Spheres of influence and tools for implementing hybrid threats: models and mechanisms

Abstract

The article provides a solution to the current scientific problem of substantiating and distinguishing spheres of influence and tools for the implementation of hybrid threats in the context of defining models and relevant mechanisms. It is comprehensively argued that hybrid threats are aimed at changing states and creating necessary situations in several areas by applying combinations of tools. Each tool targets one or more areas or the interaction between them, creating or exploiting a vulnerability or exploiting an opportunity. This is why it is important to identify the areas of possible influence or critical functions that a state must ensure resilience against hybrid threats, as they are strongly related to national security and the state's decision-making capacity. According to the results of the analysis of literary sources on hybrid threats, thirteen spheres of influence are distinguished: political, economic, infrastructural, legal, social, cultural, military, informational, cybernetic, public administration, diplomatic, intelligence, communication. It has been proven that in each sphere there are specific models and mechanisms by which a hybrid threat actor can cause the desired effect for him, moreover, this effect can cover different spheres, as they are closely related to each other. It was established that before the emergence and spread of the concept of hybrid threats, the main approach always included military intervention and physical occupation as a prerequisite for capturing an independent country. But in modern conditions, significant control of an actor over a certain object can be achieved without mandatory participation in open military operations. In addition, actors can use a hybrid threat strategy to weaken the target state without any intention of physical control. This means that a military-oriented approach may not provide an accurate picture of the entire spectrum of current threats and challenges. It is shown that in any conceptual work it is important to find a balance between detail and analytical value of generalization. It may be worth noting that there are still multiple subfields, and some of the examples below show combinations of different fields, so there may be alternative approaches to both consolidation and expanding the domain list.