Russia is engaged in a hybrid war against the West and has managed to convince people that, if they support Ukraine, their countries risk to be drawn into an actual war, according to hybrid war expert Mitchell A. Orenstein, a professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and author of “The Lands In Between”. Mr. Orenstein also told Veridica that Russia has been testing for years in Ukraine hybrid war techniques it is now using against the West.
Russia, which is fighting a hybrid war, has convinced people that it is too dangerous to engage more in supporting Ukraine
VERIDICA: Your book “The Lands Between” was published several years ago. Taking into account that now we are in a different geopolitical situation, how would you define the “hybrid war” now?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: I had a chance to rewrite the introduction for a new edition and to think again about the definition. There are a lot of ways to characterize the hybrid war, but I used the way that corresponds to common sense. There are very, very broad definitions that include anything. Some scholars try to be more narrow by emphasizing the combination of the military and other types of actions and techniques. I would say that this is a combination of military and non-military means. It could happen in different areas. There is a hot war in Ukraine, but there could be hybrid attacks, for example, on Latvia. I would conceptualize this war in a broader sense – it is the war between Russia and the West. In some theaters, there could be military, in some others, non-military actions. These [non-military] techniques might include disinformation campaigns, financing parties that are more aligned with the Russian foreign policy, sanctions, or influence buying, and energy blackmail. Russia sometimes uses these techniques as harassment or as warning actions. For instance, the drones over the European airports. These actions are not supposed to be followed by any real military actions.
VERIDICA: Do they have a real influence on governments, people, societies?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: It is hard to assess. In my book, I noted that some countries, closer to Russia, are more vulnerable because, for instance, they have common religious institutions. The Russian Orthodox Church was used by Russia to influence Ukraine by emphasizing that certain values and beliefs aligned more with Russia than the West. In other countries, people tend to work in Russia; thus, they have more businesses with Russia. For instance, Moldova. It would not work with the US or France. If there is a Russian-speaking population, it also makes some point. But in any case, there are many ways to influence other countries, including Western powers and people, in the hope that in relationships with Russia, they will be more cautious. Actually, I believe that the whole Western strategy regarding Russia is too cautious. I do think that Russia has convinced people that it is too dangerous to engage more in supporting Ukraine.
VERIDICA: According to the information provided by the media, in some countries, there are parties financed by Russia. Could it be qualified as a part of Russia’s hybrid war?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: I think so. It is a tentative to shake the political situation, to convince people to see Russia as an ally. And there is some effectiveness. Just two days ago, I found that some members of Congress were expressing the arguments of Russia. The fact that they showed this peace agreement plan (in the second part in November) as part of the US is embarrassing for the US. Part of this influence reflects on the idea to get what they want in the negotiations, but part of it – to diminish the power and credibility of the United States. But it is hard to assess the effectiveness of the hybrid wars, also because we do not know all the techniques. Also, just yesterday it was publicized that the origin countries of the MAGA posts on social media are not the US. The majority of influencers are based in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Northern Africa.
For years, Russia has been testing hybrid war techniques in Ukraine. Those techniques are now used against the West
VERIDICA: Theoretical question – on the one hand, we could believe that “hybrid war” is a new concept, but it seems that part of these techniques were used in Soviet times, as well. So, probably, “hybrid war” is not a new phenomenon?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: No, it is not. But there is one new thing. Because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, people are not willing to fight with each other directly. Also, if you want to be against the US, you would not use conventional weapons. As a result, countries are learning to battle with hybrid techniques that are less obvious, and it is harder to retaliate against them. It is too dangerous to start a conventional war, and people do not want casualties. So the countries are using different ways to achieve their aims.
VERIDICA: In your book, you wrote that Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan are the “lands in between”. However, at the end of the book, you concluded that “we” [Western countries] are all “lands in between”.
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: Russia used its techniques in Ukraine before. For instance, in 2005, when Russia was directly involved in getting the necessary vote outcome and it got a protest kickback. They tested a lot of techniques in Ukraine and now use the same in the West. For example, in 2016, the presidential elections in the US, as well as the French and German elections. So, the argument in the book, as these means become the primary means of fighting, as political situation becomes more polarized. It makes people fight each other to express more extreme views in society and politics. And there are people who are on both sides and expressing the ideas of both sides. President [Donald] Trump is one of the examples – he has US interests in mind, but he also has Russian interests in mind. He gets significant benefits both personally and politically. It does not mean that people always align themselves with Putin and always forget the US’s interests, but it does mean that you can benefit from both sides. Also, [Hungarian premier minister Victor] Orban and others. I think that the best way to analyze them is to perceive that they are on both sides. Orban will vote for the sanctions packages against Russia or for the aid packages to Ukraine, only if Europe releases money for him personally. And he will also get signed agreements from Russia. So being on two sides for a lot of politicians is the winning strategy. We can see the polarization and the politicians who are on both sides also in the West.
VERIDICA: But to continue this, I find that all the countries are “lands in between”, involved in the hybrid wars.
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: Increasingly.
VERIDICA: For instance, the Chinese influence in Africa or Central Asia.
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: The conflict between Russia and Europe is more intense.
VERIDICA: But still, there are traditional wars as well: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war in Sudan… Does it mean that hybrid war has no power to achieve all the goals set by the countries?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: There is an interesting debate about what happens if you win a hybrid war. Is it good at all? Because if you win, you probably will be pushed into a traditional war. In other words, if we fight with Putin with hybrid war means, for instance, sanctions, and we win, wouldn't it start a military conflict?
VERIDICA: So, the hybrid war is a way to protect ourselves from traditional wars?
Some military theorists believe so.
VERIDICA: And the military wars start when…
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: … you cannot achieve your means by hybrid wars. For instance, if Russia were successful in changing the government in Kyiv, I guess, the military actions would not happen. An example: let’s say sending the drones over the Copenhagen airport was the warning. It means: “We can easily reach the European airports, we can attack Eastern Europe, and therefore you [Western countries] should back up and let us win in Ukraine.”
The Romanian presidential elections showed that online hybrid operations can be effective
VERIDICA: Do people in Western countries recognize these drones as a hybrid attack?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: Yes, most people do. One of the things that happened between the first and the second edition of my book is changing the term “hybrid attack” to “hybrid events” or close to it. I think they [the military] did it because nobody was sure: was it a tactical step or the real war? Because the word “war” has a very strong meaning, but in this case, the lines are blurred. If somebody tries to change your political system, then this is warfare. The threats, the attacks on the airport, this is a kind of warfare. It is hard to make a distinction. After 2022, the politicians tend to use the term “hybrid warfare”. Belarus is pushing the migrants to the Polish border – this is a sign of hybrid warfare.
VERIDICA: Is it possible to win only by hybrid war means?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: This is the thing we do not know for sure. I would say this is controversial. Russia also believes that it is fighting against a hybrid war. Some people call economic sanctions a part of economic warfare techniques. It is a good question: Is it enough (to win by using hybrid war methods only)? Yes, you can conquer someone and make him submit. But it is also not going to be enough for Russians to use military means only [in Ukraine]. I do not think that Putin would start the war only with military means. Meanwhile, Western countries also do not use the information techniques in Russia, partly because it is very protective of its information space. We do not have enough force to reach the people inside Russia. So, I do not think that it is possible to win Russia only by hybrid war means.
VERIDICA: Seems that the current version of the hybrid war is a new phenomenon that is continuously developing. Do you see any other new approaches, or can you imagine some new means in the future in terms of technology, for instance?
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: Social media was the area where we saw the development. The countries learned that social media could be one of the ways to make an influence. That’s the central innovation. Russia had a troll farm in St. Petersburg, but now they have farms in Nigeria and in other countries in the world where they have better English, and they know better how to speak with the Western population. They have substantial influence on social media. Also, kicking out Russians from the “Swift” network could be a new form of sanctions; the control of Russian assets abroad could be one of the innovations. We have serious innovations in economic warfare, information warfare, but there are other possibilities: the use of Western drones, for instance. The case of the Romanian presidential elections: there was a candidate who gained popularity because of the blast on social media. So, the candidates are coming from nowhere, but given a serious boost on social media, they can win in elections. It raises serious questions about several elections. I believe that Russians are pretty creative, and Westerners are pretty creative. I think it is going to develop.
VERIDICA: I have an impression that hybrid war of warfare is just a part of life and a never-ending story.
MITCHELL A. ORENSTEIN: These types of operations have happened before, but now they also take place in cyberspace, which makes it different. It fundamentally changes our lives, the way we live, and how it influences politics, and how we protect ourselves. I do believe that it is possible to do more protection. The US and Western systems are very open information systems and societies in general. We have not done enough to fix this problem – how to freely change the information and to protect us from outside influencers. If most MAGA influencers are in other countries. Does that really mean how we want to live? What really makes hybrid wars as they are, and why is it not “just a life”? Because it is fighting when there is no other means.
