Abstract
This comprehensive study focuses on the complicated landscape of hybrid warfare, providing a nuanced exploration of its evolving nature and paramount significance in contemporary geopolitics. Focused on Eurasian security, the research particularly highlights into the experiences of Georgia, offering a meticulous definition and conceptual framework for hybrid warfare. It traces the historical evolution of hybrid warfare tactics, unveiling their adaptation in modern conflicts. The study meticulously examines manifestations and implications within Georgia’s security dynamics, encompassing cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, and proxy warfare.
Expanding its scope, the research provides an overview of the broader Eurasian geopolitical landscape, unpacking regional power dynamics and exploring the strategic interests of major actors such as Russia, NATO, and China. In a dedicated analysis of Georgia, the study explores the nation’s strategic importance, alliances, and conflicts, shedding light on its multifaceted role within Eurasia.
The article also scrutinizes the implications of hybrid warfare on Eurasian security, assessing its impact on regional stability and security dynamics. The study highlights the challenges posed by hybrid warfare tactics, especially in the realms of cyber attacks and information warfare, to traditional security frameworks.
Shifting focus to international collaboration, the article evaluates the role of international organizations in deterring hybrid threats in the region as well as it intricates dynamics of hybrid warfare in Georgia within the broader context of Eurasian security. This research contributes valuable insights for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners grappling with the complex challenges presented by hybrid warfare in the contemporary geopolitical landscape.
References
Achilles and Odysseus in modern warfare (2008), https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2015/12/5/achilles-and-odysseus-in-modern-warfare.
Beraia E. (2021), Hybrid Warfare: New Implications for NATO’s Deterrence and Defense – Asymmetric Challenge, IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7118-7.ch003
Buffalo D. L. (2006), Defining asymmetric warfare, “Land Warfare Papers”, No. 58/December, Institute of Land Warfare, Virginia, https://www.ausa.org/land-warfare-papers (12.04.2007).
Castillo G. (2005), Domesticating the Cold War: Household Consumption as Propaganda in Marshall Plan Germany, “Journal of Contemporary History”, 40(2), 261–288, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036324 (13.03.2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022009405051553
Chisem J. (2012), U.S. Propaganda and the Cultural Cold War. E-International Relations, https://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/16/u-s-propaganda-and-the-cultural-cold-war/#_ftn6 (17.06.2024).
Combs J. E., Nimmo D. (1999), The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palaver in Contemporary Politics, New York.
Crime Assessment – Trafficking of Human Beings into the European Union (2003), “Europol”, http://www.europol.eu.int/index.asp?page=publ_crimeassessmentTHB.
Evans M. (2003), From Kadesh to Kandahar: Military Theory and the Future of War, “Naval War College Review”, Newport.
Friedman G. (2013), Beyond the Post-Cold War word, “Geopolitical weekly”, 13.04.2013.
Frank G. H. (2009), Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict, “Strategic Forum”, No. 240.
Gartzke E. (2013), The Myth of Cyberwar – Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth, “International Security”, Vol. 38, No. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00136
Hoffman F. G. (2009), Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict, “Strategic Forum”, No. 240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA496471
Kakachia K., Lebanidze B. (2020), Georgia’s Foreign Policy and the Role of the EU and NATO: Between Strategic Partnerships and Domestic Political Choices.
Madlovics B., Magyar B. (2023), Russia’s Imperial Endeavour and Its Geopolitical Consequences, “The Russia-Ukraine War Volume”, Central European University Press, Budapest–Vienna–New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9789633866528
Maisaia V. (2023), Wojny czwartej generacji. Kontekst NATO i Kaukazu Południowego, Mtsignobari, Tbilisi.
Marek M. (2017), Próba analizy specyfiki rosyjskiej wojny hybrydowej, in: Konflikt hybrydowy na Ukrainie: aspekty teoretyczne i praktyczne, (eds.) B. Pacek, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego, Piotrków Trybunalski.
Marsden M. (2021), Beyond the Silk Roads Trade, Mobility and Geopolitics across Eurasia, Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108974387
Olszyk S. (2019), Koncepcja działań sieciocentrycznych – droga do sieciocentryczności, “Rocznik Bezpieczeństwa Międzynarodowego”, Vol. 13, No. 1.
Opinion the new ideology of the new cold war (2014), “New York Times”, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/opinion/the-new-ideology-of-the-new-cold-war.html (01.08.2014).
Oxford hand books (2015), https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935307-e-39?rskey=KJomPi&result=8 (07.11.2015).
The shadow wars of the 21st century (2014), http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/the-shadow-wars-of-the-21st-century/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7767/sus-2014-0133
U.N. has no definition of terrorism” (2010), “Eye on the UN”, http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?1=1&p=6 (17.12.2010).
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Eka Beraia, Robert Mieczysław Roszkowski

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
