Countering hybrid warfare as ontological security management: the emerging practices of the EU and NATO

References

• Abulof, U., 2014. Deep securitization and Israel’s “demographic demon”. International political sociology, 8 (4), 396–415. doi: 10.1111/ips.12070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barany, Z. and Rauchhaus, R., 2011. Explaining NATO’s resilience: is international relations theory useful? Contemporary security policy, 32 (2), 286–307. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2011.590355
   Google Scholar
• Barkawi, T., 2016. Decolonising war. European journal of international security, 1 (2), 199–214. doi: 10.1017/eis.2016.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, C., 2012. Hybrid warfare and its metaphors. Humanity: an international journal of human rights, humanitarianism, and development, 3 (2), 225–247. doi: 10.1353/hum.2012.0014
   Google Scholar
• Bourbeau, P. and Ryan, C., 2018. Resilience, resistance, infrapolitics and enmeshment. European journal of international relations, 24 (1), 221–239. doi: 10.1177/1354066117692031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breedlove, P.M., 2015. Foreword. In: G. Lasconjarias and J. A. Larsen, eds. NATO’s response to hybrid threats. Rome: NATO Defense College, “NDC Forum Papers Series” Forum Paper 24, xxi–xxv.
   Google Scholar
• Browning, P., 2002. The changing nature of warfare: the development of land warfare from 1792 to 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Browning, C. S, 2016. Ethics and ontological security. In: J. Nyman and A. Burke, eds. Ethical security studies: a New research agenda. London: Routledge, 160–173.
   Google Scholar
• Browning, C. S. 2018. Brexit, Existential Anxiety and Ontological (In)Security. European Security, 27(3), 336–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browning, C.S. and McDonald, M., 2013. The future of critical security studies: ethics and the politics of security. European journal of international relations, 19 (2), 235–255. doi: 10.1177/1354066111419538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browning, C.S. and Joenniemi, P., 2017. Ontological security, self-articulation and the securitization of identity. Cooperation and conflict, 52 (1), 31–47. doi: 10.1177/0010836716653161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calha, J.M. 2015. Hybrid warfare? NATO’s new strategic challenge. NATO Parliamentary Assembly Defence and Security Committee General Report, 10 October, 166 DSC 15 E bis.
   Google Scholar
• Clausewitz, C.v., 1976. On war. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, R., 2004. The breaking of nations: order and chaos in the twenty-first century. Boston: Atlantic Monthly.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2016. JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EU operational protocol for countering hybrid threats “EU Playbook”, SWD(2016) 227 final. Brussels, 7 July.
   Google Scholar
• Creppell, I., 2011. The concept of normative threat. International theory, 3 (3), 450–487. doi: 10.1017/S1752971911000170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croft, S. and Vaughan-Williams, N., 2017. Fit for purpose? Fitting ontological security studies “into” the discipline of international relations: towards a vernacular turn. Cooperation and conflict, 52 (1), 12–30. doi: 10.1177/0010836716653159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Della Sala, V. 2018. Narrating Europe: The EU’s Ontological Security Dilemma. European Security, 27 (3), 266–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingott Alkopher, T. 2018. Socio-Psychological Reactions in the EU to Immigration: From Regaining Ontological Security to Desecuritization. European Security, 27 (3), 314–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ejdus, F., 2017. Critical situations, fundamental questions and ontological insecurity in world politics. Journal of international relations and development. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0083-3.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2017. Joint report to the European Parliament and the council on the implementation of the joint framework on countering hybrid threats – a European Union response. Brussels, 19 July, JOIN(2017) 30 final. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=JOIN:2017:30:FIN [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, 2016. Joint framework on countering hybrid threats: a European Union response. Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council. Brussels, April 6, JOIN(2016) 18 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, 2017. Joint communication to the European Parliament and the council: a strategic approach to resilience in the EU’s external action. Brussels, 7 June, JOIN(2017) 21 final.
   Google Scholar
• European External Action Service, 2015. Food-for-thought paper “countering hybrid threats”, EEAS(2015) 731, Political and Security Committee, 13 May. Available from: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/may/eeas-csdp-hybrid-threats-8887-15.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament, 2016. EU strategic communication to counteract anti-EU propaganda by third parties. European Parliament resolution of 23 November 2016 on EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties (2016/2030(INI)).
   Google Scholar
• EU Mythbusters@EUvsDisinfo, Twitter (Accessed 5 April 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Evans, M., 2003. From Kadesh to Kandahar: military theory and the future of war. Naval war college review, LVI (3), 132–150.
   Google Scholar
• Ewald, F., 2002. The return of descartes’s malicious demon: an outline of a philosophy of precaution. In: T. Baker and J. Simon, eds. Embracing risk. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 273–302.
   Google Scholar
• Finnish Government, 2017. European centre of excellence for countering hybrid threats established in Helsinki, 11 April. Press Release 159/2017. Available from: http://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/10616/eurooppalainen-hybridiuhkien-osaamiskeskus-perustettiin-helsinkiin [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Flockhart, T., 2011. “Me Tarzan – you Jane”: The EU and NATO and the reversal of roles. Perspectives on European politics and society, 12 (3), 263–282. doi: 10.1080/15705854.2011.596306
   Google Scholar
• Flockhart, T., 2012. Towards a strong NATO narrative: from a “practice of talking” to a “practice of doing”. International politics, 49 (1), 78–97. doi: 10.1057/ip.2011.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flockhart, T., 2016. The problem of change in constructivist theory: ontological security seeking and agent motivation. Review of international studies, 42 (5), 799–820. doi: 10.1017/S026021051600019X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M., 2003. “Society must be defended”. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-76. Trans. by David Macey. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Franke, U., 2015. War by non-military means: understanding Russian information warfare. FOI-R--4065—SE. Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Galeotti, M., 2015. Hybrid war as a war on governance. Interview by Octavian Manea. Small Wars Journal, 19 August.
   Google Scholar
• Galeotti, M., 2016a. Hybrid, ambiguous, and non-linear? How new is Russia’s “new way of war”? Small wars & insurgencies, 27 (2), 282–301. doi: 10.1080/09592318.2015.1129170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galeotti, M., 2016b. How to win Putin’s information war. The New York Times, 15 December, A31.
   Google Scholar
• Garton Ash, T., 2016. Free speech: ten principles for a connected world. London: Atlantic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gerasimov, V., 2013. The value of science in foresight: new challenges require rethinking on the forms and methods of warfare, presented at the Voroshilov Military Academy, reprinted in Tsennost’ nauki v predvidenii. Voenno-promyshlennyi kur’er, 8 (476), 27 February – 5 March 2015, pp. 1–3. An English translation by Robert Coalson, Top Russian general lays Bare Putin’s plan for Ukraine, The Huffington Post, 9 February 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A., 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Glenn, R.W., 2009. Thoughts on hybrid conflict. Small Wars Journal, 2 March.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C.S., 2007. Another bloody century: future warfare. London: Phoenix.
   Google Scholar
• Greve, P., 2017. Ontological security, the struggle for recognition, and the maintenance of security communities. Journal of international relations and development. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0108-y.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, E. and Singer, J., 2002. “New wars” and rumours of “new wars”. International interactions: empirical and theoretical research in international relations, 28 (2), 165–190. doi: 10.1080/03050620212098
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, F.G., 2007. Conflict in the 21st century: the rise of hybrid wars. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Hostile states pose “fundamental threat” to Europe, says MI6 chief, 2016. The Guardian, 8 December.
   Google Scholar
• Huysmans, J., 1998. Security! What do you mean? From a concept to thick signifier. European journal of international relations, 4 (2), 226–255. doi: 10.1177/1354066198004002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilves, T.H., 2016. Democracies face a fake new world. The World Post, 19 December.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, A. and Lasconjarias, G., 2015. NATO’s hybrid flanks: handling unconventional warfare in the south and the east. Rome: NATO Defense College, Research Paper no. 112 (April).
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D., 2015. Russia’s approach to conflict – implications for NATO’s deterrence and defence. Research Paper no 111, NATO Defense College, April.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsson, O. and Seely, R., 2015. Russian full-spectrum conflict: an appraisal after Ukraine. The journal of slavic military studies, 28 (1), 1–22. doi: 10.1080/13518046.2015.998118
   Google Scholar
• Juncos, A.E., 2017. Resilience as the new EU foreign policy paradigm: a pragmatist turn? European security, 26 (1), 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2016.1247809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaldor, M., 1999. New and old wars: organised violence in a global era. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaldor, M., 2013. In defence of new wars. Stability: international journal of security and development, 2 (1), 1–16. doi: 10.5334/sta.at
   Google Scholar
• Kello, L., 2017. The virtual weapon and international order. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kinnvall, C., 2004. Globalization and religious nationalism: self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political psychology, 25 (5), 741–767. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00396.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinnvall, C. and Mitzen, J., eds., 2017. Ontological securities in world politics, Cooperation and conflict, 52 (1), Special Issue.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinnvall, C., Manners, I., and Mitzen, J. 2018. Introduction to 2018 special issue of European Security: “ontological (in)security in the European Union”. European Security, 27 (3), 249–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupovici, A., 2016. The power of deterrence: emotions, identity and American and Israeli wars of resolve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mälksoo, M., 2015. “Memory must be defended”: beyond the politics of mnemonical security. Security dialogue, 46 (3), 221–237. doi: 10.1177/0967010614552549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mälksoo, M., 2016. From the ESS to the EU global strategy: external policy, internal purpose. Contemporary security policy, 37 (3), 374–388. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2016.1238245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manners, I., 2002. European [security] Union: from existential threat to ontological security. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Peace Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• McCuen, J., 2008. Hybrid Wars. Military Review, March–April.
   Google Scholar
• Mitzen, J., 2006. Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. European journal of international relations, 12 (3), 341–370. doi: 10.1177/1354066106067346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitzen, J., 2016. Security communities and the unthinkabilities of war. Annual review of political science, 19, 229–248. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-040711-135425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitzen, J. and Schweller, R., 2011. Knowing the unknown unknowns: misplaced certainty and the onset of war. Security studies, 20 (1), 2–35. doi: 10.1080/09636412.2011.549023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitzen, J. 2018. Anxious Community: EU as (In)Security Community. European Security, 27 (3), 393–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, J.-W., 2016. Protecting popular self-government from the people? New normative perspectives on militant democracy. Annual review of political science, 19, 249–265. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-043014-124054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Münkler, H., 2005. The new wars. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neocleous, M., 2007. Security, liberty and the myth of balance: towards a critique of security politics. Contemporary political theory, 6, 131–149. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300301
   Google Scholar
• Newman, E., 2004. The “new wars” debate: a historical perspective is needed. Security dialogue, 35 (2), 173–189. doi: 10.1177/0967010604044975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nietzsche, F., 2003. Beyond good and evil. Fairfield, IA: 1st World Library – Literary Society.
   Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Council, 2009. Strasbourg/Kehl summit declaration, 4 April. Available from: http://www.nato.int/cps/bu/natohq/news_52837.htm?mode=pressrelease [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• O’Connell, M.E., 2015. Myths of hybrid warfare. Ethics and armed forces: controversies in military ethics & security policy, 2. Available from: http://www.ethikundmilitaer.de/en/full-issues/20152-hybrid-warfare/oconnell-myths-of-hybrid-warfare/ [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Owens, P., 2012. Human security and the rise of the social. Review of international studies, 38 (3), 547–567. doi: 10.1017/S0260210511000490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawlak, P., 2015. Understanding hybrid threats. EPRS At a Glance brief, PE 564.355. Brussels, European Parliamentary Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Rathbun, B.C., 2007. Uncertain about uncertainty: understanding the multiple meanings of a crucial concept in international relations theory. International studies quarterly, 51, 533–557. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00463.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, S., 2016. The viability of the law of armed conflict in the age of hybrid warfare. Lawfare, 5 December. Available from: https://www.lawfareblog.com/viability-law-armed-conflict-age-hybrid-warfare [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Rossdale, C., 2015. Enclosing critique: the limits of ontological security. International political sociology, 9, 369–386. doi: 10.1111/ips.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz Palmer, D.A., 2015. Back to the future? Russia’s hybrid warfare, revolutions in military affairs, and Cold War comparisons. In: G. Lasconjarias and J.A. Larsen, eds., NATO’s response to hybrid threats. Rome: NATO Defense College, “NDC Forum Papers Series” Forum Paper 24, 49–71.
   Google Scholar
• Rumelili, B., 2015. Ontological (in)security and peace anxieties: a framework for conflict resolution. In: B. Rumelili, ed. Conflict resolution and ontological security: peace anxieties. New York: Routledge, 10–29.
   Google Scholar
• Rumelili, B. 2018. Breaking with Europe’s Pasts: Memory, Reconciliation, and Ontological (In)security. European Security, 27 (3), 280–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R., 2005. The utility of force: the art of war in the modern world. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sperling, J. and Webber, M., 2017. NATO and the Ukraine crisis: collective securitisation. European journal of international security, 2 (1), 19–46. doi: 10.1017/eis.2016.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele, B.J., 2008. Ontological security in international relations: self-identity and the IR state. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Steele, B.J., 2017. Organizational processes and ontological (in)security: torture, the CIA and the United States. Cooperation and conflict, 52 (1), 69–89. doi: 10.1177/0010836716653156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoltenberg, J., 2015a. Keynote speech by NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg at the opening of the NATO transformation seminar, 25 March. Available from: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_118435.htm?selectedLocale=en [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Stoltenberg, J., 2015b. Closing press conference by NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg following the meetings of NATO foreign ministers in Antalya, Turkey, 14 May. Available from: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_119432.htm [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Strachan, H. and Scheipers, S., 2011. The changing character of war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• STRATCOMCOE@STRATCOMCOE, Twitter. Available from: https://twitter.com/STRATCOMCOE [Accessed 5 April 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Subotic, J. 2018. Political Memory, Ontological Security, and Holocaust Remembrance in Post-Communist Europe. European Security, 27 (3), 296–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum, E., 2015. Le piège de la guerre hybride. IFRI Focus stratégique n° 63 (Octobre). Paris: IFRI.
   Google Scholar
• Vieira, M.A., 2016. Understanding resilience in international relations: the non-aligned movement and ontological security. International studies review, 18 (2), 290–311. doi: 10.1093/isr/viw002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, W. and Anholt, R., 2016. Resilience as the EU global strategy’s new leitmotif: pragmatic, problematic or promising? Contemporary security policy, 37 (3), 414–430. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2016.1228034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, J., 2003. Security and liberty: the image of balance. Journal of political philosophy, 11 (2), 191–210. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walt, S., 1991. The renaissance of security studies. International studies quarterly, 35 (2), 211–239. doi: 10.2307/2600471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, Y., 2011. The asymmetric war discourse and its moral economies: a critique. International theory, 3 (3), 488–514. doi: 10.1017/S1752971911000145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yurchak, A., 2014. Little green men: Russia, Ukraine and post-Soviet sovereignty. Anthropoliteia, 31 March. Available from: https://anthropoliteia.net/2014/03/31/little-green-men-russia-ukraine-and-post-soviet-sovereignty/ [Accessed 7 July 2018].
   Google Scholar