Grey Zone Conflict and Deliberate Confusion
"Grey zone conflict" and "hybrid warfare" are just two of multiple terms now in circulation to describe the same phenomenon — attacks against a country that may not have any military element, and are instead mounted using cyber tools, public and commercial corruption, transnational organized crime, and disinformation campaigns, along with a host of other methods. Deception, and denial that any such attack is underway, are standard elements.
When such an attack is even perceived, there are at least four common reactions to which different people may be drawn. Some incline toward threatening (or carrying out) acts of direct retaliation. Some may deny the existence of an attack, particularly when it is obscure, or treat it as too trivial to warrant a response. Some see beefing up general defense expenditures (further) as an answer. And others believe the West should simply avoid dealings with any country suspected of mounting such attacks. It is also common to prefer one of these reactions for an attack by country A and a different one for country B.
For reasons detailed in project writings, Project Seshat believes that although each of these approaches has its value in limited situations, none of them will work as a general rule. It is necessary to develop an overall approach, such that grey zone conflicts will be better understood as a class and also managed on an overall level. There is a strong precedent for this view: Project Seshat is inspired by Cold War negotiation / conflict management studies of how the U.S. and the Soviet Union, over decades, could and did maintain something approximating a working relationship (including avoiding a nuclear war) even at the height of their conflict. The project therefore uses a negotiation / conflict management perspective as its organizing principle.
"Negotiation" in the Grey Zone
There is compelling evidence that the private and nonprofit sectors are major target areas in grey zone conflict. However, they are even less well prepared for this than governments. The project's central focus is therefore on dealings of all kinds between Western firms (and nonprofits) and ostensibly private entities that may be controlled by hostile governments. At the same time, the aspect of "negotiation" most directly relevant here is not what most people think of first, i.e. what happens at a bargaining table. In grey zone conflict what counts most is the preparation for any such encounter. Too often ignored or short-circuited, preparation here includes a careful analysis of whom your firm or nonprofit should even consider dealing with. And because the real parties, goals and strategies in grey zone conflict are routinely disguised, that analysis is no simple matter.
There are ongoing efforts at responding to hybrid warfare at the strategic level, and recent events (particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine) have raised their profile. But the critically important tactical and operational levels of responses tend to take place in highly dispersed corporate boardrooms, law offices, municipal government or university offices, etc. Many who are unknowingly involved in grey zone conflict have little or no understanding of it, and even those who know of an attack are often badly informed as to what they can do. We have defined a series of project objectives accordingly.
Objectives
These project objectives have been developed over time, but our process is one of continuous learning, and these are not final. They will be refined with further experience.
Participants in the project are by invitation and include specialists in both negotiation / conflict management and security. And in making such invitations, the project has looked for expertise in many kinds of thinking, including fields whose relevance may not be immediately obvious to a casual observer. Examples include physics and the arts.
More at Background
"Grey zone conflict" and "hybrid warfare" are just two of multiple terms now in circulation to describe the same phenomenon — attacks against a country that may not have any military element, and are instead mounted using cyber tools, public and commercial corruption, transnational organized crime, and disinformation campaigns, along with a host of other methods. Deception, and denial that any such attack is underway, are standard elements.
When such an attack is even perceived, there are at least four common reactions to which different people may be drawn. Some incline toward threatening (or carrying out) acts of direct retaliation. Some may deny the existence of an attack, particularly when it is obscure, or treat it as too trivial to warrant a response. Some see beefing up general defense expenditures (further) as an answer. And others believe the West should simply avoid dealings with any country suspected of mounting such attacks. It is also common to prefer one of these reactions for an attack by country A and a different one for country B.
For reasons detailed in project writings, Project Seshat believes that although each of these approaches has its value in limited situations, none of them will work as a general rule. It is necessary to develop an overall approach, such that grey zone conflicts will be better understood as a class and also managed on an overall level. There is a strong precedent for this view: Project Seshat is inspired by Cold War negotiation / conflict management studies of how the U.S. and the Soviet Union, over decades, could and did maintain something approximating a working relationship (including avoiding a nuclear war) even at the height of their conflict. The project therefore uses a negotiation / conflict management perspective as its organizing principle.
"Negotiation" in the Grey Zone
There is compelling evidence that the private and nonprofit sectors are major target areas in grey zone conflict. However, they are even less well prepared for this than governments. The project's central focus is therefore on dealings of all kinds between Western firms (and nonprofits) and ostensibly private entities that may be controlled by hostile governments. At the same time, the aspect of "negotiation" most directly relevant here is not what most people think of first, i.e. what happens at a bargaining table. In grey zone conflict what counts most is the preparation for any such encounter. Too often ignored or short-circuited, preparation here includes a careful analysis of whom your firm or nonprofit should even consider dealing with. And because the real parties, goals and strategies in grey zone conflict are routinely disguised, that analysis is no simple matter.
There are ongoing efforts at responding to hybrid warfare at the strategic level, and recent events (particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine) have raised their profile. But the critically important tactical and operational levels of responses tend to take place in highly dispersed corporate boardrooms, law offices, municipal government or university offices, etc. Many who are unknowingly involved in grey zone conflict have little or no understanding of it, and even those who know of an attack are often badly informed as to what they can do. We have defined a series of project objectives accordingly.
Objectives
These project objectives have been developed over time, but our process is one of continuous learning, and these are not final. They will be refined with further experience.
- Provide business executives, lawyers and other practitioners with the tools and skills needed to recognize when one is engaged in a negotiation that may be related to hybrid warfare.
- Help such practitioners develop improved conflict analysis skills such that they can better predict which situations are likely to expose them to hybrid warfare risks.
- Help academics develop both formal and "crash" courses to make such knowledge, understanding and competence widely available.
- Develop a support network of partner organizations, helping build their capacity to address specific needs in their constituencies and communities.
- Build and distribute a knowledge base of publications and available presentations, not just in writing but in a variety of media, to share the emerging knowledge and skills as widely as possible.
Participants in the project are by invitation and include specialists in both negotiation / conflict management and security. And in making such invitations, the project has looked for expertise in many kinds of thinking, including fields whose relevance may not be immediately obvious to a casual observer. Examples include physics and the arts.
More at Background
...The goals of these hybrid efforts are to erode economic strength; undermine the legitimacy of key institutions such as governance bodies, academia, diplomatic entities and the media; encourage social discord; and weaken the bonds between the nations and international organisations...The erosion of economic strength is probably the most important element and likely the hardest to reverse once it is accomplished.
Tait, S. "Hybrid warfare: the new face of global competition."
Financial Times, October 14, 2019
Tait, S. "Hybrid warfare: the new face of global competition."
Financial Times, October 14, 2019