threats in centre of excellence. 2019, from Jane's Intelligence Review. Website

Publisher: Geert Cami Senior Fellow: Jamie Shea Programme Manager: Mikaela d'Angelo Programme Assistant: Gerard Huerta publisher: Iiris André, Robert Arenella Design: Elza Lőw. (2018). HYBRID AND TRANSNATIONAL THREATS. 2019, by Friends of Europe. Website.

An interview with Seyed Mohammad Marandi, University of Tehran (2019). Iranians will not forget the hybrid war against Iran. 2019, from Saker Community Latin America. Website.