CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50European and Russian Geopolitical Military StrategiesMilitary History and StrategyMilitary Strategy and Technology

The concept of ‘hybrid warfare’ undermines NATO’s strategic thinking: insights from interviews with NATO officials

Open access
Caliskan, Murat, Liégeois, Michel·2021·Small Wars & Insurgencies
DOI 10.1080/09592318.2020.1860374
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hybrid warfare has been a popular term that refers to contemporary warfare. Despite the increasing number of critiques, NATO has used the term in its strategic documents and summit declarations. Since concepts are important in shaping our understanding and the way that our forces fight, NATO’s use of a controversial concept has raised some questions. In this context, this paper aims to explore the meaning of the hybrid warfare from the viewpoint of NATO, based on in-depth interviews with NATO officials who have sufficient expertise and experience about the concept. The authors conclude that hybrid warfare is an ambiguous concept which clouds NATO’s strategic thinking and leads NATO to forget the difference between war and peace. Further analysis has revealed that NATO uses this concept as a tool for the strategic communication rather than a military concept.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09592318.2020.1860374

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The absence of a unified definition of hybrid warfare complicates understanding and effective response to such threats by Western countries.

    “The absence of a unified definition complicates understanding and effective response to such threats by Western countries.”

    From Hybrid Warfare and Customs Security: Strengthening Resilience for Sustainable Development (2025) · cites this paper as Caliskan & Liégeois, 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caliskan, M., & Liégeois, M.
Affiliations
UCLouvain (BE)
Corresponding author
Caliskan, Murat
ORCID
Caliskan, Murat
Venue
Small Wars & Insurgencies
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-12-20
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
295-319
ISSN
  • 0959-2318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9558
DOI
10.1080/09592318.2020.1860374
OpenAlex
W3117806210
Cited by
50
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3
FWCI
15.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Small Wars and Insurgencies (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Military History and Strategy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Military Strategy and Technology
Keywords
hybrid warfare, NATO, strategic thinking, military concepts, strategic communication, war and peace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review