Introduction
Modern armed conflicts are characterized by a confluence of factors that have drastically altered the nature of warfare. The insidious rise of hybrid warfare (HW) tactics underscores a shift away from traditional paradigms, resulting in unprecedented levels of civilian victimization and the deliberate targeting of essential infrastructure (Khorram-Manesh et al., 2022; Khorram-Manesh & Burkle, 2023a). HW, a complex strategy blending conventional and unconventional methods, presents unique challenges to international humanitarian law (IHL) and humanitarian efforts. Its hallmarks include cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and the weaponization of healthcare, all of which intentionally blur the lines between combatants and civilians and exacerbate civilian vulnerability. This is evident in the devastating social and health care impacts observed in conflicts such as the Russian-led war in Ukraine, where the breakdown of essential services and the deliberate targeting of hospitals have contributed to a humanitarian crisis (Hoffman, 2014; Burkle et al., 2022).
The deliberate and strategic targeting of health systems and hospitals violates IHL and reflects a deeply troubling trend. By disrupting essential medical care and eroding humanitarian principles, such attacks lead to increased mortality and long-term health consequences (Baker et al., 2023). Urgent global intervention is required to reinforce IHL, ensure accountability, and support health care workers in conflict zones (Baker et al., 2023; Tin et al., 2023).
Estimating civilian casualties in modern conflicts, particularly those involving HW, is challenging due to the chaotic nature of conflict zones, restricted access, and varying definitions of “civilian.” The targeting of civilian infrastructure and the spread of disinformation further obscure the true human toll (Burkle et al., 2022; Khorram-Manesh et al., 2021; Daponte, 2008). The misuse of peacekeeping operations, often termed “bastardizing peacekeeping,” undermines trust and enables strategic manipulation under the guise of neutrality and is closely tied to HW. Disinformation, political manipulation, and broader political factors play pivotal roles in this process (Burkle et al., 2022; Hansen, 2024). Narcissistic sociopathy among autocratic leaders, characterized by an obsessive demand for power and disregard for law, further fuels unlawful HW and the manipulation of public perception, with severe humanitarian consequences (Khorram-Manesh & Burkle, 2023b; Burkle, 2019; Boddy, 2016; Burkle, 2016).
Addressing these complex challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach: strengthening IHL, improving data collection, fostering global cooperation, and tackling the psychological roots of conflict. Emergency health care systems, their professionals, other civilians, and involved organizations must have the education and experience necessary to confront these challenges.
Efforts are underway through substantial educational programs to equip both military and civilian audiences with the skills to navigate HW. These broad programs involve various international and national stakeholders, including academic institutions. However, a key question arises: are these programs scientifically assessed and standardized? Although simulation exercises are frequently cited as components of training, the specific nature of these simulations is not clearly articulated (NATO, 2024; Hybrid CoE, 2024). In addition, the number of peer-reviewed publications addressing HW training in scientific databases appears to be limited.
Simulation training offers a safe space for healthcare professionals to develop critical skills in complex, high-stress situations. It enables repeated practice in triage, resource allocation, and mass casualty management, skills that are difficult to teach through traditional methods. Realistic scenarios improve decision-making, teamwork, and disaster readiness (Khorram-Manesh et al., 2016; Cohen et al., 2013). Modular or tabletop simulation exercises further enhance disaster preparedness by training healthcare professionals to manage major incidents and by promoting inter-agency collaboration. These simulations strengthen communication across response levels and improve perceived collaboration, learning outcomes, and overall usefulness in disaster response settings (Khorram-Manesh et al., 2016; Sultan et al., 2023a; Kesler et al., 2023).
Nevertheless, a central flaw in many existing defense and security simulation programs is an extensive focus on operational preparedness at the expense of cognitive preparedness – the core requirement for combating HW. This imbalance is critical because, while operational readiness is necessary in any crisis, HW attacks are specifically designed to exploit ambiguity and uncertainty, making the cognitive domain the main target (Andreassen et al., 2025; Khorram-Manesh, 2025). Consequently, an effective HW preparedness program must reverse this priority by emphasizing the development of intellectual resilience, including the ability to discern intent; manage complex, multi-domain information; and to make rapid, adaptive decisions under conditions of non-attribution. Since foundational operational preparedness (e.g., maintaining critical infrastructure) should be standard practice regardless of the threat, the added value of HW training lies predominantly in cognitive readiness. Such training ensures that practitioners are educated to operate under uncertainty rather than merely trained to respond to certainty (Alderson et al., 2022; Aridi, 2020; Seager & Elran, 2019).
Recognizing the escalating need for preparedness in complex emergencies and modern conflict, particularly HW, this paper critically appraises current educational paradigms for emergency teams and citizens, questioning the inclusion and functional capacity of simulation exercises in preparing for HW. From this perspective, preparedness is understood as making a successful attack so difficult and costly for an adversary (through deterrence by denial) that the hybrid threat is rendered ineffective (Ljungkvist, 2024).
A key gap exists in assessing whether current simulation-based training effectively validates four critical preparedness outcomes: cognitive resilience, intersectoral coordination, adaptive decision-making under uncertainty, and counter-disinformation skills (Jia et al., 2024). By empirically questioning current readiness against these criteria, this research provides an argument for the strategic deployment of advanced technological solutions to mitigate the identified preparedness deficits (Seager & Elran, 2019). Accordingly, this scoping review aims to identify and analyze current educational programs using simulation training for HW preparedness, while highlighting conceptual gaps and directions for future research.
Method
To explore how technology may improve disaster medicine education, particularly readiness for HW through simulation exercises for both professionals and citizens, a scoping review was conducted to thoroughly map the expansive fields of disaster medicine education and wargaming. The review drew on academic databases and gray literature sources, such as Google Scholar (Munn et al., 2018). “Gray literature” refers to information not formally published in traditional academic journals or commercial presses. It is often called “fugitive” or “invisible” literature because it is not typically indexed in major databases (De Blaaij, 2004; Quenby et al., 2014). Examples include theses, dissertations, conference proceedings, government reports, policy documents, white papers, technical reports, preprints, and organizational reports, etc.
Including gray literature in a scoping review is crucial for several reasons. Primarily, it aims to comprehensively map the available evidence on a topic, and helps ensure a broad and complete overview, reducing the risk of an incomplete picture by capturing all relevant evidence. Additionally, gray literature often includes studies with neutral or negative findings, which are less likely to be published in peer-reviewed journals, thus providing a more balanced view. It also disseminates recent research findings more quickly than traditional publications, which is vital for fast-evolving fields. In addition, it offers unique insights into practical applications and policy considerations from various stakeholders that are often absent in academic articles (Petrie et al., 2024). Finally, the broader inclusion of diverse sources helps pinpoint areas where research is lacking.
Given the scarcity of scientific publications in this field, this dual approach aimed to bridge the gap between research and policy by identifying core concepts, theories, and sources of evidence, thereby providing a foundational understanding of the current state of the field, specifically focusing on HW, educational programs, and their potential impacts. The review aims to clarify disputed definitions, identify critical research gaps, and facilitate future research and systematic reviews to guide policymaking and the development of disaster medicine education.
Searching Strategies, Keywords, and Databases
Using the keywords HW, education, simulation exercises, professionals, and civilians, a comprehensive exploration of the scientific literature was undertaken. PubMed was used for its extensive coverage of biomedical and health sciences; Scopus was included for its extensive interdisciplinary reach and capacity to identify research trends; and Web of Science (WoS) was used for its rigorous indexing of high-impact research, encompassing ethical and social perspectives.
Search strings
Similar search strings, such as “Hybrid War” AND “Education,” were used for each academic database, Google, and Google Scholar. Employing a multi-database strategy allowed for the capture of a broad spectrum of research, providing a robust and unbiased overview of disaster medicine education while ensuring the retrieval of all relevant literature. Using several alternative search strings, the results often focused either on civilian/citizen educational alternatives, or military programs, emphasizing specific military strategies. These results were often irrelevant and did not align with the study’s aims. Consequently, a broader search string was chosen for an initial, high-level exploration to identify key themes and major educational initiatives rather than to conduct a granular deep dive. This approach allowed for maximum recall of relevant documents, particularly given the evolving terminology in the field, preventing the inadvertent exclusion of diverse training descriptions. Crucially, it also helped identify a significant gap in the literature regarding the scientific evaluation and standardization of these initiatives, especially for simulation exercises.
Inclusion criteria
The following studies in English were included:
Studies focusing on simulation-based training in disaster medicine, emergency response, or conflict preparedness.
Studies addressing hybrid warfare (HW) or modern conflict scenarios involving disinformation, unconventional threats, or tactics targeting civilians.
Studies evaluating cognitive, operational, or intersectoral outcomes, such as decision-making, coordination, or overall preparedness.
Studies involving healthcare professionals, emergency responders, or civilians as participants.
Studies using technology-enhanced simulations (e.g., virtual reality, tabletop exercises, or digital platforms).
Peer-reviewed articles, official reports, or validated case studies published between 2010 and 2025 to ensure relevance to modern warfare and simulation technologies.
Exclusion criteria
The following studies were not included:
Studies not involving simulation exercises or training interventions.
Studies focusing solely on traditional warfare without reference to hybrid or modern conflict elements.
Studies lacking empirical data or outcome evaluation (e.g., purely theoretical papers without application).
Studies involving non-emergency-related simulations, such as routine medical training unrelated to disaster or conflict preparedness.
Opinion pieces, editorials, or non-peer-reviewed sources, unless they provided unique insights or were cited by credible sources.
Duplicated studies or preliminary findings without full data, and studies published in languages inaccessible for analysis (unless translation was feasible).
Eligibility
Empirical research meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria was considered eligible for inclusion. Both eligible scientific and gray literature were included to capture the breadth of a still-evolving multidisciplinary and practice-oriented field. Scientific literature provides a theoretical and analytical framework for understanding the nature, tactics, and effects of hybrid warfare (highlighting knowledge gaps and needs); gray literature offers concrete insights into how simulation and education are implemented in practice. Together, these two types of sources complement each other, providing a more comprehensive overview and enhancing the relevance of the recommendations by grounding them in both theory and practice.
Review, eligibility, and analysis process
The review process consisted of two stages. First, titles and abstracts of all relevant studies were screened, duplicates were removed, and eligible studies were advanced to phase two. In the second stage, a detailed examination of the full-text articles was performed, and relevant data were extracted into a structured table (Appendix A) for inclusion in the results. To ensure consistency, all research team members discussed and agreed upon the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A common coding and thematic framework was also developed, alongside standardized data extraction forms with clear instructions for each field, which were then used for the review. During the early phases of the project, the team independently screened a small, representative sample of articles as a pilot. Any discrepancies and disagreements were discussed until a consensus was reached, leading to refined protocols and improved clarity. Papers were selected for inclusion by at least three reviewers. If there was any disagreement, a fourth reviewer was consulted to achieve a final consensus.
The PRISMA checklist is attached as Attachment 1. The search results were categorized into diverse analytical themes using conceptual content analysis. This process involved defining the research question, coding the text, deciding the level of analysis, and establishing rules to ensure consistency. Finally, conclusions were drawn based on the patterns and trends identified (Kleinheksel et al., 2020).
Results
Four reviewers (AKM, JLS, LES, and MRJ) screened 75 studies identified across PubMed (4), Scopus (42), and Web of Science (29). Following the removal of 6 duplicate entries, the remaining 69 studies were subjected to detailed analysis, which ultimately resulted in the inclusion of 30 studies from the scientific databases. For the gray literature, the first 70 results were screened. Studies already presented in the database selection were not included again. Official and unofficial publications not aligned with the inclusion criteria were also removed. Finally, eight programs discovered through the Google search were added (Figure 1).
Figure 1
The literature selection process according to expanded PRISMA methodology for scoping reviews.
The absence of studies directly examining the role of simulation in education related to HW within the context of disaster medicine highlights a clear gap in the literature. However, several of the included studies indirectly point to challenges and needs that simulation-based training can specifically address. A summary of both included scientific articles and programs is presented in Appendices A and B.
The central focus of the 30 included articles is overwhelmingly on understanding, defining, and countering HW, which can be analytically categorized into the following themes, discussed individually, immediately below: the evolving and ambiguous concept of HW; education and resilience as the primary defense strategy; geopolitical context and global scope; and strategic responses and international cooperation.
The evolving and ambiguous concept of HW
A foundational challenge identified across the literature is the fluid and contested definition of HW. This ambiguity is not merely academic; it has direct implications for policy and strategy. Several authors highlight the lack of a clear, universally accepted definition. Janičatová and Mlejnková (2021) argue that inconsistencies in the UK’s political-military discourse on Russia hinder the formulation of effective policy. Similarly, Daniel and Eberle (2021) identify three distinct narratives (defense, counterinfluence, and education) shaping the debate in Czechia, leading to fragmented responses. Libiseller (2023) critiques the term HW as an “academic fashion” that gained popularity after 2014, often leading to uncritical adoption and a vague conceptual understanding within Strategic Studies. This suggests the need for a more rigorous and analytically grounded application of the term.
Despite the ambiguity, a working consensus has emerged. HW involves the synchronized use of military and non-military instruments, including disinformation, cyberattacks, economic pressure, and political subversion, all aimed at exploiting a target’s societal vulnerabilities (Briggs et al., 2021; Wesslau, 2024).
Education and resilience: The primary defense strategy
A significant portion of the literature converges on education as the most critical long-term defense against hybrid threats. This focus is multi-layered, addressing everyone from the public to elite crisis managers. A recurring theme is the need to inoculate the public, especially youth. Astafieva et al. (2023) call for media education and critical thinking in high schools, while Savchenko and Kurylo (2018) emphasize patriotic education to foster cohesion in Ukraine. Muñiz-Velázquez (2023) frames disinformation literacy as a fundamental “democratic right and duty.” However, Matonytė et al. (2024) reveal a gap, showing that Lithuanian youth have a limited and often inaccurate understanding of hybrid threats.
The field is moving beyond general literacy toward structured training. Zsigmond’s (2024) HW Reference Curriculum for elective seminars exemplifies this trend toward formalized, specialized education. Similarly, Tudorache et al. (2023) propose an innovative conceptual model for HW education that integrates interdisciplinary approaches and emerging technologies, such as AI.
Conflict is accelerating educational innovation. Martyniuk et al. (2023) analyze how military aggression is driving the evolution of digital educational resources (such as Moodle and OERs), forcing adaptive strategies. This perspective is echoed by Makhachashvili et al. (2023, 2024), who note that both the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have necessitated a transdisciplinary shift toward sustainable digital and blended learning systems. Education is also about building operational capacity. Šimanauskienė and Smaliukienė (2019) assess essential leadership capabilities – such as decision-making under pressure and team coordination – required for military personnel and first responders in crisis situations, which are often characteristic of hybrid attacks. Kaminskaitė (2019) specifically examines whether military academies are teaching the right leader competencies needed for asymmetric warfare.
Geopolitical context and global scope
The research is overwhelmingly shaped by current geopolitical events. Russia’s actions serve as the primary case study and driver for much of this research. Krasnodemska et al. (2024) analyze Russia’s weaponization of historical narratives, while Verbytska et al. (2023) frame the Ukrainian language itself as a tool of national resistance. Wesslau (2024) provides a detailed breakdown of Russia’s hybrid tactics against Moldova, demonstrating the regional application of its playbook. Many articles assess responses within the Euro-Atlantic community. Brăgea (2025) and Costigan (2025) reflect on the 25-year evolution of the Partnership for Peace Consortium (PfPC) in adapting to new threats. Markowitz (2023) highlights innovative grassroots strategies in Central and Eastern Europe.
The analysis is moving beyond Europe. Jung and Tan (2024) investigate how middle powers such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan use “minilateralism” to counter hybrid threats in the Indo-Pacific. Putter (2024) offers insights into cognitive warfare and counterintelligence strategies in African nations.
Strategic responses and international cooperation
Beyond education, the articles describe a range of strategic and collaborative responses needed to counter hybrid threats effectively. A whole-of-government approach is essential. Khmyrov et al. (2024) highlight the need for interagency coordination and public-private partnerships. Nussipova et al. (2024), in contrast, argue that a proactive information security communications strategy is a prerequisite for any effective defense. No nation can act alone. This is emphasized at the institutional level by the PfPC (Brăgea, 2025) and at the regional level by middle powers in the Indo-Pacific (Jung & Tan, 2024). Crucially, Marchisio et al. (2024) show how this cooperation can be cultivated from the ground up, finding that collaborative online international learning (COIL) effectively enhances intercultural awareness and teamwork among students – building the foundation for future international partnerships.
An emerging and critical focus is the humanitarian dimension. Fitz-Gerald and Hennebry (2025) advocate for a “minimum basic technology infrastructure” to protect civilians in a data-driven battlespace. This is complemented by Markov (2016), who document the severe psychological toll on civilians, identifying increased rates of anxiety, depression, and PTSD resulting from the macro-social stress of hybrid warfare.
Analytical Synthesis of the Results
The analysis reveals a paradigm shift in security studies toward understanding HW, which weaponizes societal vulnerabilities through the integration of military and non-military means. The primary countermeasure identified is not technological but a long-term investment in human capital. Building societal resilience through multi-layered education is deemed the most effective defense against threats designed to erode trust and undermine democratic institutions, a trend catalyzed by Russia’s actions in Eastern Europe. The lack of a precise, consistent definition of hybrid warfare represents a strategic liability, not just an academic debate. This ambiguity hinders the development of coherent policy, leads to misallocation of resources, and allows hostile actors to operate in a “gray zone” below the threshold of conventional military response, complicating attribution and retaliation.
The focus on education marks a fundamental pivot in security thinking, recognizing human cognition and societal cohesion as critical components of the battle space. Since HW targets the trust and cognitive resilience of populations, the most effective defense is to “inoculate” the citizenry with critical thinking skills. This proactive strategy addresses the root vulnerabilities exploited by hybrid tactics, building resilience from the ground up rather than reacting to individual attacks. Given that HW is inherently multi-domain (political, economic, and informational), a siloed defense is guaranteed to fail. The threat necessitates a holistic, multi-actor response network in which resilience emerges from deep collaboration among international alliances, national agencies, civil society, and the private sector. In this context, the network itself – not any single entity – constitutes the most effective defense.
Educational Programs
Although specific degree programs dedicated solely to “HW management” are limited, there are various educational and training programs that develop the knowledge and skills necessary to understand, analyze, and counter hybrid threats. These programs are often found within broader fields such as security studies, international relations, defense studies, and strategic studies (ECSS, 2025; PfPC, 2025; TONEX, 2025; ESDC, 2024; Gregg, 2024; NICCS, 2024; SDU, 2022). Appendix B shows examples of these institutions.
Key Areas of Study in these educational programs include: understanding HW (definitions, characteristics, and historical evolution); identifying state and non-state actors involved in HW; studying tactics and techniques, i.e., various tools used in HW, including disinformation, cyberattacks, economic coercion, and proxy warfare; strategic implications (analyzing the impact of HW on national and international security); countering hybrid threats, i.e., developing strategies and tactics to defend against and mitigate the effects of HW; examining the legal challenges posed by HW; and the use of case studies (analyzing real-world examples of HW and responses to them). These programs are designed to equip participants with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively respond to the complexities of HW (Vassileva & Zwilling, 2018; Cambria et al., 2023; Tudorache et al., 2023). However, they often lack a specialized focus on cognitive preparedness.
Discussion
The absence of studies directly examining the role of simulation in education related to hybrid warfare is a key finding of this review, highlighting a clear gap in the literature. Nevertheless, several included studies emphasize challenges and needs that simulation can specifically address, such as cognitive preparedness, intersectoral coordination, decision-making under uncertainty, and training to respond to disinformation and unconventional threats. By aligning these needs with existing knowledge of how simulation supports disaster medicine education, this article highlights the potential of simulation as a central educational tool. Therefore, the theoretical discussion and recommendations offered here respond to these identified gaps in the literature and bridge the analysis with the research question of whether simulation is currently incorporated in educational programs, and how it could enhance preparedness for hybrid threats. This underscores the need for future empirical research and the development of evidence- and simulation-based learning models as a logical continuation of the insights gained from this scoping review.
Thematic analysis reveals that HW is a complex and evolving phenomenon (Hoffman, 2014; Tin et al., 2023). While its definition remains elusive, research is increasingly identifying its key characteristics and vulnerabilities (Zsigmond, 2024; Janičatová & Mlejnková, 2021; Daniel & Eberle, 2021). Building societal resilience against the impacts of HW requires proactive, context-specific strategies focusing on education, information security, international cooperation, and effective leadership, all tailored to regional dynamics in the digital age (Wesslau, 2024; Tudorache et al., 2023; Khorram-Manesh & Burkle, 2023b; Briggs et al., 2021; Kaminskaitė, 2019; Boddy, 2016).
The primary goal of education is, then, to build resilience by fostering critical thinking and media literacy to counter disinformation and the exploitation of societal vulnerabilities (Nussipova et al., 2024; Kowalski & Prescott, 2019). Higher education programs must also develop specialized skills in civil-military partnerships, information security, and strategic communication. Achieving this requires adapting educational methods through technology, interdisciplinary approaches, and advanced simulation exercises (Cambria et al., 2023; Verbytska et al., 2023; Makhachashvili & Semenist, 2023). Cultivating crisis leadership and understanding HW as a global threat with region-specific characteristics are also essential components (Kowalski & Prescott, 2019; Jung & Tan, 2024; Makhachashvili & Semenist 2023). Table 1 shows how technology may enhance simulation exercises for HW.
Table 1
How New Technologies Enhance Simulation Exercises for HW Training inspired by the included articles in this study.
| TECHNOLOGY | ENHANCING HW |
|---|---|
| Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) | VR can create fully immersive virtual environments that replicate the sensory experiences of a hybrid conflict zone, enhancing realism and engagement. AR can overlay digital information onto the real world, allowing for training in familiar environments with simulated threats and data feeds. Imagine practicing cyber defense in your actual office with simulated network intrusions overlaid. |
| Artificial Intelligence (AI) | AI can power intelligent and adaptive opposing forces (OPFOR) within simulations, making them more unpredictable and challenging. AI can also analyze trainee performance, provide personalized feedback, and adjust the simulation in real-time based on their actions. |
| Big Data Analytics | Data collected during simulation exercises can be analyzed to identify patterns in trainee decision-making, areas of strength and weakness, and the effectiveness of different strategies. This data-driven approach allows for continuous improvement of both the training scenarios and the trainees’ skills |
| Gamification | Incorporating game-like elements such as scoring, leaderboards, and rewards can increase trainee motivation, engagement, and knowledge retention. This can make the learning process more enjoyable and effective. |
| Cloud-Based Platforms | Cloud technologies enable distributed and collaborative simulations, allowing participants from different geographical locations to train together in a shared virtual environment. This is particularly valuable for international cooperation and interagency training. |
| Serious Games | These are video games designed with a primary purpose beyond pure entertainment, such as training and education. They can offer engaging and interactive ways to learn about the strategic and tactical aspects of HW. |
| Cyber Ranges | Specialized virtual environments that replicate real-world network infrastructure allow trainees to practice cyber defense and offense skills in a safe and controlled setting, crucial for addressing the cyber dimensions of HW. |
| Social Media Simulation Tools | These tools can simulate the spread of disinformation and the dynamics of online social networks, allowing trainees to understand how information operations unfold and practice countering them. |
Operationalizing Preparedness: Simulation for HW Education
While there is a clear need for educational programs and simulations to boost HW preparedness, a key challenge lies in selecting the most effective type of simulation. Research indicates that tabletop exercises (TTX), specifically multi-domain educational wargames, are the most suitable training format. This choice is grounded in a specific theoretical and conceptual framework, as this methodology is uniquely designed to counter HW’s complex ambiguity by prioritizing cognitive skill development and inter-agency coordination over technical performance (Bakken et al., 2024). The following discussion interprets these key findings in light of the theoretical frameworks introduced in the next section.
Theoretical foundation: Experiential learning and cognitive gain
The pedagogical effectiveness of TTX is grounded in David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT). This framework posits that learning is a cyclical process where knowledge is created through the transformation of experience, moving beyond rote memorization to instill deep, adaptive understanding (McLeod, 2025; Institute of Experimental Learning, 2025).
The TTX initiates the cycle by presenting a simulated crisis scenario (vignettes/ “injects” such as disinformation or cyber-disruptions) that forces participants to make rapid, high-stakes decisions under conditions of non-attribution and information uncertainty. This “doing” phase is particularly critical in HW training, as the primary challenge is not a clear military attack but a complex convergence of cyber operations, disinformation, and economic coercion.
The structured “hotwash” (after action review) following each scenario inject provides the essential reflective stage. Participants are guided to analyze why their decisions failed or succeeded, explicitly linking their subjective experience of confusion to the objective hybrid strategy employed by the “Red Team.”
Through reflection, participants abstract their immediate experiences into conceptual models (e.g., distinguishing “disinformation” from “misinformation” or understanding escalation thresholds in the Gray Zone). This process is far more effective than traditional lectures for internalizing the academic concepts related to HW. The cyclical nature of the TTX (e.g., escalating to a second, related scenario) allows participants to test the new conceptual models they developed immediately, ensuring that learning is adaptive rather than merely declarative. By anchoring abstract HW theory in concrete experience, the TTX effectively transforms the educational objective from teaching students “what to think” (facts) to training them “how to think” (adaptive processing) under conditions of radical uncertainty.
Conceptual framework: The Whole-of-Society imperative
The strategic imperative recognizes that complex, modern threats such as HW, climate change, pandemics, or large-scale cyberattacks are too vast and deeply embedded to be addressed by government or military actors alone. This urgent necessity dictates a more inclusive and collaborative approach: national survival, security, and prosperity now require the adoption of the philosophy that, in the face of current threats, a siloed approach is obsolete – and that active participation from all sectors of society is required if these threats are to be overcome. This differs from the Whole-of-Society Resilience Framework, which is the actionable plan that puts the imperative into practice. It provides a tangible model detailing how different parts of society – government agencies, the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academia, and citizens – can work together. The framework serves as an operational blueprint, outlining the roles, responsibilities, partnerships, and processes needed to build and sustain resilience. This includes developing specific programs for public education, securing critical infrastructure, and establishing clear communication channels. The structural design of the Multi-Domain Educational Wargame is dictated by this Whole-of-Society Resilience Framework, recognizing that HW specifically targets civilian spaces and critical infrastructure (CI) that fall outside traditional military command structures (Ruggiero et al., 2024; McClelland et al., 2022; Ortenzi et al., 2022). Table 2 summarizes the design requirements for preparedness based on the included data.
Table 2
Design Requirements for Preparedness.
| HW TARGET VULNERABILITY | TTX DESIGN IMPERATIVE | OUTCOME/METRIC |
|---|---|---|
| Inter-Agency Seams | Multi-Sectoral Participant Pool: Must include actors from civil service, CI companies (Telecoms, Energy), the media, and security/defense bodies. | Tests the efficiency of Joint Decision-Making Protocols and eliminates gaps in legal and regulatory authority. |
| Cognitive/Information Domain | Scenario Centrality of Disinformation: Injects must include deepfakes, manipulated media, and social bot campaigns that challenge the participants’ sense of objective reality. | Develops Strategic Communications (StratCom) Capabilities and the ability to rapidly counter hostile narratives while maintaining public trust. |
| Grey Zone Ambiguity | Non-Attribution Stressors: The scenario must lack clear evidence of a state-sponsored attack, forcing participants to make policy recommendations based on high probability, not legal certainty. | Measures the group’s Tolerance for Ambiguity and their capacity to initiate Proactive Resilience Measures (e.g., implementing an emergency backup system) before a decisive attack is attributed. |
In short, the utility of simulation lies in its ability to foster intellectual interoperability across traditionally siloed sectors (Khorram-Manesh, 2025). By using the TTX format, an educational program can successfully operationalize preparedness by developing the cognitive and communicative resilience necessary for a state and society to withstand and recover from the ambiguous, multi-vector pressures of HW. This includes addressing its psychological dimensions, with adjustable difficulty levels that allow trainees to experience the effect of disinformation on populations, the erosion of trust, and the challenges of maintaining social cohesion (Khorram-Manesh et al., 2025a, b; Prokopenko & Sapinski, 2024; Sultan et al., 2023b; Aronsson et al., 2021; Khorram-Manesh et al., 2016; Stirling et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, the benefits of simulation face several challenges. First, accurately reflecting modern HW is difficult, as simulating the interplay of its diverse tactics requires obtaining realistic data on civilian behavior, infrastructure, and enemy capabilities, which are often difficult to obtain in conflict zones (Taylor, 2013). Second, ethical considerations – such as potential desensitization and any psychological impact – must be carefully addressed when simulating violent conflicts. Additionally, advanced technologies are expensive, limiting accessibility and making cost-effective solutions essential (Budić et al., 2018). Lastly, effective exercises require the coordination of multiple stakeholders, which is inherently challenging. Simulating the effects of, and countering, the ever-changing nature of disinformation is particularly difficult.
Training for Hybrid Warfare: A Multifaceted Approach
Effective training for HW demands a structured, gradual, and adaptable approach that leverages simulation exercises and new technologies. Table 3 presents the characteristics and requirements for HW preparedness through simulation for citizens, professionals, and vulnerable groups (Sultan et al., 2023b; Turkelson et al., 2021; Tsvetkova et al., 2017; Schweitzer & Fulton, 2010).
Table 3
Hybrid Warfare Preparedness: A Simulation Training Table.
| TRAINING GROUP | CORE OBJECTIVES & FOCUS AREAS | SIMULATION METHODOLOGIES & TOOLS | KEY OUTCOMES & SKILLS DEVELOPED | REFERENCES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citizen Training | Build foundational skills in emergency preparedness, information literacy, and first aid. | Progressive simulations, from tabletop exercises to interactive, gamified scenarios. Hands-on, community-based training. | Skills in identifying disinformation, cyberattacks, and social division tactics. Psychological preparedness and critical thinking against propaganda. Enhanced social cohesion. | Matonytė et al. 2024; Muñiz-Velázquez, 2023; Astafieva et al. 2023; Savchenko and Kurylo, 2018; Markov, 2016; Verbytska et al. 2023 |
| Professional Training | Master advanced, complex simulations of coordinated attacks on critical infrastructure and disinformation. Emphasize ethical dilemmas and strategic thinking. Adapt to new technologies and proactively test counterstrategies. | Integrated scenarios practicing interagency collaboration (police, military, fire, medical). High-fidelity VR/AR simulations of conflict zones with real-time data. Specialized expert-led modules (e.g., cybersecurity, information warfare). | Effective interagency communication. Enhanced preparedness in cybersecurity and public communication. Improved leadership and decision-making in complex digital scenarios. | Khmyrov et al. 2024; Briggs et al. 2021; Tudorache et al. 2023; Cambria et al. 2023; Nussipova et al. 2024; Muñiz-Velázquez, 2023; Makhachashvili et al. 2024 |
| Vulnerable Populations | Require a sensitive, tailored, community-centered approach. Focus on accessibility, cultural sensitivity, and practical information. | Utilize hands-on activities and visual aids. Community-based, peer-led training and home-based support. Must use a trauma-informed approach to ensure a safe learning environment. | Empowerment through diverse methods, trust-building, and ongoing support. Personalized preparedness addressing specific needs (e.g., elderly, refugees, disabled). | Turkelson et al. 2021; Tsvetkova et al. 2017 |
Recommendation for a simulation program to counter hybrid warfare
Based on the current review and the theoretical and conceptual frameworks presented, this review suggests the following recommendations.
Emphasize integrated and multi-domain operations. Simulations should move beyond single-domain exercises to address the interplay and cascading effects of hybrid tactics (e.g., a cyberattack affecting logistics or disinformation impacting morale).
Incorporate non-kinetic elements extensively. Simulations should realistically model non-kinetic tools such as information warfare, cyberattacks, economic pressure, and political subversion, alongside military actions.
Focus on decision-making. Scenarios should reflect the ambiguity and non-attribution inherent in HW, forcing participants to make critical decisions under pressure with incomplete information, especially in “gray zone” activities.
Develop scenarios with diverse actors. Simulations should reflect the complexity of HW by including a mix of state and non-state actors (e.g., proxy forces, criminal organizations) with realistic motivations.
Integrate realistic information operations and psychological warfare. Simulations should incorporate the creation and dissemination of propaganda, disinformation, and influence campaigns to accurately reflect the critical information battle space and its effects on decision-making.
Promote interagency collaboration. Simulations should facilitate joint training among military, law enforcement, intelligence, and civilian organizations to improve communication and shared understanding.
Use adaptive and dynamic simulation environments. Simulation platforms should be flexible and capable of rapid adaptation to emerging HW threats and tactics, potentially using sophisticated software to incorporate real-world data.
Emphasize post-exercise analysis and lessons learned. Analysis should go beyond tactical performance to focus on dealing with ambiguity, the effectiveness of interagency coordination, and the impact of non-kinetic elements.
Finally, in designing these educational programs, a classic dilemma emerges: should simulations be standardized across national systems for ease of comparison, or should they remain context-sensitive to address unique local risks? One possible solution is a hybrid approach. Core elements, such as the fundamental competencies to be assessed, and the metrics used for evaluation, should be standardized. This may ensure quality and allow different agencies and international partners to communicate effectively. However, the scenarios themselves – the specific resources involved, the environmental variables, and the precise challenges – should remain modular and tailored to the local context to maintain high fidelity and relevance. Such a hybrid model may provide the best of both worlds, enabling both comparability and relevance (Khorram-Manesh et al., 2025a, b; Hybrid CoE, 2024; Nato, 2024; NICCS, 2024).
Future Empirical Research Agenda
Based on the synthesis and gaps identified in this review, this section proposes a future research agenda to guide empirical and methodological development in the field. These directions flow directly from the study’s findings as an original conceptual extension of the internal discussion.
Pilot implementation and refinement. The primary step is to conduct a pilot study of the proposed framework in a controlled environment. This will allow for the refinement of scenario logic and the validation of “injects” – such as disinformation or cyber-disruptions – to ensure they elicit the intended psychological and operational responses.
Evaluation of learning outcomes. Future studies should employ a mixed-methods approach to measure the “transfer of learning”. By using pre- and post-exercise assessments, researchers can quantify improvements in participants’ cognitive resilience, specifically their ability to maintain clear decision-making despite the ambiguity of “gray zone” activities.
Cross-sectoral comparative analysis. Empirical testing should be expanded across different professional audiences (e.g., military, law enforcement, and civilian NGOs). This approach would determine how interagency communication barriers shift when different organizational cultures are forced to collaborate within the same dynamic simulation.
Longitudinal resilience tracking. Research should investigate the long-term retention of skills. A longitudinal study could assess whether teams participating in these theoretically grounded simulations demonstrate higher levels of intersectoral coordination during real-world crises compared to those trained using traditional methods.
Technological fidelity assessment. Finally, future research should explore the impact of integrating real-world data and AI-driven adversaries. Testing whether high-fidelity, adaptive simulation environments significantly improve the stress-testing of decision-making compared to static tabletop models will be crucial for the evolution of HW preparedness.
Limitations
This review highlights several limitations in the literature on educational initiatives and simulation-based training for HW. First, while the scoping methodology allowed for a broad mapping of existing studies, it did not assess the methodological rigor or potential biases of individual sources. This limitation is particularly relevant given the emerging and interdisciplinary nature of HW education, where many studies lack standardized evaluation frameworks.
Second, the literature on HW simulations is fragmented across fields such as security studies, pedagogy, and technology, resulting in inconsistent terminology and varied research designs. This diversity complicated the synthesis of findings and limited the ability to draw generalizable conclusions about the effectiveness of specific educational approaches.
Third, few studies provided empirical evidence on learning outcomes or the long-term impact of simulation-based training. Most focused on conceptual frameworks or pilot initiatives, leaving a gap in validated, scalable models for civilian or professional education in hybrid threat environments. Furthermore, no quantitative synthesis of learning outcomes was possible, as the included studies were heterogeneous and primarily conceptual.
Additionally, the inclusion criteria may have excluded relevant gray literature or non-English publications, which are often significant in defense and policy contexts. Although multiple researchers collaborated to reduce selection bias, subjective judgments during screening and data extraction may still have influenced the scope and interpretation of the results.
Finally, while this scoping review offers a foundational overview, it is not designed to answer targeted questions about best practices or the efficacy of specific interventions. Future research should include systematic reviews and empirical studies to rigorously evaluate specific simulation methods and educational strategies within hybrid warfare contexts.
Conclusion
From a policy perspective, the findings highlight the need for standardized yet adaptable simulation frameworks to mitigate the impacts of HW. From a research perspective, they underline the importance of empirical validation through pilot studies. This study found that the use of technology in HW simulation exercises is transformative, offering unparalleled realism and complexity. VR and AR create immersive environments that replicate the chaos of conflict zones, while gaming and simulation software model intricate scenarios involving military forces, civilian populations, and critical infrastructure. AI-driven simulations further enhance realism by mimicking civilian behavior and enemy actions, and platforms such as Conducttr simulate various facets of HW, including cyberattacks and information warfare.
Despite these technological advancements, several challenges remain. Ensuring realism and complexity, obtaining accurate data, addressing ethical concerns, managing costs, and coordinating diverse stakeholders are all critical issues that must be addressed. By overcoming these challenges, we can harness the power of technology to enhance preparedness and resilience, making simulation exercises a vital tool for navigating the complexities of modern conflicts. While practical preparedness is necessary, cognitive preparedness must be achieved first. This prioritization necessitates the use of simulations such as tabletop exercises. Although these may lack the environmental realism of a hybrid warfare event, their primary value lies in offering deep cognitive insights into HW’s multifaceted impacts.
Additional File
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
Data Accessibility Statement
All data obtained/generated has been provided.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Author Contributions
AK-M and EC; conceptualized the study. AK-M, JLS, LES, and MRJ; conducted the literature search, evaluated and compiled studies, and selected those included in the review. All authors read, edited, and improved the manuscript and approved the final version for submission.