 This is, uh, think te kawai's politics for the people show. I'm Stephanie Stoll Dalton, your host. We have a weekly show, and our topic for this weekly discussion show is about a new term or an establishing term. Nothing's new, right? Anyway, the term is these, um, is our hyper hyper hyper war. And I would like to note to mention that we have a panel here to discuss, uh, what, what it is as we have learned it and the actual practice of it that has been concentrally agreed as a hybrid war. So these panel members who will be discussing the topic today are J. Fideau and Tim Apichella and, um, and, and I'm your moderator. So let's get started with this. We've been talking about hybrid war and, and been thinking that we really don't know what it is, but, um, we actually have seen a lot of it and it is described by Hoffman, a marine who, um, has served long and also taught at the U. S. War colleges, um, and also has done quite a bit of study of hybrid war. Mr. Hoffman writes that hybrid war incorporates a range of different modes of warfare, including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts, including indiscriminate violence and coercion and criminal disorder. The variety, um, of actions could be the work of the same, same, um, actor. So we're familiar with terms like asymmetric warfare, guerrilla warfare, unconventional and cyber warfare as ways of conflict. Now we're learning more about a high, hyper war, hybrid war. So J, can you talk to us a little bit about what you've learned from the current conflict about what hyper war is coming to be understood by Americans to be and what, what do you see it as given the definition and what you have learned? Well, let me just tell you when I, when I saw you right up on the show, I went and looked to see if there was a term of art, hybrid war. And I found there is a lot written about hybrid war. This is not something that popped up yesterday, but it has been evolving. Hybrid war is getting more hybrid. Every time you look, it's more hybrid. Which means what? Getting hybrid means what? Getting high on hybrid. So it's um, it's actually, there's a number of definitions that are related and I want to go through some of them that I've found. So first of all, it's many things. And it's, it's an interplay, a fusion of conventional war and that would be kinetic war where you shoot bullets and artillery and all that and unconventional instruments of power and tools of subversion. And these, these, these elements, these tools are blended in a synchronized comprehensive manner to exploit the vulnerabilities of an antagonist or to achieve synergistic results. And I don't think, you know, we really been watching, I haven't been watching this. So you can have a hybrid war that includes things that we didn't see as war before. And that is spreading false information, doing cyberterrorism, attacking computer system um, beyond traditional military action. And so this is really the incorporation of technology beyond kinetic war into war. It's social engineering. It's all kinds of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and autonomous systems like robots. And robots are not only robots that attack, robots do other things. They, they gain information. So we have to see it as, you know, one kind of technology, which is modular, connected with other kinds of technology. And in some cases, you don't even see this as war. It's merely pursuing political objectives through carefully designed operations, moving cautiously without kinetic war at all. And in that case, it's called gray zone war. There's another one called fifth generation war, which I, this may be my favorite, fifth generation war is warfare that is conducted primarily through non-kinetic military action, social engineering, misinformation, cyber attack, and various other technologies. So what you, what you have is the kind of a migration from kinetic war to non-kinetic war. So all these things existed before, but it's a question of priorities. It's a question of interaction and coordination. And it's a question of the mix, you know, what, how much of this kind and how much of that kind becomes particularly relevant now in the case of Ukraine and in the case of Russia versus Eastern Europe and Western Europe and the United States. And for that matter, you know, China is also doing this kind of thing. It's fifth generation, though. It's not kinetic right now. And indeed, you could make the case that when this process, this evolution is done, there won't be kinetic war, because the aggressor will have what he wants without any kinetic action. He'll find other high-tech ways to subvert and subjugate, you know, the country he is attacking. So when Zelensky says we're having a hybrid war, he is dead right about that. And we have to watch it. We have to watch what's going on. And Western Europe should watch what's going on, because all of these things that I mentioned are happening in a coordinated fashion by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is a clever guy. He understands hybrid war. He is conducting hybrid war. And we have to understand it too. Well, having him as knowledgeable and you're remarking that Putin is as knowledgeable as Zelensky, who is the contributor of this term or bringing this term to the surface here at this time. One of the features of hybrid war is that the activity occurs below the traditional threshold of war. So your kinetic, non-kinetic point is very apt. So, Tim, given what we know now about hybrid war, why is it rising? Why is it emerging? What's in it for anybody? Well, what's in it is, obviously, entrees in two more effective ways of confusing the enemy and disabling the enemy. I was trying to get my arms around the term hybrid war. And I love the term, you know, that J.U.'s kinetic war. And then I thought, okay, what's an example of something that's between kinetic war and cyber warfare? And I thought of the time, I think it was the United States, conducted, it was on the Iranian tubes for enrichment in Iran, where we broke into their computers and spun those enrichment tubes so fast that they blew up. They literally just spun themselves and fried out. And that was something we were able to do to stop Iran and its enrichment program. And we did it continents away. And so, I think that was an example, in my mind, of hybrid warfare. So it's an effective thing. And then, you know, if part of it also is disinformation, I'll say that disinformation is a semantic term because we used to call it propaganda. And certainly, in yesterday's show, we talked about many examples of how Putin is using propaganda to try to explain the war away, not only to the world, but certainly to his own people. And what's a big aspect of propaganda is the big lie that's repeated over and over and over again until people get worn down and start to accept it. And that is a key element of propaganda. But now we call it disinformation. That's such an interesting point, Tim, about having seen it already through the big lie and the big lie before that. So... Well, we've been watching it for five years with the previous president. Exactly. We should be pretty attuned to it by now. That was when my question was the duration of the cyber war and to address the fact that it's ongoing and it's got a history here with us. So one of the other features, Jay, of characteristics of hybrid war is that there's a role for civilians that is non-traditional. And it has some ways of influencing... Well, why don't you tell me what have you seen that involves civilians in non-traditional worlds during conflict? Well, that's an interesting point. And that is if you had a chart with an XY axis, you'd say that as civilians have become more active in the non-kinetic parts of war, hybrid war, then the hybrid war has become more interested in injuring and killing civilians. So it becomes a more community-minded... I hate to use that term, but a community-minded thing. Now it's not just the soldiers on the front lines. There's lots and lots of civilians who are either with government or volunteers, as in the case of Ukraine, who participate. And it's like... And this is the operative term and I would like to spend a little time on it. All options on the table. All methodologies are included. If you are an aggressor and you wake up on a given Thursday morning and say, gee, I got a new way to kill people. I got a new way to disrupt their societies and fragment their political will. I got a new way that it's on the table. It's all on the table. Civilian, military, kinetic, non-kinetic. And that's the way the world has gone. And to your point, Tim, about the last five years, if you take these definitions, this fifth-generation definition or the definition of grey zone war, we have been at war in this country. You can have a domestic war where one side forms up, develops these strategies, uses these techniques, and fights with the outside in a way to achieve what amounts to be a national objective. It's like a civil war that's being conducted by grey zone or hybrid war. And it could turn into a shooting war. It did on January 6th to a certain extent. So the other thing I'd like to throw into the mix here is that if you say the definition of war has changed, and we ought to examine exactly how it has changed in connection with Putin and Ukraine, and if you say that examples of this kind of war pop up by way of non-kinetic elements, and if you say that everybody's looking around for indications that we either are or soon will be in a third world war, we may, as far as kinetic war is concerned, we may be already in a third world war. It's just not being conducted kinetically all around. And to go one last point before I get off my stump here is that if you talk about hybrid war and you talk about kinetic, all of a sudden there are other options on the table there too, you know, what you threw on the table because you want it all, you want everything. And so that would be these hypersonic missiles. It would be tactical nuclear weapons. It would be bio warfare or chemical warfare, all these things. And that's, I say that's kinetic war, but they're on the table. So the concept is not only that we include non-kinetic things, but the kinetic things in our toolkit are much greater. And, you know, although, you know, the Western Europe says, oh, a lot of that is, you know, violation of human rights and war crimes and all that, somehow Mr. Putin, by putting it on the table, by threatening it, or saying that others are threatening it to him, which is a lie, is expanding the possibilities of what goes on the table here in the 21st century, expanding the possibility that notwithstanding our earlier definitions of kinetic war and our Geneva Conventions and our anti-proliferation agreements and what have you, right now it seems like it's all possible. And it's not just a shooting war with bullets or artillery or airplanes and bombs. It's all kinds of new tech and it's weapons of, sorry, weapons of mass destruction. That's on the table. It certainly looks like it is, Jay. That's a good point. Tam, let's get back to the people part of it now. So how does, how does this hybrid war experience we're witnessing minute by minute, practically, because of our media coverage? How does it affect people in the war zone, Tam? That question which just flashed in front of my mind was, unfortunately, one of the positive outcomes of war. And I hate to say it, but through every war, the advances in medicine, particularly trauma medicine, leaps and quantum leaps and improves on how to keep humans alive when they've been horribly mangled and maimed. That's what I'm thinking about is we have more efficient ways of either killing people or not killing them, but creating a greater burden on the army that supports them and taking them out, but not killing them, but wounding them. And that takes three people instead of one person to take care of a casualty. And the diabolical technology that warfare now employs is mind-boggling to me, but that's also transfers to the civilian population, which makes us even more hideous, is that these non-combatants are the recipients of high technology weapons that may not kill them, but it will completely mutilate and maim and keep them alive to be a further burden to the society that has to take care of them. And that's the part that flashed in front of my mind when you just asked me that question. I don't know what more to say other than that. Well, I was thinking also about the call to arms that was given to the Ukrainians, the minute they were smart enough to get out of town. I mean, they left the minute the Russian started attacking. So everybody left. Well, women and children, yes, but not males. Yeah, and then they said everybody goes except men. What is it, 16 to 60 or something? So what about that? What about that? I think we saw this, I hate to say this, we saw this in World War II after Okinawa was taken and there was going to be a major invasion of the island of Japan. We saw everyone in Japan was going to ready themselves for that invasion, be it women, men, grandparents, everyone was being trained to arm themselves. And very quickly, every time the naval forces would shift off the shores of Japan, their forces shifted. And so that's why estimations of casualties was going to be somewhere in the half million range for casualties of US soldiers, because everyone was planning to mobilize and defend their island nation. What we see in Ukraine is exactly that kind of philosophy is rather than run and surrender. They have they have really bucked up to it and say we are going to defend the homeland here and that's called Ukraine. And so it's it's it's admirable to see, but then your citizens become combatants. And that becomes problematic because then is it acceptable for civilian targets to be targeted? That's really interesting connection to World War II and that circumstance. Yes. And the hand-to-hand combat that was faced at that time and the engaged. We're going to be faced. The civilians didn't happen because Vienna bomb ended the end of the war. Yeah, deterred that. Well, yes. OK, so it's so it's been with us. So we're not this is not new hybrid war. It's not brand new, but it and there are examples along the way. It's evolving. This is an example. It's evolving and emerging. Yeah. And if you start looking at the chess board on this, talk about the civilian casualties. Putin may not have the sharpest army in the in the drawer. And, you know, maybe his generals aren't that sharp and his troops aren't that sharp or committed. But his his deal is, and this is a new element, blow up the country, blow every building, every residence, you know, into rubble and do that first. Do that before you do the institutional buildings because you want the institutional buildings for your puppet governments when you when you're able to take over and demoralize people, blow up their hospitals, go to your point, Tim, blow up their hospitals so they can't render aid. So the people who were wounded and dying, you know, become a burden on everyone else. And because and so it becomes very tragic. And you demoralize the country in general, you try to demoralize 40 million people by blowing up their hospitals so that when they get wounded or or have any medical issue, whether it's a wound or not, there's no place to go. And that's what he's doing. And so you have to say this kind of strategy is part of hybrid war. It's strategy against the people. It's a strategy to put burdens on the the the country that's being attacked. Economic burdens and morale burdens. And so it's one of those elements on the table because everything is on the table. So can I jump in on that point? And, you know, well, Tim, yes, you have another point. Yes, I would. Yeah, I do because you know, when we talk about the hybrid war now involving, you know, citizens, non-combatants, maybe it's time for the Geneva Convention to be updated and agreed upon internationally. I know it sounds bizarre to have a brutality of war and that you would yet you have rules to adhere to. It's just an oxymoron for me. But you know, if you think about aerial bombing that took place in World War Two, but not World War One, aerial bombing was indiscriminate bombing on civilian targets, the Battle of Britain, the bombing of Germany. So here we are now in 2022 with new weapons, hypersonic missiles, the technology, yet they're being directed against the civilian population. So I'm really thinking that that's antiquated warfare. And maybe it's time for the Geneva Convention to be updated and agreed to and stop this kind of technology use against the civilian population. Well, let me add to that. Then they embed themselves in civilian targets. You like hospitals and, you know, the Hezbollah would do this and, you know, they would embed themselves with these civilian targets. We are not in a place where another Geneva Convention can happen. I agree. I agree with that. The thing about World War One and World War Two was a terrible things that happened. And then it was over. And when it was over, there was a winner. And the winners would get together and make things like the Geneva Convention lessons from the war. But, you know, we have seen that war crimes are no longer war crimes in the minds of some people. We have seen the United Nations is no consequence because you veto everything. Over and over, we have seen the international institutions that would stand in the way of of tribes against humanity and violations of any rules of decorum and humanity are thrown aside. So if you asked Vladimir Putin, I'll go on record about this. You asked Vladimir Putin, hey, how about a new Geneva Convention? He would say get lost. He would never, ever, ever, ever agree to that. And that's one of the things on his table, because he is being difficult. He is doubling down on outrageous things, just like Donald Trump did. They really run out of the same playbook. Doubling down on outrageous things is one of the weapons. And you call it anti diplomacy, you know, because do you think that Zelensky is ever going to make a deal with Putin? Never. You know, everybody calls it, you know, diplomacy. How can you have diplomacy with a psychopath? You can't do it. And being being unpredictable, being impossible to deal with. Those are also weapons like misinformation and disinformation that are on the table. It's sort of like reverse diplomacy. Exactly, Jay. Very interesting point. And what a challenge going forward for everyone. My big question now for maybe this will get us to the end of the program, but I want to ask Tim to start talking about what are the defenses in the circumstances of a hybrid war? Now Jay's laid out the table. Everything's on it. So Tim, take a crack at what are the defenses? Where do we go? Boy, another question that comes flashing to my brain. And that is from a communication standpoint. It's important that every citizen recognize when propaganda is taking place, that they learn that the very five or six points of how to recognize propaganda and how to guard yourself against it. And I hate to say it, but the human species is flawed. You could have five degrees, five doctor degrees on your wall from Harvard or Yale and yet be sucked in by the biggest of charlatans and not even realize you've been sucked in through propaganda. How smart are you? So we need to see how I call it, I call it verbal hypnosis. Propaganda is a form of hypnosis that sucks you in and you don't even know it because you didn't recognize it when it was coming. So how can we guard ourselves against these sort of things versus on the information front? Know that someone is setting the stage for a conflict, a war, an invasion and know that they need you to cooperate with them because you're going to support them. So what do they have to do? They have to convince you, hypnotize you, propagandize you and so they get your support. So that's the first step is recognize when these things are happening before they happen. So this is an influence game and we have to get better at using what we know about influencing people. Every citizen needs to recognize that when it's happening to guard against it. And I don't care if it's politics, I don't care what the subject matter is, recognize when someone is trying to pull a mental jujitsu on you and suck you in. Gaslighting. Gaslighting. That part of it, that is a big part of propaganda is gaslighting. It has to get added to the list of bandwagon and all of those things we memorized in school but didn't take seriously. Jay, what other comments? I really have some point I want to make here and that is this. If you have hybrid war or fifth generation war or gray zone war, the military and kinetic war is only one element. Not to say that that may be a very important element, but it is clearly only one element and it's like a very complicated ballgame where anything goes. So if you look at the way government, at least our government in Washington is run, there are two things to keep in mind. Number one is the government is locked up. It's ineffectual. Congress couldn't find its shoelaces. The Supreme Court, I wouldn't trust them for a nickel. Then you have the executive, but the executive is hampered and the executive has to be careful about the political disparities in the country and the lack of political will. That's one element. The other element is that in kinetic war, which used to be the only kind of war, you relied on the military and so we have a Department of Defense, which is organized and pointed at kinetic war. Now, not to say that there are non-kinetic things in the Department of Defense, you know, there's the space command, which was a Trump idea, I really wonder about that, and other non-kinetic things in the Department of Defense. And indeed, the military has become more adept at foreign relations than it was, say, after World War II. But the bottom line is the Department of Defense and kinetic war as the overarching agency for war. You know the answer. It's not complete. It's overtaken by events. It's old news. We have to update our structure in dealing with hybrid war to be more than just the Department of Defense. And that means, you know, I don't know, another arm of government, another approach by the executive, and certainly it means that Congress has got to get its act together and realize that kinetic war is overtaken by events. We need to coordinate all of these things where we are going to lose the war, which is happening. The other thing I'd like to throw at both of you guys is this. And it goes to your question about what do we do now? My short answer would be we recognize the problem and we get together as a country to develop a collaborative solution, you know, way beyond just the Department of Defense. But there's another thing too, and that is how do you... This is your question earlier. And Tim answered it to some degree, but I think it's still in the air. The question is how do you deal with this? What do you do? And I guess my short-term answer, and I'd like to know what Tim's answer is, is, well, you understand it. The first thing, you understand it. Everybody will listen to this show about hybrid war and understand it. And the second thing is you try to coordinate various elements of hybrid war under a leadership system that coordinates them all. Right now, we don't have that really. And so I don't know how you win a hybrid war unless you match the hybrid war the other guy's doing. And in that case, it may not be a clear winner. Tim, what do you think about that? Well, let's go around. We're out of time. So what we're going to do is have one more closing comment from each of you. So Tim, let's go to you with your final comment. Well, I'm going to go back to the last question then. Because again, I think war takes place when we fail to proactively see the forces of war coming to the table. And that means be it through political influence by money or oligarchs or rich industries, corporations that have a vested interest to engage in war because it's a profit model. And we fail to see the slow, the slow bake, if you will, of money influenced into the politics from the politics into the military, from the military to the frontline kinetic warfare. And so it's really a slow buildup to how do we get to a war in the first place? War just doesn't happen. It's a failure of politics and it's a failure of diplomacy. But what was the underlying reason to have that failure of politics? And in my mind, that's being on your guard for looking for the influences of influence, money in politics, propaganda through certain news agencies. And I won't mention the three letter one that's on my mind. But these things are blatant in front of us, but we fail to realize that we fail to see it because we've been anesthetized to it because it's been repeated over and over and over we're desensitized. But that's where you start. That's how you stop war, is proactively look at the causes of what's causing the irritation and friction between nations. Okay, thank you. Jay, let's have a last comment here before closed. Yeah, don't forget sanctions. Sanctions is one of those things on the table. Economic sanctions, you mentioned it. And I think the question is, the Kennedy School at Harvard talks about smart power and soft power and all that. And that's really foreign policy done kindly. And it has gotten the United States a lot of friends around the world. But it's not enough. It's part of the mix as sanctions are part of the mix. And so if you ask me, you know, what the direction of the Kennedy School and the smart power, soft power should be at this point, it's the coordination of these various things. You can't get there using only, that's the point. You can't get there using only one of them. You've got to coordinate them and you've got to be really, really smart. And they've got to be hybrid. Hybrid war calls for hybrid defense. Hybrid solutions to hybrid warfare. On that note, we're closing our show for today on a discussion of hybrid war as we're witnessing it at this very time. And I'm Stephanie Stoll Dalton, your host for this show. And thank you to our panelists, Jay Fiedel and Tim Appichella. We'll be here again next week at 11 o'clock. So Aloha and Mahalo for your viewership.