Understanding Hybrid Warfare Constructivism and Ontological (in)Security

• Název práce v češtině: Pochopení konstruktivismu hybridní války a ontologické (ne)bezpečnosti
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Understanding Hybrid Warfare Constructivism and Ontological (in)Security
• Klíčová slova: hybridní válka, kontsruktivismus, ontologická bezpečnost
• Klíčová slova anglicky: hybrid warfare, constructivism, ontological security
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2019/2020
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra bezpečnostních studií (23-KBS)
• Vedoucí / školitel: doc. PhDr. Vít Střítecký, M.Phil., Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 05.05.2020
• Datum zadání: 05.05.2020
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 23.09.2021 08:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: Pekařská 16, JPEK312, 312, Malá učebna, 3.patro
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 27.07.2021
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 23.09.2021
• Oponenti: Mgr. Jan Ludvík, Ph.D.

Seznam odborné literatury

Preliminary core literature
HUYSMANS, J. (1998). Security! What Do You Mean?: From Concept to Thick Signifier. European Journal of International Relations, 4(2), 226–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004002004

Maria Mälksoo (2018) Countering hybrid warfare as ontological security management: the emerging practices of the EU and NATO, European Security, 27:3, 374-392, DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2018.1497984

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
Mitzen, Jennifer. (2006). Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations - EUR J INT RELAT. 12. 341-370. 10.1177/1354066106067346.

Steele, Brent J. “Ontological Security and the Power of Self-Identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War.” Review of International Studies, vol. 31, no. 3, 2005, pp. 519–540. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40072087. Accessed 29 Mar. 2020. 

Wendt, Alexander E. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization, vol. 41, no. 3, 1987, pp. 335–370. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2706749. Accessed 29 Mar. 2020.

Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky (2018) From Moscow with coercion: Russian deterrence theory and strategic culture, Journal of Strategic Studies, 41:1-2, 33-60, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2017.1347872

Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, 1992, pp. 391–425. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2706858. Accessed 29 Mar. 2020.

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

Abstract
This work will follow a chronological evolution regarding the concept of Hybrid warfare from the early 90’s, to post 9/11, and finally to the latest events on Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean annexation. Since the definition of the concept itself is undoubtedly ambiguous, we will mainly focus on the conditions and events that brought this concept to life. Next, we will try to analyze the reactions and responses of the two main actors involved on these dynamics, the Russian Federation and NATO. Lastly, this work will try to explain that the term has been used by the west a an securitizing keyword, in order to respond to a emerging threat which has been tailored to attack western allies and their expanding hegemony.

Choice of the topic
The current debate around topics of contemporary conflicts and the security environment has witnessed a surge around the usage of the concept of Hybrid warfare. The term seems to emerge frequently as a buzzword in defense circles, on topics such as the Ukraine crisis, NATO’s need for a strategic revamp, non-state actors - including here but not limited to - the Islamic State, cyber capabilities and energy security. Moreover, the terms hybrid warfare, war, and threats are being used constantly and interchangeably despite the clear vagueness that the terminology contains. Voluminous works concerned with the concept of Hybridity have already started to deliver some fruitful insights, yet the literature is still lacking a comprehensive approach, making the matters even more perplexing.
What makes the matter worse, is the fact that various states and defense conglomerates are carrying out strategic and doctrinal revisions to adequately respond to Hybrid threats. These responses, on the other hand, can lead to slippery diplomatic and strategic outcomes mainly because objectively speaking these decision-making processes are being set into motion from a concept of which we are currently unable to fully grasp. While there is a substantial necessity for further breakthroughs regarding the concept of Hybridity the question of how different actors perceive and react to it has been often overlooked.
Consequently, the aim of this work will not be that of scrutinizing the concept of Hybridity itself but instead, it will try to explore and further analyze the reason why the NATO not only welcomed the concept with open arms regardless of its opaque nature but went as far as to enact policy changes. Current trends concerning the applicability of the term have exponentially increased to the point where its usage has become merely a routine. In contrast to this, the progress regarding the metaphysical aspects of the concept have been idle and often retroactive due to its fragile foundations.
Research questions
The primary objective of this work is to analyze how actors react to the rising concept rather than focusing on the concept itself. The question arises naturally, mainly because Hybrid threats are attracting a great amount of attention. A considerable amount of research on Hybrid wars has so far embarked on an odyssey of finding a common and comprehensible definition of the concept, this has sometimes resulted in an unintentional overlook of classic IR theories for analyzing contemporary global conflicts. This work will tend to overlook the aspects of the metaphysical composition of the concept, instead, it will mainly focus on the events that prompted the major stakeholders such as NATO and the West in appointing the Russian Federation as a threat, although this time of a ‘hybrid’ nature.
The research questions are as following:
1. How did the concept evolve to the poin of becoming the mainstream term directed at Russian reviosionism/expansionism?
2. What prompted NATO decision in (re)securitizing Russia as a threat for the alliance and the west?
3. Under what circumstances are hybrid threats capable of achieving strategic goals?

Methodology
This paper will start by analyzing the terms of hybrid war, hybrid threats, and warfare by bypassing the semantics features of the three. Therefore, to not inundate on an already scrutinized topic, which is that of the metaphysical properties of the terms, this paper will mainly focus on the evolution of the term vis a vis with a timeline of its applicability in contemporary conflict studies. This, in turn, will hopefully serve to better understand the evolving relationship between NATO and Russia beginning from the end of the cold war to today’s conflict in Ukraine. Constructing this parallel timeline might give us some insights concerning the complex relationship between the two antagonists. In the third part of this paper, I will try to explain that while academic research has reached a bottleneck, the actors involved have already adjusted their policies for adapting to this new domain. This, in turn, makes us think that the actors involved seem to be more concerned in responding to the challenges, even though, technically blindfolded. Furthermore, I propose that hybrid warfare is being used as a securitizing term to solely respond to the challenges coming eastward and more importantly to adjust the focus back on Russia, which during the early 2000s has been under the alliances' radar. Hybrid wars bring something new to the table, that is a political warfare which challenges NATO and its allies to change the modus operandi to its core.

A preliminary outline of the thesis
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Origins and development of the Hybrid warfare concept
o Literature review throughout the phases
o Hybrid threats from the Middle East to Eastern Europe
o The Atlanticist and EUs’ understanding of threats
• Chapter 2: NATO and Russia relations post-Cold War
o The 90’s short honeymoon and first cracks
 Kosovo and Bosnia
o Post 9/11 NATO’s
o Post Crimea and Ukraine
 Old nemesis
 Enhanced Forward Presence
• Chapter 3: Enter the Critical Security Studies Theories
o Security Dilemma and Securitization theory approach
 Collective securitization, the case of NATO: (re)securitizing Russia
 Ontological (in)security
o The case of a missing deterrent
 Below the conflict threshold
 Possible Article V failure. Exploiting vulnerabilities
 Socio-politic direct attack on liberal values and institutions
• Chapter 4: Conclusion