Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org 1 week ago
Interesting paper on the topic by Estonia’s International.Centre For Defense And Security (download on the linked page):
Russia’s Hybrid Attacks in Europe: From Deterrence to Attribution to Response
Russia is not unique in using hybrid methods, so their effects and our response are closely followed by other actors, first and foremost China. Autocratic regimes favour hybrid warfare precisely because democratic states struggle with responding directly and proportionally. Hybrid attacks are usually deliberately designed to complicate detection, evade accountability, and hinder decisive responses. Additionally, the targeted nations may lack the capability or the political will to respond effectively.
T34_69@hexbear.net 1 week ago
Lol, what? Are they including the USA as an autocratic regime? Because no single country is a greater purveyor of hybrid warfare than the United States and its empire’s appendages like NATO. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the CIA and state department’s history and strategy understands this. Recent examples include the Nordstream bombing, the Maidan coup, grooming and installing al-Julani in Syria, and propaganda like MI6 using Russia panic to try to scare up some consent for mass militarization of the UK and EU, or hell, even this white paper from Estonia.
It’s mainly the world’s hegemon that uses hybrid strategies precisely because its targeted nations struggle to respond “directly and proportionally.” Would Israel and the US have been so “brave” to proliferate the explosive pagers throughout Lebanon if Hezbollah were able to strike back directly and proportionally. Also, what’s “direct and proportional” about using Israel as a proxy to perpetuate a decades-long regime of destabilization in West Asia, including the most egregious and blatant genocide in my lifetime on the Palestinians? Believing Russia or China are anywhere near world leaders in hybrid warfare is utterly farcical clown shit, what a joke.