Drones, Exploding Parcels and Sabotage: How Hybrid Tactics Target the West
Russia and other hostile states have become increasingly brazen in adopting “gray zone” attacks against Europe and the United States, leaving defense officials with a dilemma: How to respond?
…
Experts said the drones’ presence was indicative of a so-called hybrid or “gray zone” attack against the West, where a range of tactics — military, cyber, economic and even psychological — are used to covertly attack or destabilize an enemy.
As Russia, Iran and other hostile states become increasingly brazen in their hybrid attacks on Western countries — such as the hacking of sensitive computer systems and alleged assassination plots — defense officials face a thorny challenge. How to deter such acts without touching off a broader and potentially deadly conflict? And how to assign blame against the attacker when the strikes are designed to evade culpability?..
While China, Iran and North Korea have shown a growing appetite for hybrid attacks, officials said that Russia in particular has deployed them as covert sabotage against NATO allies since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022…
Officials and experts agree a wide range of measures are needed to deter and protect against hybrid attacks, including more “naming and shaming” of adversaries and imposing legal penalties; improving intelligence and technical systems to monitor threats; and military exercises and other displays of force to demonstrate that even covert aggressions will not go unpunished…[end quote]
Unpunished? The question is how to effectively punish and thereby deter hybrid attacks without causing a war. Naming and shaming? Sanctions on countries that are already maximally sanctioned because of their overt non-hybrid attacks?
Hybrid attacks have macroeconomic significance because they can disrupt communications and fuel transport. And also because a strong response could cause a hot war.
Wendy
I’m not sure if it’s “war” yet, but it’s edging close. There are lots of skirmishes which don’t fit the definition of outright war, and this might be some of that.
But it has made me think about the changing nature of war: start out with the premise that wars start for all kinds of reasons, and I can’t delineate that. But the truly significant ones often come with a change in technology, or at least new tactics using new-ish technology.
While there were tanks in World War I, they we huge, lumbering things; Blitzkreig took smaller, mobile tanks as a new weapon - the leader of infantry instead of support for it. The Gatling Gun made mincemeat of Confederate troops in the Civil War. The Huey changed tactics in Vietnam (not for the better, clearly), and the Smart Bomb made the second Iraq War a thing of fright for Iraqis anywhere near a strategic target.
Now come Drones and mini-munitions, while the US spends hundreds of millions on a single fighter jet which can’t fly. Meanwhile an $800 drone with GPS can deliver a payload exactly on target without the slightest risk to human soldiers.
I’m not convinced that anyone at the Pentagon is interested in shutting down the F-whatever programs, because drone manufacturers can’t or won’t pay for all those junkets and fancy technology whizbangs that look so cool in a PowerPoint presentation, but this kind of asymmetric warfare is already here, and there’s more coming, and it’s a really big problem for developed nations. Like us.
Not a difficult dilemma. send more long range weapons to Ukraine instead of being frightened by Putin’s nuclear bluff. Wars are won by overwhelming force. That’s how WWII ended with Japan and Germany totally destroyed. America needs a new Patton.
There is no equity in war, only victory. After victory you can and should be compassionate.
Post Korea, seems the US policy is incrementalism, when China or Russia are actively on the other side. We phased in to Nam, over several years. We went all in on Iraq and Afghanistan, because they were not so closely tied to the other big boys. Iraq had been close to the US in the 80s, and the Afghans had run the Russians out, with incremental help from the US. Ukraine? Back to incrementalism. “no, we won’t let you use these weapons to hit Russia”…“no we won’t give you F-16s”…“ok, you can shoot these things only this far into Russia”…“here are some F-16s”…
It’s like the US has turned into the Picard/TNG version of Starfleet. Come on strong, and Starfleet would always cave, either stand down or surrender.
There has been chatter, for years, that the US profoundly messed up Iran’s uranium centrifuges. But mess up Russia like that? I suspect the US could mess up Russia’s ATC, and force a ground stop of all aircraft. But would the US do that? Oh no! It might upset Putin.
The fundamental question is whether the US should play the role of the World Police Force (WPF). All through the ages since the invention of empires the top dog had that role to play. Some used it kindly, other not so much. The most difficult decision is when not to act, when not to meddle. When my grandfather watched boxing on TV he would always complain that the referee did not let them slug it out.
American democracy creates a problem, as voter sentiment changes so does foreign policy. If you are on the other side, ¿can you trust America?
What most people seem to ignore is that Indochina used to be a French colony as was Algeria (a department?). When Charles de Gaulle became president of France he decided that it was time for France to end its colonialism. France abandoned Indochina. America decided to play the role of colonial power. It did not end well. It’s difficult to play Superpower.
This is absolutely true. If you trust the USA for certain important foreign policy things, you may or may not get screwed someday. Of course, if you trust “the other guys”, you are guaranteed to get screwed someday. Cuba, for example.
The Russkies decided to play the role of soviet power (“All power to the Soviets!” was the main slogan of the October Revolution), but some think it was to stop colonial powers, including Russia….
Do not get lost in the mere reflections that are the starring presences in the Hall of Mirrors, and always keep copies of The Prince and Wealth of Nations on the equivalent of your bedside table. Mine are right next to my copy of the Book of Common Prayer.