‘Hybrid warfare’ as an academic fashion

References

• Abrahamson, Eric and Lori Rosenkopf, ’Institutional and Competitive Bandwagons: Using Mathematical Modeling as a Tool to Explore Innovation Diffusion’, Academy of Management Review 18/3 (1993), 487–517. doi:10.2307/258906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almäng, Jan, ’War, Vagueness and Hybrid War’, Defence Studies 19/2 (2019), 189–204. doi:10.1080/14702436.2019.1597631.
   Google Scholar
• Angstrom, Jan, ’Escalation, Emulation, and the Failure of Hybrid Warfare in Afghanistan’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 40/10 (2017), 838–56. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2016.1248665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoi, Chiyuki, Madoka Futamura, and Alessio Patalano, ’Hybrid Warfare in Asia: Its Meaning and Shape’, The Pacific Review 31/6 (2018), 693–713. doi:10.1080/09512748.2018.1513548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Åtland, Kristian, ’North European Security After the Ukraine Conflict’, Defense & Security Analysis 32/2 (2016), 163–76. doi:10.1080/14751798.2016.1160484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beccaro, Andrea, ’Russia, Syria and Hybrid Warfare: A Critical Assessment’, Comparative Strategy 40/5 (2021), 482–98. doi:10.1080/01495933.2021.1962199.
   Google Scholar
• Berenskoetter, Felix, ’Unpacking Concepts’, in Felix Berenskoetter (ed.), Concepts in World Politics (Los Angeles: SAGE Publications 2016), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Biddle, Stephen, ’The Determinants of Nonstate Military Methods’, The Pacific Review 31/6 (2018), 714–39. doi:10.1080/09512748.2018.1513550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blount, Clive, ’Useful for the Next Hundred Years? Maintaining the Future Utility of Airpower’, The RUSI Journal 163/3 (2018), 44–51. doi:10.1080/03071847.2018.1494348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers, Ian, ’The Use and Utility of Hybrid Warfare on the Korean Peninsula’, The Pacific Review 31/6 (2018), 762–86. doi:10.1080/09512748.2018.1513547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge UP 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Caliskan, Murat, ’Hybrid Warfare Through the Lens of Strategic Theory’, Defense and Security Analysis 35/1 (2019), 40–58. doi:10.1080/14751798.2019.1565364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caliskan, Murat and Michel Liégeois, ’The Concept of “Hybrid Warfare” Undermines Nato’s Strategic Thinking: Insights from Interviews with NATO Officials’, Small Wars & Insurgencies 32/2 (2021), 295–319. doi:10.1080/09592318.2020.1860374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charap, Samuel, ’The Ghost of Hybrid War’, Survival 57/6 (2015), 51–58. doi:10.1080/00396338.2015.1116147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel, Jan and Jakub Eberle, ’Speaking of Hybrid Warfare: Multiple Narratives and Differing Expertise in the “Hybrid Warfare” Debate in Czechia’, Cooperation and Conflict 56/4 (2021), 432–53. doi:10.1177/00108367211000799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ducaru, Sorin Dumitru, ’Framing Nato’s Approach to Hybrid Warfare’, in N. Iancu (ed.), Countering Hybrid Threats: Lessons Learned from Ukraine (Amsterdam: IOS Press, Incorporated 2016), 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Duyvesteyn, Isabelle and Jeffrey H. Michaels, ’Revitalizing Strategic Studies in an Age of Perpetual Conflict’, Orbis 60/1 (2016), 23–35. doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2015.12.006.
   Google Scholar
• Englund, Scott H., ’A Dangerous Middle-Ground: Terrorists, Counter-Terrorists, and Gray-Zone Conflict’, Global Affairs 5/4–5 (2019), 389–404. doi:10.1080/23340460.2019.1711438.
   Google Scholar
• Flournoy, Michèle A. and Shawn Brimley, ’The Defense Inheritance: Challenges and Choices for the Next Pentagon Team’, The Washington Quarterly 31/4 (2008), 59–76. doi:10.1162/wash.2008.31.4.59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontenot, Greg and Kevin Benson, ’Way of War or the Latest “Fad”? A Critique of AirSea Battle’, Infinity Journal 2/4 ( Fall 2012), 22–25.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, Lawrence, ’Ukraine and the Art of Crisis Management’, Survival 56/3 (2014), 7–42. doi:10.1080/00396338.2014.920143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, Lawrence, ’Ukraine and the Art of Limited War’, Survival 56/6 (2014), 7–38. doi:10.1080/00396338.2014.985432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, Lawrence, ’Academics and Policy-Making: Rules of Engagement’, Journal of Strategic Studies 40/1–2 (2017), 263–68. doi:10.1080/01402390.2016.1269982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fridman, Ofer, Russian ‘Hybrid Warfare’: Resurgence and Politicisation (Oxford: Oxford UP 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Galeotti, Mark, ’Hybrid, Ambiguous, and Non-Linear? How New is Russia’s “New Way of War”?’, Small Wars & Insurgencies 27/2 (2016), 282–301. doi:10.1080/09592318.2015.1129170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gates, Robert M., ’A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age’, Foreign Affairs 88/1 (2009), 28–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, John, ’What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences’, Polity 31/3 ( Spring 1999), 357–93. doi:10.2307/3235246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giroux, Hélène, ’“It Was Such a Handy Term”: Management Fashions and Pragmatic Ambiguity’, Journal of Management Studies 43/6 (2006), 1227–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00623.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goertz, Garry, Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide (Princeton: Princeton UP 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Gray, Colin S., Strategy for Chaos: Revolutions in Military Affairs and the Evidence of History (London: Frank Cass Publishers 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Gray, Colin S., Categorical Confusion? The Strategic Implications of Recognizing Challenges Either as Irregular or Traditional (Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Green, Sandy Edward, Jr., ’A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion’, Academy of Management Review 29/4 (2004), 653–69. doi:10.2307/20159076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haas, Michael Carl and Sophie-Charlotte Fischer, ’The Evolution of Targeted Killing Practices: Autonomous Weapons, Future Conflict, and the International Order’, Contemporary Security Policy 38/2 (2017), 281–306. doi:10.1080/13523260.2017.1336407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Frank, Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars (Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies 2007).
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Frank, ’On Not-So-New Warfare: Political Warfare Vs Hybrid Threats’, War on the Rocks, 28 Jul., 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Honig, Jan Willem, ’The Tyranny of Doctrine and Modern Strategy: Small (And Large) States in a Double Bind’, Journal of Strategic Studies 39/2 (2016), 261–79. doi:10.1080/01402390.2015.1115036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooker, Richard D., Jr, ’Operation Baltic Fortress, 2016’, The RUSI Journal 160/3 (2015), 26–36. doi:10.1080/03071847.2015.1054731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ifversen, Jan, ’About Key Concepts and How to Study Them’, Contributions to the History of Concepts 6/1 (2011), 65–88. doi:10.3167/choc.2011.060104.
   Google Scholar
• Janičatová, Silvie and Petra Mlejnková, ’The Ambiguity of Hybrid Warfare: A Qualitative Content Analysis of the United Kingdom’s Political-Military Discourse on Russia’s Hostile Activities’, Contemporary Security Policy 42/3 (2021), 312–44. doi:10.1080/13523260.2021.1885921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, David E., Hard Fighting: Israel in Lebanon and Gaza (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Robert, ’Hybrid War and Its Countermeasures: A Critique of the Literature’, Small Wars & Insurgencies 29/1 (2018), 141–63. doi:10.1080/09592318.2018.1404770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, George, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1987).
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press 1980).
   Google Scholar
• Lanoszka, Alexander, ’Russian Hybrid Warfare and Extended Deterrence in Eastern Europe’, International Affairs 92/1 (2016), 175–95. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasconjarias, Guillaume and Jeffrey A. Larsen, ’Introduction: A New Way of Warfare’, in in G. Lasconjariac and J. A. Larsen (eds.), Nato’s Response to Hybrid Threats (Rome: NATO Defense College 2015), 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Leimbach, Wendell B., Jr. and Susan D. Levine, ’Winning the Gray Zone: The Importance of Intermediate Force Capabilities in Implementing the National Defense Strategy’, Comparative Strategy 40/3 (2021), 223–34. doi:10.1080/01495933.2021.1912490.
   Google Scholar
• Libiseller, Chiara and Lukas Milevski, ’War and Peace: Reaffirming the Distinction’, Survival 61/1 (2021), 101–12. doi:10.1080/00396338.2021.1881256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mälksoo, Maria, ’Countering Hybrid Warfare as Ontological Security Management: The Emerging Practices of the EU and NATO’, European Security 27/3 (2018), 374–92. doi:10.1080/09662839.2018.1497984.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattis, James N. and Frank Hoffman, ’Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars’, Proceedings Magazine 132/11/1,233 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• McCuen, John J., ’Hybrid Wars’, Military Review, (Mar.-Apr., 2008), 107–13.
   Google Scholar
• Mecklin, John, ’Introduction: The Evolving Threat of Hybrid War’, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 73/5 (2017), 298–99. doi:10.1080/00963402.2017.1362905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, Jeffrey H., The Discourse Trap and the US Military: From the War on Terror to the Surge (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Milevski, Lukas, ’Conceptual Resilience versus Social Utility in Strategic Thinking’, The RUSI Journal 167/2 (2022), 62–70. doi:10.1080/03071847.2022.2084451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, Lyle J., Michael J. Mazarr, Jeffrey W. Hornung, Stephanie Pezard, Anika Binnendijk, and Marta Kepe, Gaining Competitive Advantage in the Gray Zone: Response Options for Coercive Aggression Below the Threshold of Major War (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Naydenov, Mihail, ’The Subversion of the Bulgarian Defence System - the Russian Way’, Defense and Security Analysis 34/1 (2018), 93–112. doi:10.1080/14751798.2018.1421408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth, William J., Future War and Chechnya: A Case for Hybrid Warfare (Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Paszewski, Tomasz, ’Can Poland Defend Itself?’, Survival 58/2 (2016), 117–34. doi:10.1080/00396338.2016.1161907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patalano, Alessio, ’When Strategy is “Hybrid” and Not “Grey”: Reviewing Chinese Military and Constabulary Coercion at Sea’, The Pacific Review 31/6 (2018), 811–39. doi:10.1080/09512748.2018.1513546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pynnöniemi, Katri and Minna Jokela, ’Perceptions of Hybrid War in Russia: Means, Targets and Objectives Identified in the Russian Debate’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 33/6 (2020), 828–45. doi:10.1080/09557571.2020.1787949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauta, Vladimir, ’A Conceptual Critique of Remote Warfare’, Defence Studies 21/4 (2021), 545–72. doi:10.1080/14702436.2021.1994398.
   Google Scholar
• Rauta, Vladimir and Sean Monaghan, ’Global Britain in the Grey Zone: Between Stagecraft and Statecraft’, Contemporary Security Policy 42/4 (2021), 475–97. doi:10.1080/13523260.2021.1980984.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisinger, Heidi and Alexandr Golts, ‘Russia’s Hybrid Warfare: Waging War Below the Radar of Traditional Collective Defence’, Research Paper, NATO Defense College, Nov. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Renz, Bettina, ’Russia and “Hybrid Warfare”’, Contemporary Politics 22/3 (2016), 283–300. doi:10.1080/13569775.2016.1201316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, Paul B., ’The Snowball Phenomenon: The US Marine Corps, Military Mythology and the Spread of Hybrid Warfare Theory’, Defense & Security Analysis 35/4 (2019), 430–46. doi:10.1080/14751798.2019.1675942.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartori, Giovanni, ’Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’, The American Political Science Review 64/4 (1970), 1033–53. doi:10.2307/1958356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaub, Gary, Jr, Martin Murphy, and Frank G Hoffman, ’Hybrid Maritime Warfare’, The RUSI Journal 162/1 (2017), 32–40. doi:10.1080/03071847.2017.1301631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seely, Robert, ’Defining Contemporary Russian Warfare’, The RUSI Journal 162/1 (2017), 50–59. doi:10.1080/03071847.2017.1301634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavridis, James, ’VI. The United States, the North Atlantic and Maritime Hybrid Warfare’, Whitehall Papers 87/1 (2016), 92–101. doi:10.1080/02681307.2016.1291023.
   Google Scholar
• Swetnam, Michael S., ’Foreword’ in Hoffman, War in the 21st Century, 5
   Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum, Elié, ’Hybrid Warfare in the Strategic Spectrum: An Historical Assessment’, in Guillaume Lasconjarias and , and Jeffrey A. Larsen (eds.), Nato’s Response to Hybrid Threats (Rome: NATO Defense College 2015), 95–112.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, Rod, ’The Changing Nature of Modern Warfare’, The RUSI Journal 160/4 (2015), 40–48. doi:10.1080/03071847.2015.1079047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, Rod and Manos Karagiannis, ’The Russian Threat to the Baltic States: The Problems of Shaping Local Defense Mechanisms’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 29/3 (2016), 331–51. doi:10.1080/13518046.2016.1200359.
   Google Scholar
• Veebel, Viljar, ’NATO Options and Dilemmas for Deterring Russia in the Baltic States’, Defence Studies 18/2 (2018), 229–51. doi:10.1080/14702436.2018.1463518.
   Google Scholar
• Walt, Stephen M., ’The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies Quarterly 35/2 (1991), 211–39. doi:10.2307/2600471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan, Guilong, ’The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Hybrid Warfare’, Small Wars and Insurgencies 31/4 (2020), 898–917. doi:10.1080/09592318.2019.1682908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar