Kapitelvorschau

Abstract

Symmetric warfare as typical mode of the modern way of war by states of the global North has entered a different phase: now we are seeing postmodern warfare, which is understood as irregular warfare applied by states in a postmodern way and characterized by information operations, networked approaches, indirect and covert operations, and high-tech means. This kind of warfare takes place in a grey zone between war and peace, and between restricted and unrestricted warfare. Hence, it is strongly advisable to discuss and implement suitable limits to postmodern warfare.

Abstract

In recent debates, war is often referred to as a “chameleon“. This Clausewitzian metaphor, when related to hybrid war, reveals, however, the difficulties of any effort to tame this animal. The hybrid chameleon appears to adopt several colours simultaneously: colours of interstate war, of civil war, and even of peace. As a multifaceted composite, hybrid war escapes clear definitions. Can we, nevertheless, learn anything from classical notions and forms of war for understanding hybrid war? By reviewing the conventional understanding of war, the conceptual and political challenges posed by the “Chimaera” of hybrid war become evident.

Abstract

One of the main problems with ethical considerations on warfare is that ethics itself is often used as weapon in conflicts. Another problem is that the traditional distinction between a state of war and a state of peace increasingly loses its punch. Hybrid Warfare is an indicator for both of these. Present-day moral philosophical discussions try to circumvent these difficulties by applying a normative framework which is individualistic in its basic assumptions and does not principally distinguish between interpersonal violence and group violence. It also provides a good starting point for normative thinking about hybrid wars.

Abstract

With the takeover of Crimea by masked Russian soldiers without national insignia in February/March 2014, with the Kremlin at first denying its involvement, war became „hybrid“ in our minds. The follow-on conflict in eastern Ukraine further strengthened the perception of a hybrid way of warfare, raising the question: What is hybrid warfare? This article argues that the specific nature of hybrid warfare is a strategic one and can be identified by three main characteristics or tendencies: 1. Focusing the decision of the war/conflict as such primarily on a non-military center of gravity. 2. Operating in the shadow of different interfaces against specific vulnerabilities of the opponent, thus challenging traditional lines of order and responsibilities. 3. Creative combination and parallel use of different concepts, methods and means of warfare and fighting, hereby creating “new” mixed, hybrid forms.

Abstract

This article outlines the debates on NATO’s hybrid warfare, contextualizes them with regard to the development of the Alliance, and seeks to evaluate the arguments surrounding this topic. Applying the triad of „prepare-deter-defend“, NATO attempts to comprehensively adapt itself to hybrid threats. The Alliance ought to be equipped with the necessary tools and processes in order to effectively deter and respond to hybrid dangers. In particular, the difficulty of assessing a given situation or threat - which often can only be judged retrospectively - could complicate the collective decision-making of NATO and thus its ability to act.

Abstract

Clausewitz’s concept of the „wondrous trinity“ understands war essentially as a hybrid form. The hybrid character of war is caused by the instrumental rationality of war as a tool of governments on the one side and its existential dimension on the other side. Clausewitz is well known for his formula of war as a continuation of politics by other means. However, this is a position of the very late Clausewitz; the early Clausewitz developed an existential understanding of warfare. The escalation of violence in existential warfare is caused by the denial of recognition between the fighting communities. Additionally, in existential warfare, violence presents an opportunity of young men with unstable identities in a fractured globalized world to give meaning to their seen-as miserable life.

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of the sources of authority that the Islamic State employs locally and globally in order to further the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. To allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the propositions the Islamic State makes towards its audiences, we argue it can be regarded as a sociopolitical movement and a quasi-state with different sources of authority and means of power pertaining to each. Both realms of authority are hybridized by the Islamic State, thus providing the Islamic State with a stability that is often overlooked in public debates about its prospects.

Abstract

Modern societies that depend on the functions of critical infrastructures are easily threatened by hybrid phenomena, which are a combination of conventional and asymmetric means of warfare. The issue of hybrid threats is challenging modern societies overall, but in particular public security and the business location of modern industrial states, such as Germany. The innovative criterion of this challenge is the conversion of regular and irregular capabilities and actions, and the greatest problem is that this emergence may only be recognized when it is too late for a response. Responses therefore should be based on concepts of resilience for critical infrastructures as well as on the full spectrum of actors and capabilities of the so-called comprehensive approach. But the necessary pre-condition for action is the political awareness and willingness.

Abstract

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a member of the famous military resistance group against the Nazi regime of July, 20th, 1944; he was killed by the SS in KZ Flossenbürg. He saw the signs of the times, he stood up against racism and oppression, he fought for freedom, justice and peace. At the age of 25 - in 1931 - he delivered his first peace ethic document directed against Nazi ideology in politics and within the protestant church. His theological approach followed a social-oriented „Christian realism“ as basis for action: international disarmament, good neighborhood in Europe and reconciliation between the enemies of the Great War. Bonhoeffer acted as youth secretary of the „International Council of Christian Peace Movements” in Geneva. He gave a prominent speech in 1934 in Fanø (Denmark) in which he demanded a fundamental concept of global peace to overcome racial, historical and social differences between nations; he urged representatives of politics and churches to make peace („pacem facere“).

Abstract

The wider conflict between Russia and the West over Ukraine has triggered a revival of Cold War-style policies in both the political and military realms. Remembering the famous 1963 speech by Egon Bahr on “Change through Rapprochement” a number of important lessons learnt can be applied to the conflict of today. As Bahr pointed out, a realistic policy towards the Soviet Union has to be based on patience, the avoidance of open conflict through regular dialogue, entrenchment in liberal values, and cooperation in the economic realm. Even though the world of today has fundamentally changed compared to 1963, important aspects of Bahr’s strategic concept are still valuable in dealing with Russia. However, their implementation hinges on the ability of the main actors - Russia and the United States - to exert a policy of realism and restraint.

Kapitelvorschau