Talk:Hybrid warfare

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hybrid warfare article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hybrid warfare. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hybrid warfare at the Reference desk.

Military history: Intelligence / Technology Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Computer Security: Computing High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Hybrid warfare (22 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	3,828	3,828
Definition	10,200	14,332
Other definitions	1,957	1,957
Relation to the grey-zone	2,175	2,175
Effectiveness	1,716	1,716
History	2,939	5,218
After 1945	988	988
After 1989	1,291	1,291
Modern examples	20	17,101
2006 Israel–Hezbollah War	1,999	1,999
2014 ISIL advance into Iraq	1,389	1,389
Russian activities in the 2010s	4,758	4,758
United States on Russian activities	2,044	2,044
Iranian activities in the 2010s	2,346	2,346
Iran perceptions of US	772	772
Saudi and Emirati activities in the 2010s	623	623
Chinese activities	1,505	1,505
Belarusian activities in 2021	1,645	1,645
See also	952	952
References	33	33
Further reading	5,106	5,106
External links	452	452
Total	48,738	48,738

Three Block War

The Three Block War is the reverse of this concept. Both terms handle complex mixed situations, but TBW is a USMC focus on bottom up while HW is USAF style top down warfare. Hcobb (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove it go ahead -:) Zabanio (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and find a ref that notes the difference. Hcobb (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HW is not a USAF owned idiom. Many militaries and people use it. Zabanio (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Warfare

HW may not appear in any Joint Publications, but it IS in Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 10 October 2011. Page 4, "The most likely security threats that Army forces will encounter are best described as hybrid threats. A hybrid threat is the diverse and dynamic combination of regular forces, irregular forces, terrorist forces, criminal elements, or a combination of these forces and elements all unified to achieve mutually benefitting effects. Hybrid threats may involve nation-state adversaries that employ protracted forms of warfare, possibly using proxy forces to coerce and intimidate, or nonstate actors using operational concepts and high-end capabilities traditionally associated with nation-states."

Also, for the Army, the term "battlespace" has been rescinded, but is still in use by the USMC. The correct Army term now is "operational environment." The reference for this is the Army Terminologist, Carlos L. Soto, and the site is https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/armymarine-corps-terminology?view=overview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day 138.27.1.18, thanks for your point above. I've also suggested the inclusion of the related term, grey-zone tactics/operations as it seems to be coming into fair usage (ref my post below). It may be worth mentioning that as far as I am aware 'battlespace' is still in common usage elsewhere in the world (at least, it is in Australia). Cheers, BlurryOne (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid warfare could be a crime and yet if Russia does it it isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.198.85 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of new terminology

G'day. I think that the rise in popularity and frequency of use of the term Grey Zone or Grey-Zone Operations warrants its inclusion, possibly on this page. I've included links to articles and reports from notable international relations strategy think-tanks to demonstrate its common use. I'm curious about any thoughts on the matter, particularly if you think this isn't the appropriate place for its inclusion? "Between War and Peace: Grey-Zone Operations in Asia" "Grey zone operations and the maritime domain" "America’s Counterterrorism Gamble" BlurryOne (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paramilitary groups and CIA

Obviously CIA setting up right-wing paramilitary groups funded using drug money to conceal US responsibility and using the paramilitary proxy is a perfect example of non-linear or hybrid war. The fact this article is so Russia heavy makes it propaganda. The term may have been popularized by a Russian but the concept has existed much longer in practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.171.236 (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

I have added the USA currently having a hybrid war with China with reasons. Every argument has been documented by valid sources such as Lowy Institute, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, The Diplomat, Small Wars Journal, US Dept of Defense, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Financial Times, Global Times, Press TV, The Independent, CNBC, ScandAsia, New York Times, The Age, The Guardian, US Naval Institute, Asia Times, Izak Novak, China Global Television Network, China US Focus, Belt and Road News, RAND Corporation...etc. Those sources are either recognized media/ propaganda outlets (which I consider pretty similar actually) or have been extremely well documented, when originating from a blog such as Izak Novak.

The moderator "Neutrality" has removed my addition to that article about "hybrid warfare". That article without my post is actually currently very unbalanced and not objective at all as it only mentions countries other that the United States doing hybrid warfare, and the United States mostly posturing as a victim of hybrid warfare, while it has been abundantly practiced by the United States in the first place. And obviously all those countries are countries that the US would like to consider as enemies or potential enemies. This is the same as saying "that the USA is saving the world by bringing democracy with bombs everywhere, from evil government that torture their people", while the US is actually the first country to torture people in Guantanamo and having them sodomized by dogs in Iraq prisons, or having them lobotomized in secret and illegal prisons (as per the USA own judicial system) all over the world, or having civilians assassinated indiscriminately by drones or by Blackwater personnel... Let's be serious, it is all about power and nobody is clean, starting by the USA. Basically this article about hybrid warfare looks like a propaganda article directly posted by the NSA and dedicated to 3 years old children...

The arguments advanced by the moderator are that 1. my sources/ references are not valid, and 2. they do not match the arguments. I beg to disagree with that opinion. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to re-post my addition to this article and undone the "delete" of that moderator. If necessary, I would be grateful that other moderators as objective as possible have a further look at my post and analyze more in details, whether it can be posted as such or not. If not, please show me which precise points and arguments must be more documented and why. The alternative is giving reason to China for recently blacklisting Wikipedia for being just another propaganda tool in the United States's arsenal of weapons available for controlling and destabilizing populations all over the world... Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating! I just got a message from moderator "Neutrality" telling me: QUOTE : Please don't engage in edit warring, insert content that is synthesis, or insert content cited to unreliable sources (including blogs, Chinese state media, fringe websites, etc.). Neutrality^talk 21:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC) : UNQOTE. If moderators at Wikipedia consider that Chinese state media are unreliable sources, then they are forgetting that such sources level of reliability/ unreliability is exactly the same as mainstream media such as the New York Times and the rest, which mostly operate as propaganda tools for the United States and its global interests... then no source is reliable.[reply]

The idea that the NYT is the same as China's state-controlled media is a lunatic fever-dream. Please stop bothering the nice sensible people volunteering here. Defenestrator12 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese state media are as reliable/ unreliable as mainstream media, which are all controlled by the NSA, and as any other state media in the world such as AFP, Reuters, Tass, the Chinese AFP, the American AFP, CNN, BBC, ...etc. Regarding non-state media in China, as they are forbidden, the only existing alternative source of information are blogs, of which well documented ones should be considered valid sources and of interest.... except if you really want to diabolize Chinese people that represent 20% of the world's population, which really looks like a very low level American perception that corresponds to the current USA hybrid war on China... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is now the 3rd time that I am re-posting my post that is being urgently deleted by moderator "Neutrality" immediately afterwards. If we do not have balanced moderators let me know where my post need precisions or amendments, I am afraid that moderator "Neutrality" will have to use/ abuse his/ her power to freeze that article to the standard that is required by the NSA for the purpose of American propaganda... henceforth condemning that subject to be further documented by moderators only...

I have just saw the long rant now. Please read Wikipedia:Synthesis, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:ONUS. Many of your sources were blogs, Chinese state media, fringe websites (i.e., not reliable sources) or sources that made no mention of "hybrid warfare" (i.e., synthesis). So no, it is not acceptable here. And if you really believe that mainstream media is "controlled by the NSA" and that Reuters, AFP, and CNN are "state media" — and you can't separate these colorful, idiosyncratic views from your editing here, you should not be editing Wikipedia, which is not a platform for espousing fringe theories. Neutrality^talk 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How enlightening to see that you used your "freezing power" instead of answering my questions intelligibly: "22:32, 17 July 2020‎ Neutrality talk contribs‎ m 36,114 bytes 0‎ Protected "Hybrid warfare": Persistent disruptive editing ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)))". Sad to see that you dismiss my explanation and question as a "long rant" (which it probably is anyway) instead of answering me constructively. Do you realize that you are saying that "Chinese state media" are more unreliable or less reliable that usual "mainstream media" sources (that tell people that wearing mask in case of pandemic is dangerous for them!) or other "state media" sources, including US government sources???... I am slowly starting to understand why it is so easy for the US government to currently use COVID-19 to abundantly reduce its population in the United States... have you seen the US mortality rate compared with that in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore?... ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk)

I have already given you appropriate guidance about Wikipedia policy and about why your edits run afoul of that. If you can find (1) mainstream or reliable sources (WP:RS) that (2) expressly discuss "hybrid warfare by the United States in the 2010s" (WP:V, WP:RS); and you can construct text (3) that is not undue weight or phrased with loaded language not supported by sources and (4) establish consensus for inclusion, then your proposed edit has a chance of acceptance. What will not persuade people is disruptively editing; not understanding Wikipedia policy; posting off-topic statements about views on American or the media; spreading conspiracies, or being uncivil. Neutrality^talk 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neutrality, I let other moderators judge about whom is being uncivil in this exchange... I do now understand why China has banned Wikipedia on its territory (I was actually wondering). When Wikipedia does not accept Chinese media as valid sources, while it accepts American or other mainstream media as valid sources, it therefore accepts to be biased in favor of an American/ mainstream media narrative. My perception is that instead of being a global encyclopedia, which I understand was the aim of its founder, Wikipedia has now become one more outlet of propaganda/ opinion control of the American government to the world. It shows a slow degradation of the American culture from being based on facts to being based on belief systems, religious or political. This is similar to what we are seeing in the USA nowadays relative to masks and other means of protecting oneself from the virus; and where a large part of the population does not even believe COVID-19 exists. What a sad state of affairs for Wikipedia, which was supposed to be much more than the expression of one culture but that of all cultures in the world!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.205.205 (talk) (UTC)

None of this rambling has anything whatsoever to do with the principles I linked to you above. If you want to opine generally, you can find an Internet forum. Wikipedia is not an Internet forum. Neutrality^talk 02:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mattis

I have found a couple of sources that attribute the term to former SecDef James Mattis, in a speech he made in Arlington on Sept 8, 2005, a year before the source attributed here. One such source is TERRORISM: COMMENTARY ON SECURITY DOCUMENTS VOLUME 141, edited by Douglas Lovelace Jr., p. 93 (https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=zd4mDAAAQBAJ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defenestrator12 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Not sure how the lede can simultaneously say that Hybrid Warfare is defined as something, while in the next sentence saying it has no clear definition. Either the sources say it has a formal definition, or they don't. Either it's a theory, or it's not. We need to get rid of the unacceptable WP:SYNTH and cite directly what the sources say.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]