I’ve created a video on the difference between the definitions of insurgency and terrorism. While both involve violence and political motivations, I explore why understanding their key differences is essential. The video includes historical examples and the blurred lines between these two concepts, which should help in shedding light on the political implications behind the labels we use.
Please do feel free to reach out and discuss anything in the video, or leave a comment if you would prefer.
Western democracies are caught in a strategic bind. Adversaries, skilled at operating in the murky “grey zone” between peace and open warfare, are exploiting a fundamental Western characteristic: risk aversion. Grey zone warfare blends cyberattacks, disinformation, economic coercion, and proxy warfare to achieve strategic goals without triggering a full-scale military response. This isn’t just a theoretical problem; it’s causing a kind of strategic paralysis, hindering our ability to respond to threats that don’t fit neatly into traditional military boxes.
A 21st-Century Threat
Grey zone warfare encompasses more than just cyberattacks and disinformation. Think of cyberattacks that cripple infrastructure but stop short of causing mass casualties, disinformation campaigns that sow discord and erode trust in institutions, and the use of proxy forces to destabilise a region. Crucially, it also includes economic coercion. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, with its potential for creating debt traps and strategic dependencies, is a prime example. Russia’s use of energy supplies as a political weapon, particularly against European nations, is another. The key is plausible deniability – making it hard for the target to definitively point the finger and justify a strong response. The goal? To achieve strategic aims, weakening an adversary, gaining territory, influencing policy, without triggering a full-blown military conflict. We see this in China’s response to Lithuania’s engagement with Taiwan, where trade sanctions were used as a punitive measure. Similarly, the West’s reliance on Chinese rare earth minerals creates a vulnerability that can be exploited for political leverage.
A Strategic Vulnerability
The West, particularly Europe and North America, has a deeply ingrained preference for diplomacy and de-escalation. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it stems from a genuine desire to avoid the horrors of large-scale war and maintain a stable global order. But this risk aversion, while understandable, has become a strategic vulnerability. Adversaries see this hesitation and tailor their actions accordingly. They operate just below the threshold of what would trigger a decisive military response, creating a constant dilemma for Western leaders: how to respond effectively without escalating the situation into a wider conflict?
Ukraine and Grey Zone Warfare
Ukraine is a tragic textbook example of grey zone warfare in action. Russia’s strategy goes far beyond conventional military force. It includes crippling cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, a relentless barrage of disinformation aimed at undermining the Ukrainian government and sowing discord, and the backing of separatist movements to create internal instability. These actions are calculated to achieve Russia’s goals while staying below the threshold that would provoke a direct military intervention from NATO. The Western response, consisting primarily of sanctions and diplomatic pressure, reveals the core problem. While intended to punish Russia and deter further aggression, this relatively restrained approach has, arguably, enabled Russia to continue its grey zone operations, demonstrating the difficulty of countering these tactics without risking a wider war. The continued, grinding conflict, and the incremental nature of Western support, highlight the limitations of a purely reactive, risk-averse strategy.
The Erosion of American Global Leadership
The erosion of American global leadership, accelerated by but not solely attributable to the Trump administration, has profoundly shaken the transatlantic alliance. Actions like imposing tariffs on allies, questioning NATO’s relevance, and the perceived (and sometimes explicit) wavering of commitment to Article 5’s collective defence clause have created a climate of uncertainty. European nations are now grappling with a fundamental question: can they rely on the US security umbrella? This doubt isn’t just theoretical; it’s driving concrete policy changes.
Europe’s Quest for Strategic Autonomy
This uncertainty has fuelled a push for European “strategic autonomy” – the ability to act independently in defence and foreign policy. Figures like French President Macron have long championed this idea, and it’s gaining traction across the continent. Even in the UK, traditionally a staunch US ally, Labour leader Keir Starmer has emphasised the need for increased defence spending and closer European security cooperation. Germany’s Zeitenwende, its historic shift towards rearmament, is a direct response to this new reality. These are not just rhetorical flourishes; they represent a fundamental rethinking of European security, driven by a perceived need to fill the void left by a less predictable and less engaged United States. The debate over a European army, or a more coordinated European defence force, is no longer fringe; it’s becoming mainstream.
The Heart of the Matter: Strategic Paralysis and the Clausewitzian Lens
This brings us to the heart of the matter: strategic paralysis. The West, caught between a desire to avoid escalation and the need to respond effectively, often finds itself frozen. This is exactly the outcome grey zone warfare is designed to achieve. By creating ambiguous situations where traditional military responses seem disproportionate or politically risky, adversaries effectively paralyze Western decision-making. The fear of “provoking” a larger conflict becomes a weapon in itself. As Clausewitz argued, war is an extension of politics. Grey zone conflict is simply an extension of war by subtler means, one designed to neutralise the West’s ability to make political decisions with clarity.
Breaking Free: A Strategy for the Grey Zone
Breaking free from this strategic paralysis requires a fundamental shift in thinking. The West needs a strategy that’s as agile and adaptable as the grey zone tactics it faces. This means:
Conclusion: Deterrence Requires the Will to Act
Grey zone warfare thrives on Western risk aversion and, crucially, weak deterrence. Overcoming this strategic paralysis requires a profound shift: acknowledging that inaction is also a choice, and often a dangerous one. The West must develop a more agile, resilient, and – crucially – a less predictable strategy. Western policymakers must recognise that deterrence is not just military strength; it is the will to act. A state that is predictable in its restraint is one that invites coercion. The future of the international order may well depend on the West’s ability to adapt to this new era of conflict.
Bibliography
American Military University. “Gray Zone Attacks by Russia Being Used to Undermine Ukraine.” AMU Edge, May 12, 2023. https://amuedge.com/gray-zone-attacks-by-russia-being-used-to-undermine-ukraine/.
Chivvis, Christopher S. Understanding Russian “Hybrid Warfare” and What Can Be Done About It. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017. https://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT468.html.
Gray, Colin S. Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare. London: Phoenix, 2005.
Military Strategy Magazine. “Deterring War Without Threatening War: Rehabilitating the West’s Risk-Averse Approach to Deterrence.” Military Strategy Magazine,1 April 2023. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/deterring-war-without-threatening-war-rehabilitating-the-wests-risk-averse-approach-to-deterrence/.
Onsolve. “Gray Zone Warfare: What Business Leaders Need to Know.” Onsolve Blog, March 2024. https://www.onsolve.com/blog/sra-gray-zone-warfare-business-leaders/.
Rid, Thomas. Cyber War Will Not Take Place. London: C. Hurst & Co., 2013.
The Wall Street Journal. “Trump Is Overturning the World Order That America Built.” WSJ, January 25, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-is-overturning-the-world-order-that-america-built-10981637.
The New Yorker. “What’s Next for Ukraine?” The New Yorker, February 2024. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/whats-next-for-ukraine.
We often assume that the latest military technology will define the future of warfare. AI, cyber weapons, and autonomous drones are hailed as game-changers, just as tanks, aircraft, and nuclear weapons were in past eras. But history tells a different story, one where new technology is only as effective as the strategy, doctrine, and human adaptation behind it.
In this video, we explore David Edgerton’s critique of technological determinism, the idea that wars are shaped by cutting-edge innovation alone. From ancient weapons to modern cyber warfare, we show why old technologies persist, how armies adapt, and why war remains a contest of resilience, not just hardware.
The Real Lesson of Military Technology
The biggest mistake in war isn’t failing to develop new technology, it’s assuming that technology alone will guarantee victory. History proves that the best weapons don’t always win battles; those who adapt, integrate, and sustain their forces over time do.
What do you think? Are we overhyping AI and cyber warfare today, just as people once overhyped battleships or air power?
The concept of ‘strategic culture’ as critiqued in Hew Strachan’s “The Direction of War: Contemporary Strategy in Historical Perspective” emphasises continuity and a nation’s resistance to change, shaped historically and geographically. Strategic culture includes historical memory, institutional norms, core national values, and collective threat perceptions, all contributing to a nation’s strategic posture. This comprehensive framework is valuable when examining Europe’s contemporary security challenges, specifically the strategic vacuum highlighted by the ongoing war in Ukraine and America’s ongoing withdrawal from global leadership.
Europe’s Strategic Culture
European strategic culture, forged during the Cold War, assumed stability through American military and diplomatic leadership. Strachan argues convincingly that such cultural assumptions hinder strategic flexibility, creating vulnerabilities when geopolitical realities shift dramatically, as they have since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
NATO-centric thinking, predicated on the guarantee of American power projection, has revealed problematic inertia… European states, notably the UK and the EU members, have found themselves scrambling to define a coherent, autonomous response.
America’s Strategic Shift from Protector to Competitor
America’s strategic withdrawal from Europe, evidenced by Obama’s pivot to Asia, that accelerated by Trump V1.0’s transactional approach, Biden’s reticence and culminating with Trump 2.0’s recent dramatic geopolitical hand grenades. This reflects not merely a change in policy but a radical break from previous expectations. This withdrawal is a revolutionary, not evolutionary, shift in global strategy, shattering Europe’s assumption of guaranteed U.S. engagement.
Strategically, this creates immediate tensions:
This combination reveals Europe’s strategic culture as critically unprepared for the harsh geopolitical realities of the 21st century.
Europe’s Strategic Awakening
Europe has not been entirely inactive. The EU’s Strategic Compass, adopted in 2022, and the UK’s Integrated Review Refresh in 2023 demonstrate genuine acknowledgment of new realities. These documents move beyond purely reactive policies and represent Europe’s incremental shift towards strategic autonomy:
Yet, despite these efforts, the doctrinal and strategic mindset change has been incomplete. European policies continue to implicitly rely on the assumption of sustained U.S. involvement, despite public and political statements affirming Europe’s need for self-sufficiency.
Russia and America as Mirrors
The actions of Russia and the retreat of America each independently expose the inadequacies of Europe’s current strategic posture:
Russia’s Actions: Highlighted Europe’s continuing strategic vulnerability, emphasising weaknesses in rapid military deployment, critical capability gaps (such as long-range precision munitions and air defence), and dependence on U.S. logistical, intelligence, and strategic capabilities.
America’s Pivot Away: Underscores that strategic autonomy isn’t merely desirable but imperative. Starting with Biden administration’s reluctance to escalate beyond certain lines in Ukraine and Washington’s growing Indo-Pacific focus expose a stark misalignment between European expectations and American strategy. The most recent signals from Trump are an unequivocal message to Europe: unless there is something in it for America, you are on your own.
The Limits of Integration and NATO
While deeper European integration and renewed commitment to NATO might appear sufficient, these solutions alone are inadequate. Integration without clear autonomous capabilities risks perpetual dependency, and NATO’s structure, inherently reliant on American leadership, cannot compensate for America’s strategic reorientation. As Strachan underscores, relying purely on continuity without adaptability is strategically naive.
From Reactive Culture to Proactive Realism
Europe’s security doctrine requires nuanced recalibration rather than wholesale abandonment. The gap is not merely military, it is doctrinal, conceptual, and philosophical. A robust European strategic doctrine should:
Engaging Broader Perspectives
Drawing briefly from constructivist insights, strategic culture is not immutable but socially constructed, implying that European nations have the agency to reshape it consciously. Additionally, realist thinkers like John Mearsheimer caution against complacency in alliance politics, reinforcing the need for independent European capabilities.
Rethinking Doctrine for Strategic Resilience
The UK’s Integrated Review and the EU’s Strategic Compass represent valuable first steps toward a more strategic and independent Europe. However, they still fall short of addressing the fundamental gap that Russia’s aggression and America’s strategic recalibration have exposed.
Addressing Europe’s leadership vacuum demands overcoming historical and cultural inertia. It requires strategic humility: recognising that the stability provided by Cold War-era assumptions no longer applies, that threats are tangible, and that peace through strength must be anchored not in external assurances, but in Europe’s credible, independently sustainable power.
Europe must confront this reality head-on, accepting change not merely rhetorically but operationally, doctrinally, and culturally. Only then will Europe secure genuine strategic autonomy, prepared not just for today’s threats but also for tomorrow’s inevitable uncertainties.
Bibliography
Imagine a world where war is waged not with bombs and bullets, but with lines of code and viral misinformation. This is the reality of grey zone conflicts, a persistent feature of modern geopolitics characterised by cyber operations, economic coercion, and disinformation. While many initially hailed these tactics as a revolutionary new form of strategic competition, a critical examination reveals that they not only fundamentally fail to achieve strategic victory in a traditional Clausewitzian sense but also introduce profound strategic uncertainty and volatility into the international system. Extending Thomas Rid’s compelling argument that “cyber war will not take place” due to the inherent lack of decisive physical destruction, this critique applies even more broadly to the entire spectrum of grey zone conflicts.
To understand the inherent limitations of these operations, we must return to the foundational strategic thought of Carl von Clausewitz. His framework remains a lodestar: tactical successes must always serve political objectives, and the very essence of war is to impose one’s will upon the enemy. As Michael Handel succinctly summarises, Clausewitzian war aims at the destruction of enemy forces, control of vital resources, and the sway of public opinion. Grey zone tactics, however, are structurally incapable of achieving these aims in the decisive manner Clausewitz envisioned. They may sow disruption and discord, but they rarely deliver battlefield outcomes, nor can they compel political compliance in the way traditional military campaigns do. Consider, for instance, the persistent cyberattacks between nations; while disruptive and costly, they have yet to force a nation to fundamentally alter its core strategic direction.
The very nature of grey zone strategies – their calculated avoidance of outright force and immediately recognisable acts of aggression – means they cannot truly compel an adversary to accept a fundamentally new strategic order. Cyber operations, as Rid convincingly argues, rarely inflict the kind of lasting, tangible damage comparable to conventional military strikes. Disinformation campaigns, while capable of eroding trust in institutions and even mobilising populations, as seen in the Arab Spring uprisings, cannot on their own force political capitulation. Economic sanctions, though often painful and strategically useful in shaping behaviour, are notoriously slow and far from guaranteed to change a determined state’s core strategic calculations.
This inherent strategic limitation is further underscored by Colin Gray’s assertion that strategy is fundamentally about the application of force to achieve political objectives. For Gray, war is fundamentally about contesting and achieving control, and without the capacity to impose a decisive order, grey zone tactics fall drastically short of true strategic efficacy. He cautions that the absence of decisive engagement in contemporary conflicts leads not to resolution, but to a debilitating strategic paralysis. This resonates deeply with Clausewitz’s core tenet that successful war must culminate in the decisive defeat of the enemy. Grey zone conflicts, by their very nature, do not and cannot fulfil this criterion. At best, they generate protracted stalemates; at worst, they risk unintended escalation into open, conventional warfare.
Countering the Cumulative Argument and Embracing Ambiguity: Incrementalism vs. Decisiveness
It is important to acknowledge a key counterargument: that grey zone tactics, while rarely decisive alone, gain strategic effect cumulatively over time. Proponents argue that persistent cyber intrusions, disinformation, and economic pressure can erode an adversary’s strength and will. This view sees grey zone warfare as long-term shaping, not a knockout blow, exemplified by China’s “Three Warfares” doctrine.
Furthermore, the ambiguity of grey zone conflicts can be strategically useful, like nuclear deterrence. Bernard Brodie argued nuclear war’s cost shifted strategy to prevention, redefining “victory” as avoiding war. Similarly, grey zone tactics might deter and manage competition below open conflict. Incremental disruption, like cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear program, can also shift power balances.
Hurting Without Winning and the Zero-Sum Nature of Grey Zone Competition
Thomas Schelling noted, “Victory is no longer a prerequisite for hurting the enemy.” This is key to grey zone tactics, which can aim to inflict pain and signal resolve without overt war. Even non-military gains – diplomatic wins, sanctions, legal advantages achieved through disinformation and cyber influence – become strategic victories in this zero-sum competition. This is particularly relevant as tech-savvy strategists recognise the advantages of ambiguity in these operations.
However, pursuing overwhelming military victory can backfire, escalating conflict. Grey zone tactics offer a way to avoid this, operating below the threshold of conventional war. Yet, this ambiguity breeds volatility, with miscalculation and escalation always looming.
Strategic Victory as Peace-Winning and the Challenge of Subjectivity
Rethinking “strategic victory” beyond military terms is crucial. Robert Mandel distinguishes “war-winning” from “peace-winning,” arguing true strategic victory is “peace-winning” – a multi-dimensional achievement across information, politics, economics, and diplomacy. Grey zone tactics align with this broader view, especially as public mobilisation and decentralised networks shape geopolitics.
Yet, “victory” in the grey zone remains subjective and hard to measure. Ethan Kapstein highlights the difficulty of defining metrics, gaining consensus, and obtaining reliable data in grey zone operations. Progress in one area may undermine another, increasing strategic uncertainty. Whether grey zone tactics are a “strategic win” depends on perspective and chosen metrics.
Taiwan: Strategic Uncertainty in Action
Taiwan exemplifies the inherent volatility of grey zone warfare: while hybrid strategies can pressure an opponent, they provide no clear pathway to a controlled, predictable outcome. The lack of definitive thresholds makes grey zone tactics as much a risk as an opportunity for the aggressor. Imagine China using grey zone tactics against Taiwan: cyberattacks, disinformation, and economic pressure. While this might weaken Taiwan, it’s unlikely to force capitulation without risking wider conflict. Taiwan’s reaction, U.S. responses, and the ever-present risk of miscalculation create a strategic dilemma.
While Russia has shown resilience to external grey zone pressures by controlling information, societal resilience only mitigates, not eliminates, strategic uncertainty. Even the most robust resilience strategies cannot eliminate the risk of miscalculation or escalation, underscoring the inherent volatility of grey zone conflicts. Because grey zone conflicts operate ambiguously, even careful campaigns can unexpectedly escalate, making control and predictability elusive.
Policy Implications: Actively Shaping the Grey Zone for Advantage
The inherent strategic uncertainty of grey zone conflicts demands proactive policies:
Conclusion: Embracing Uncertainty, Seeking Control Through Persistent Engagement
Russia’s pre-2022 hybrid warfare campaign in Ukraine – combining cyber operations, disinformation, and economic pressure – demonstrated the limitations of grey zone tactics. Rather than coercing Ukraine into submission, these operations reinforced Ukrainian national resistance and galvanised Western military support, ultimately leading to Russia’s full-scale invasion. This case underscores the strategic volatility of grey zone competition: while these tactics can create disruption, they provide no guarantee of controlled, predictable outcomes.
This highlights how grey zone tactics, while seemingly flexible, are unlikely to deliver traditional strategic victory and introduce significant strategic uncertainty. While ambiguity and “peace-winning” are modern adaptations, they don’t guarantee predictable outcomes or escalation control. The grey zone is a volatile battlespace defined by miscalculation and instability. Navigating the grey zone requires embracing uncertainty, prioritising crisis management, and actively shaping the battlespace. In this new era of perpetual contestation, mastering the grey zone is not about winning – it is about ensuring that one’s adversaries never can.
Given the shifting sands of contemporary conflict, do we need to reassess the meaning of warfare? Clausewitz famously called war ‘a continuation of politics by other means’ (1832). But does that idea still hold up today? These days, conflicts play out on social media, in cyberspace, and even in elections—often without a single shot fired. Today’s battlespace incorporates cyber operations, climate change, mass-urbanisation, space weaponisation, and continuous strategic competition. This blurs the lines between war and peace. While classical theorists maintain that war’s fundamental nature has not changed, modern conflicts increasingly challenge traditional frameworks.
Historically, warfare was characterised by physical destruction, decisive battles, and territorial conquest. Modern conflicts, however, do not always adhere to this pattern. For instance, cyber warfare has shown that states and non-state actors can achieve strategic effects without kinetic violence. Thomas Rid (2017) contends that cyber operations can coerce, disrupt, and deceive, thereby challenging Clausewitz’s notion that war is inherently violent. The 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia and the Stuxnet virus, which incapacitated Iranian nuclear facilities, are stark reminders of strategic aggression that did not involve traditional warfare.
Clausewitz and Sun Tzu never saw Twitter battles or deepfake propaganda coming. But here we are. Rather than fighting discrete wars, we’re in a period of ongoing strategic competition. The 2018 U.S. National Defence Strategy even describes it as ‘long-term strategic competition’ (Department of Defence, 2018). This shift undermines the traditional Westphalian model, where war and peace were regarded as distinct states. Hybrid warfare thrives in ambiguity. Hoffman (2017) describes it as a mix of misinformation, economic coercion, cyberattacks, and proxy forces. The goal? Stay below the conventional threshold of war. The Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, involving cyber operations, disinformation, and unmarked troops, serves as an exemplary case.
Despite these transformations, Clausewitz’s core concepts continue to be highly relevant. His idea of the trinity of “violence, chance, and political purpose” continues to offer a valuable framework for understanding modern conflicts. Colin Gray (1999) underscores that strategy is fundamentally about applying means to achieve political ends, irrespective of technological advancements. The risk, however, lies in excessively broadening the definition of war. If every act of geopolitical rivalry, such as economic sanctions, election interference, or cyber espionage, is termed “war,” it risks conceptual dilution. Gartzke (2013) cautions that this approach could end with unnecessary escalation, with states treating cyber incidents as casus belli when they might be closer to espionage or subversion.
So where do we go from here? Rather than discarding classical strategic theory, we should reinterpret its principles to align with current realities. Clausewitz’s trinity can evolve: “violence” can encompass non-kinetic coercion; “chance” is amplified by the unpredictability of interconnected digital systems; and “political purpose” now includes influence operations and behavioural shaping alongside territorial ambitions. Warfare may not appear as it did in Clausewitz’s era, but its essence, driven by politics and strategy, remains unchanged.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén