Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Exploring crisis management response to hybrid threats and warfare Cover

Exploring crisis management response to hybrid threats and warfare

Open Access
|Dec 2024

References

  1. Aaronson, M., Diessen, S., Kermabon, Y. D., Long, M. B., & Miklaucic, M. (2011). NATO countering the hybrid threat. Between States, 2(4), 111-124.
  2. Alasuutari, P. (1996). Theorizing in qualitative research: A cultural studies perspective. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 371-384.
  3. Alasuutari, P. (2003). The globalization of qualitative research. In: Seale, C. Silverman, D. Gubrium, J. F. & Gobo, G. (eds.), Qualitative Research Practice. SAGE Publications Ltd, London. pp. 595-608. Available at https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5018485&publisher=FZ7200#page=526.
  4. Andersson, J. J., & Tardy, T. (2015). Hybrid: What’s in a Name? European Union Institute for Security Studies. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06844.
  5. Atlantic Council. (2020). Six Reasons NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre is Important for Our Future Security. Atlantic Council. Available at https://www.atlantic-council.org/.
  6. Auerswald, D., & Saideman, S. (2009). NATO at War: Understanding the Challenges of Caveats in Afghanistan. McGill University, Montreal.
  7. Cederberg, A., & Eronen, P. (2015). How can Societies be Defended against Hybrid Threats? (Strategic Security Analysis 9; p. 11). Geneva Centre for Security Policy – GCSP, Geneva.
  8. Cîrdei, I. A. (2016). Countering the hybrid threats. Land Forces Academy Review, 21(2), 113-119.
  9. Cîrdei, I. A., & Ispas, L. (2017). A possible answer of the European Union to hybrid threats. Scientific Bulletin-Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy, 22(2), 71-78. doi: 10.1515/bsaft-2017-0009.
  10. Cullen, P. J., & Reichborn-Kjennerud, E. (2017). Understanding Hybrid Warfare (p. 36). The Multinational Capability Development Campaign Project, Oslo, Norway.
  11. Daniels, C. E. (2012). Building a Capabilities Network to Improve Disaster Preparation Efforts in the European Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility. (p. 93) [MBA Professional Report]. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Available at https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Building-a-capabilities-network-to-improve-disaster-Daniels/39043b8c99 265f15eefd553b00f504485b06f586.
  12. Davies, S., Pettersson, T., & Öberg, M. (2023). Organized violence 1989-2022 and the return of conflicts between states. Journal of Peace Research, 60(4), 691-708.
  13. Demertzis, M., & Wolff, G. (2019). Hybrid and Cybersecurity Threats and the European Union’s Financial System. Bruegel Publications, Brussels, Belgium, p. 14.
  14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
  15. Department of the Army. (2021). Field Manual 1-02.1: Operational Terms. Department of the Army. Available at https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN34799-FM_1-02.1-000-WEB-1.pdf.
  16. Department of the Army. (2022). Field Manual 3-0: Operations. Department of the Army. Available at https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36290-FM_3-0-000-WEB-2.pdf.
  17. Dubé, L., & Pare, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597-635. doi: 10.2307/30036550.
  18. Ducaru, S. D. (2016). The cyber dimension of modern hybrid warfare and its relevance for NATO. Europolity - Continuity and Change in European Governance, 10(1), 7-23.
  19. Ducheine, P. A. L. (2016). Non-kinetic Capabilities: Complementing the Kinetic Prevalence to Targeting. In Ducheine, P. A. L. Schmitt, M. N. & Osinga, F. P. B. (eds.), Targeting: The Challenges of Modern Warfare. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 201-230. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6265-072-5_10.
  20. European Commission. (2018). Increasing Resilience and Bolstering Capabilities to Address Hybrid Threats (Joint Communication to The European Parliament, The European Council and The Council Join (2018) 16 final; p. 11). European Commission.
  21. European Commission. (2020). The EU Security Union Strategy (Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee Of The Regions Com(2020) 605 final; p. 28). European Commission.
  22. European Parliament, D. G. for P. R. Services. (2021). Strategic Communications as a Key Factor in Countering Hybrid Threats. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/14410.
  23. European Parliament. (2016). European Parliament Resolution of 23 November 2016 on EU Strategic Communication to Counteract Propaganda Against it by Third Parties (2016/2030(INI)) (Resolution 2016/2030 (INI); p. 10). European Parliament. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016IP0441.
  24. Finnish Government. (2021). Government’s Defence Report. (Government’s Defence Report 2021:80; p. 65).
  25. Fiott, D., & Theodosopoulos, V. (2020). Yearbook of European Security 2020. European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), Paris. Available at http://www.iss.europa.eu.
  26. Galeotti, M. (2021, December 7). How Migrants Got Weaponized. Available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2021-12-02/how-migrants-got-weaponized.
  27. GAO. (2010). GAO-10-1036R Hybrid Warfare, United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC, p. 28.
  28. Gasztold, A., & Gasztold, P. (2020). The Polish counterterrorism system and hybrid warfare threats. Terrorism and Political Violence, 34(6), 1259-1276. doi: 10.1080/09546553.2020.1777110.
  29. Got, A. (2020, February 7). NATO Review - NATO crisis management exercises: Preparing for the unknown. NATO Review, 7, 1-6.
  30. Gross, E. (2010). EU Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management: Roles, Institutions, and Policies. Routledge, London.
  31. Hall, B., Fleming, S., & Shotter, J. (2021, December 5). How migration became a weapon in a ‘hybrid war.’ Financial Times. Available at https://www.ft.com/content/83ece7e4-cc71-45b5-8db7-766066215612.
  32. Hämäläinen, T., & Vataja, K. (2020, September 3). The coronavirus revealed the vulnerability of society. Sitra. Available at https://www.sitra.fi/en/articles/the-coronavirus-revealed-the-vulnera bility-of-society/.
  33. Hoffman, F. G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Arlington, VA.
  34. Hoffman, F. G. (2009). Hybrid threats: Reconceptualizing the evolving character of modern conflict. Strategic Forum, 240, 8.
  35. Holohan, A. (2019). Transformative training in soft skills for peacekeepers: Gaming for peace. International Peacekeeping, 26(5), 556-578.
  36. Hybrid CoE. (2021). Hybrid Threats. Hybrid CoE -The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. Available at https://www.hybridcoe.fi/hybrid-threats/.
  37. Hyttinen, K., & Kallonen, M. (2018). How to improve EU’s conflict prevention activities to achieve longterm impact? (p. 7) [Prevention]. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kirsi-Aaltola/publication/320101431_How_to_improve_EU’s_conflict_prevention_activities_to_achieve_longterm_impact/links/5c07c51e299bf169ae33729a/How-to-improve-EUs-con-flict-prevention-activities-to-achieve-longterm-impact.pdf.
  38. Hyttinen, K., Hario, P., & Österlund, P. (2017). Improving the Effectiveness of Capabilities (IEC) in EU conflict prevention. Available at https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/134725.
  39. Hyytiäinen, M. (2021, May 20). Data integrity and situation picture of management [Invited presentation]. In: Scientific Advisory Board for National Defense (MATINE) Research Seminar 2021, Webinar, Helsinki, Finland.
  40. Jaques, T. (2007). Issue management and crisis management: An integrated, non-linear, relational construct. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 147-157. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.001.
  41. Jungwirth, R., Smith, H., Willkomm, E., Savolainen, J., Alonso, V., Lebrun, A., & Giannopoulos, G. (2023). Hybrid threats: A comprehensive resilience ecosystem (Science for Policy Report JRC129019; p. 124). European Union. Available at https://www.hybridcoe.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CORE_comprehensive_resilience_ecosystem.pdf.
  42. Kaspersen, A., & Sending, O. (2005). The United Nations and Civilian Crisis Management. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo, Norway.
  43. Kingsley, R. (2014). Fighting against allies: An examination of “national caveats” within the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) campaign in Afghanistan & their impact on ISAF operational effectiveness, 2002-2012 Doctoral dissertation, Massey University. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10179/6984.
  44. Kirk, J. A. (2023). Irregular and hybrid warfare. NCO Journal, July 2023, p. 1-4.
  45. Lasconjarias, G., & Larsen, J. A. (2015). NATO’s response to hybrid threats (Forum Paper 24; p. 372). NATO Defence College, Rome, Italy. Available at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/=topics_156338.htm.
  46. Lehto, M., & Limnéll, J. (2017). Kybersodankäynnin kehityksestä ja tulevaisuudesta. Tiede ja ase, 75. Available at https://journal.fi/ta/article/view/67730.
  47. Limnéll, J. (2020). Kybervarautuminen edellyttää poliittista ohjausta ja johtajuutta. In: Heino, O. Huotari, V. & Laitinen, K. (eds.), Varautuminen eilen-varautuminen huomenna: Puheenvuoroja Suomesta. PunaMusta Media Oyj. Available at https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/348345/POLAMK_Raportti_136.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.
  48. Mälksoo, M. (2018). Countering hybrid warfare as ontological security management: The emerging practices of the EU and NATO. European Security, Query date: 2021-05-07 13:40:55. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09662839.20 18.1497984.
  49. Mattis, J. N., & Hoffman, F. (2005). Future warfare: The rise of hybrid wars. U.S. Naval Institute, 131(11), 18-19.
  50. MCDC. (2019). MCDC Countering Hybrid Warfare Project: Countering Hybrid Warfare (p. 94) [Handbook]. The Multinational Capability Development Campaign. Available at https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/784299/concepts_mcdc_countering_hybrid_warfare.pdf.
  51. Ministry of the Interior. (2024). Combating the instrumentalization of immigration and strengthening border security (Decision VN/5349/2024-SM-1; p. 2). Ministry of Interior, Helsinki, Finland.
  52. Mumford, A. (2016). The Role of Counter Terrorism in Hybrid Warfare (p. 50) [A report prepared for NATOs Centre of Excellence for Defence Against Terrorism (COE DAT)].
  53. NATO StratCom COE. (2015). Hybrid Threats: A Strategic Communications Perspective. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence.
  54. NATO. (2003). NATO Civil-Military co-operation (CIMIC) Doctrine (Doctrine AJP-9; p. 57). NATO.
  55. NATO. (2010). Strategic Concept 2010 (p. 40) [Concept]. NATO. Available at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_82705.htm.
  56. NATO. (2011). NATO’s Assessment of a Crisis and Development of Response Strategies. NATO. Available at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_75565.htm.
  57. NATO. (2020, October 8). Crisis Management. NATO. Available at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49192.htm.
  58. NATO. (2021a, June 14). Brussels Summit Communiqué Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels 14 June 2021 [Press Release (2021) 086]. NATO. Available at https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm.
  59. NATO. (2021b, September 20). Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre. NATO. Available at https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52057.htm.
  60. Nemeth, W. (2002). Future war and Chechnya: A case for hybrid warfare. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10945/5865.
  61. OCHA Services. (2016, August 29). Evaluating Military Engagement in Disaster Response—World [Press Release]. ReliefWeb. Available at https://reliefweb.int/report/world/evaluating-military-engagement-disaster-response.
  62. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
  63. Paturas, J., Smith, S., Albanese, J., & Waite, G. (2016). Inter-organisational response to disasters. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 9, 346-358.
  64. Pindják, P. (2014). Deterring hybrid warfare: A chance for NATO and the EU to work together. NATO Review, Query date: 2021-05-07 13:40:55. Available at https://www.academia.edu/download/62870633/Deterring_hybrid_warfare__a_chance_for_NATO_and_the_EU_to_work_together_.pdf.
  65. Radulescu, M. (2015). Counter-hybrid warfare. Developments and ways of counteracting hybrid threats/war. In: International Scientific Conference “Strategies XXI,” 2, pp. 132-144. Available at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1692922163/abstract/5AF916CA31CF422APQ/5.
  66. Raitasalo, J. (2017). Getting a Grip on the So-Called “Hybrid Warfare.” ASPJ Africa & Francophonie, Query date: 2021-05-07 13:40:55. Available at https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ_French/journals_E/Volume-08_Issue-3/raitasalo_e.pdf.
  67. Ruoslahti, H., & Hyttinen, K. (2019). Comprehensive approaches to cooperation for organisational resilience to promote safety and security in arctic. In: Exploring the Future of Management. EURAM 2019 Conference, Lisboa, Portugal. Available at https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/332987.
  68. Shea, J. (2016). Resilience: A core element of collective defence. NATO Review, 30(3), 8.
  69. SIPRI. (2008). The effectiveness of foreign military assets in natural disaster response: (726642011–001) [dataset]. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.1037/e726642011-001.
  70. Steger, N. D. (2017). The Weaponization of Migration: Examining Migration as a 21st Century Tool of Political Warfare. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
  71. Sutton, J., & Tierney, K. (2006). Disaster preparedness: Concepts, guidance, and research. Colorado: University of Colorado, 3(1), 44.
  72. Swanström, N. L. P., & Weissmann, M. S. (2005). Conflict, Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management and Beyond: A Conceptual Exploration. Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Uppsala, Sweden.
  73. Tardy, T. (2015). CSDP in Action: What Contribution to International Security? Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2815/634719.
  74. The Security Committee. (2017). Security Strategy for Society (Government Resolution 2.11.2017; p. 101). The Security Committee. Available at https://turvallisuuskomitea.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/YTS_2017_english.pdf.
  75. The Security Committee. (2018). Vocabulary of Cyber Security (p. 43). Sanastokeskus TSK ry.
  76. Thiele, R. (2015). Crisis in Ukraine–the emergence of hybrid warfare. ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security, Query date: 2021-05-07 13:40:55. Available at https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/190792/347_Thiele_RINSA.pdf.
  77. Thoma, K., Scharte, B., Hiller, D., & Leismann, T. (2016). Resilience engineering as part of security research: Definitions, concepts and science approaches. European Journal for Security Research, 1(1), 3-19.
  78. Tidey, A. (2021, September 30). Poland carried out migrant push-back at Belarus border, Amnesty says. Euronews. Available at https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/30/poland-carried-out-migrant-push-back-at-belarus-border-am-nesty-says.
  79. Tikanmäki, I., & Ruoslahti, H. (2019). How are situation picture, situation awareness, and situation understanding discussed in recent scholarly literature? In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, 419-426. doi: 10.5220/0008494104190426.
  80. Tikanmäki, I., & Ruoslahti, H. (2021). Interdependence of internal and external security. In: Conferences Proceedings of 20th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, Academic Conferences International Limited, Reading, UK, 425-432.
  81. Treverton, G. F., Thvedt, A., Chen, A. R., Lee, K., & McCue, M. (2018). Addressing Hybrid Threats. Swedish Defence University, Sweden.
  82. Uppsala Universitet. (2024, April 4). UCDP -Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Uppsala Conflict Data Program Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Available at https://ucdp.uu.se/.
  83. Weijers, B. (2015). NATO disaster relief operations: An analysis of an underexposed field of activity of the Alliance. Dissertation, Catholic University of Portugal. Available at https://repositorio.ucp.pt/handle/10400.14/18819.
  84. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (1; 4th edn. Vol. 14). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Available at https://journals.nipissingu.ca/index.php/cjar/article/view/73.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2024-0009 | Journal eISSN: 1799-3350 | Journal ISSN: 2242-3524
Language: English
Submitted on: Oct 9, 2023
Accepted on: Jun 3, 2024
Published on: Dec 27, 2024
Published by: National Defense University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2024 Ilkka Tikanmäki, Harri Ruoslahti, published by National Defense University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

AHEAD OF PRINT