Hybrid Warfare: The West Needs to Stop Playing Defense

If you follow the news, you’re aware of some or all of hybrid warfare’s tactics. You hear of such things as cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, economic coercion, cutting undersea cables, poisonings and arson. Eitvydas Bajarunas, a Lithuanian diplomat and visiting Scholar at the Center for European Policy Analysis, wants people in the West to be aware that these are not isolated instances and that we need to respond to them forcefully enough to stop them. 

In Bajarunas’s view, “One of the problems in dealing with hybrid warfare is, it thrives on ambiguity. It’s very difficult to recognize or attribute it. The tactics are designed to operate below NATO’s Article 5 collective defense threshold, leaving member states in a gray zone of inaction.” 

Another problem for the West is the temptation for adversaries to use hybrid warfare, since the advantages are immense. Compared to conventional warfare, hybrid warfare is inexpensive, hard to trace, and at least so far, seldom risks causing significant retaliation. Notably, hybrid warfare allows adversaries to exploit the open nature of democratic societies. They can manipulate public opinion without direct confrontation, and they can achieve malign strategic goals with minimal risk of escalation or international condemnation.

To counter hybrid warfare, Bajarunas advocates for a comprehensive strategy focused on three pillars:

Eitvydas Bajarunas (Modern Diplomacy)

1. Clear Communication: “It’s vital to signal the resolve and the capability to retaliate.”  However, he also recognizes the value of  strategic ambiguity. “Keeping  Russia uncertain about the precise nature of the response can also be a deterrence,” he says.

2. Solidarity Among International Partners: “We need to amplify the impact of any response, distributing the burden and presenting a united stance against hybrid aggression,” he observes.

3. Credible Deterrence: This is possibly the most consequential and at the same time, the most difficult. However, as Bajarunas sees it, credible deterrence is crucial because, “Inaction or a lack of resolve undermines deterrence. Playing defense only encourages adversaries to continue probing for vulnerabilities.”

Bajarunas believes that taking a proactive approach is imperative. Measures such as enhanced intelligence capabilities, cyber offensive readiness, economic sanctions, and strengthened international alliances can shift the balance. Publicly signaling resolve and pushing for international norms against hybrid tactics are equally vital.

Bajarunas knows that information space is one of hybrid warfare’s key battlegrounds. While he’s clear that we need to respect freedom of the press, societies must recognize there’s a line between legitimate opinion and propaganda designed to destabilize. Bajarunas emphasizes the need for experts to educate the public and bolster resilience against misinformation.

Hybrid warfare is more than a collection of disparate threats—it’s a comprehensive assault on democracy and the Western way of life. By connecting the dots, recognizing the cumulative harm, and adopting a proactive stance, Western nations can defend against these tactics. The fight against hybrid warfare requires both vigilance and action, if we are to preserve the democratic values that adversaries seek to undermine.

What Bajarunas is warning us against is a classic case of, “He who bears an old injury with restraint invites a new one.”