Abstract: The object of this research is the concept of “hybrid forces”. Hybrid warfare is a war that employs hybrid force, which hybridity depends on whether they are composed of regular or irregular component. Initially, the irregular component involved partisans, who were later replaced by Special Forces Units, including Commando, which continued to perform a role of irregular units. Hybrid forces, in accordance with the Western doctrines, are most effective. Therefore, it appears relevant to conduct a historical overview and specify methodological approaches towards emergence, role, effectiveness, and potential usage of hybrid forces based on the data provided in foreign sources. The concept is examines its initial meaning, content and relevance of application in describing the conduct of military operations in the modern conditions. The scientific novelty of this work consists in the analysis of foreign source, which in the author’s opinion, underlies the concept of “hybrid warfare”. The historical retrospective, presented in the source, would help theoreticians of hybrid warfare to define this concept with more precision. The conclusion is made that the phenomenon recently dubbed as “hybrid warfare” and “hybrid forces” is not new and has analogues in human history.

Keywords: decentralization, coordination, irregular force, regular force, hybrid war, hybrid force, dispersion, concentration, vulnerability, efficiency

References:
Pershin Yu.Yu. Gibridnaya voyna: mnogo shuma iz nichego [Elektronnyy resurs] // Voprosy bezopasnosti. 2019. № 4. S.78–109. URL: http://e-notabene.ru/nb/article_30374.html
Alexander B. The Future of Warfare. New York: W.W. Norton, 1995. 235 p.
Antonius G. The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement. Beirut: Khayat’s College Book Cooperative, 1938. 470 r.
Arquilla J., Ronfeldt D. In Athena’s Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age [Elektronnyy resurs] / J. Arquilla, D. Ronfeldt, eds. / Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1997. Url: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR880.html
Asprey R. B. War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History. Volume I. New York: Doubleday, 1975. 1622 p.
Chandler D. On the Napoleonic Wars: Collected Essays. London: Greenhill Books, 1994. 270 p.
Dugan J. C. Elusive armies and invisible hands: combining conventional and guerrilla forces from 1776 to the present. Monterey: Naval Postgraduate School, 1998. 164 p.
Dupuy E. R., Dupuy T. N. T

Abstract: The object of this research is the concept of “hybrid warfare/threat”. Such choice is substantiated by two facts: modern authors impart different meanings and content to this concept, often far from the initial; this concept is tautological, since “hybrid” is the characteristics of virtually any war, or application of a combination of various tactics and methods (except weapon of mass destruction) by the opponents. Therefore, the author believe that determination of “hybridism” attributable for multiple wars as a special type of warfare is inappropriate. The concepts is examined for its initial meanings, as well as relevance of interpretation in describing the conduct of military operations in modern conditions. The research is structures on the comparative analysis of original source that first employed the concept of “hybrid warfare”, as well as methodological guidance of this source. The scientific novelty first and foremost consists in author’s attempt to undermine the scientific research representing one of the versions of the genesis of “hybrid warfare” concept, as well as verify methodological sources used for development and explanation of this concept. The author also calls into question the relevance of the definition of “hybrid warfare”. It is concluded that the concept of “hybrid warfare/threat” is not operational, but has a tinge of ideology.

Keywords: asymmetric warfare, guerrilla warfare, mixed society, devolving states, pre-state society, hybrid forces, hybrid society, hybrid warfare, limited war, war of attrition

References:
Wright P.Q. A Study of War. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. 474 p.
Turney-High H.H. Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1971. 288 p.
United States Government Accountability Office: Hybrid Warfare, GAO-10-1036R. Washington, DC, USA: USGAO, 2010 (September 10). 26 p. URL: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/d101036r.pdf
United States Government Accountability Office: Hybrid Warfare, GAO-10-1036R, Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense. Washington, DC, USA: USGAO, 2010 (September 10). 26 p. Url: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/d101036r.pdf
Sadowski D., Becker J. Beyond the “Hybrid” Threat: Asserting the Essential Unity of Warfare [Elektronnyy resurs] / D. Sadowski, J. Becker // Small Wars Journal. – 2010. – January 7. Url: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/344-sadowski-etal.pdf
Otterbein K.F. The Evolution of War: A Cross-Cultural Study. New Haven

Abstract: The subject of the research is the process of legislative provision for creation of sub-divisions that ensure security of European Union states. Providing that security of all EU countries is part of their foreign relations, military units act as such sub-divisions. In his article Kovalev demonstrates that this solution ensures participation of foreign expeditionary forces. He analyzes legislative initiatives and their potential implementation depending on the degree of participation of each member state in global peacekeeping operations. The research method used by the author is the comparative characteristic of the use of national military forces in each EU country as well as forecasting method that defines potential participation of a EU country in international expeditionary activities. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that for the first time in the academic literature the author analyzes opportunity for legislative provision of building a military block based on European initiative. The researcher describes ways for implementation of the aforesaid agreement, relevant support measures and sets goals for the use of the EU countries initiative in terms of global security. The author uses direct comparison of NATO block as a centralised model built according to the sample and targets of global security based on the USA initiative and de-centralized model of European states unitiative.

Keywords: global security, NATO, peacekeeping operation, international security, European Union, centralized model, peaceful regions, military bloc, European initiative, security

References:
Dogovor o Evropeyskom Soyuze // [Elektronnyy resurs] URL: http://dokipedia.ru›pdf/5191637
Crabb, T., & Segal, D. R. (2018). Comparative Systems of Analysis: Military Sociology in the United States and Europe. In G. Caforio & M. Nuciari (Eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of the Military (pp. 61–86). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71602-2_4
Draper, M. (2018). Fortress Policy and Strategy. In The Belgian Army and Society from Independence to the Great War (pp. 157–189). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70386-2_6
Heiskala, R. (2018). The Emergence of the European Union as a Very Incoherent Empire. In R. Heiskala & J. Aro (Eds.), Policy Design in the European Union: An Empire of Shopkeepers in the Making? (pp. 13–48). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64849-1_2
Locatelli, A. (2018). Too Far Ahead? The US Bid for Military Superiority and Its Implications for European Allies. In M.

Abstract: The notion of “hybrid war / threat” is used quite frequently nowadays, but different authors use it in different senses and meanings. We consider this concept as unstable and not amenable to detailed classification, but it is theoretically attractive because it can contain a large number of meanings. In the context of a significant degree of regulation of the military science in the USA, such an abstract concept is some kind of a “lifeline” for authors wishing to avoid detailed classification. We should say that the concept of “hybrid war / threat” is yet another “intellectual virus” (term of Gadi Eizenkot, Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces), elaborated on the basis of the military experience of the Second Lebanon war (Israel – Hezbollah war of 2006). This statement can also be confirmed by the curious use of this concept by some authors, who are far from a military theoretical thought. We think it is necessary to draw our attention to the authors who don't not use the misleading terms like the notorious “hybrid war”. We also think that all possible combinations of all modern methods of warfare and confrontation could be described without such a new-fashioned and vague term.

Keywords: disruptive challenges, catastrophic challenges, non-conventional chellenges, conventional challenges, compound war, hybrid adversary, hybrid threat, hybrid war, full-spectrum operations, insurgency

References:
United States Government Accountability Office: Hybrid Warfare, GAO-10-1036R. Washington, DC, USA: USGAO, 2010 (September 10). 26 p. URL: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/d101036r.pdf
Sadowski D., Becker J. Beyond the “Hybrid” Threat: Asserting the Essential Unity of Warfare [Elektronnyy resurs] / D. Sadowski, J. Becker // Small Wars Journal – 2010. – January 7. Url: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/344-sadowski-etal.pdf
Peters R. Lessons from Lebanon: The new model terrorist army [Elektronnyy resurs] / R. Peters // Armed Forces Journal. – October, 2006. Url: http://armedforcesjournal.com/lessons-from-lebanon/
Owens M. Th. Reflections on Future War [Elektronnyy resurs] / M. Th. Owens // Naval War College Review. – Summer 2008. – Vol. 61. – No. 3. Url: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/5cc31ca6-a3f7-41a3-8401-b792242d321b/Reflections-on-Future-War---Owens,-Mackubin-Thomas
McCuen J. J. Hybrid Wars [Elektronnyy resurs] / J. J. McCuen // Military Review. Fo

Abstract: The research subject covers the issues of wars’ format and content change in the 21st century conditioned by the change of the international relations paradigm. Based on the retrospective and prospective analyses, the authors discuss the question whether the hybrid war is something new or it is a development of a known phenomenon. The authors take into consideration the fact that the main objective of network wars is conducting the operations in the form of basic effects defined as a set of actions aimed at the formation of the model of conduct of friends, neutral powers and enemies in the context of peace, crisis and war; the object of the network impact includes all spheres of life: the physical, information, cognitive, and social. The research methodology combines the methods of strategy, tactics, the system analysis, art of war, major tactics, and the system activity approach. The authors conclude that a hybrid (network) war is a grim reality, and the modern wars are the polygons for training the forms, ways and methods of hybrid wars. In a military and practical sense, a network war allows moving from the attrition warfare to a more transient and a more effective war, in which the troops, owing to their information advantages, realize the principle of massing of results instead of massing of forces. As a result of such actions, the enemy loses the capacity to act and falls into shock, and can be defeated. 

Keywords: strategic initiative, international relations paradigm, diffuse war, network war, hybrid war, war, military security, strategic superiority, network impact object, means of warfare

References:
Kurochko M.M. Panopliya voyny kak metodologiya analiza gibridnykh voyn // Bezopasnost' Evrazii. 2015. № 1 (49). S. 228-231.
Kotlyar V.S. K voprosu o «gibridnoy voyne» i o tom, kto zhe ee vedet na Ukraine // Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'. 2015. № 8. S. 57-72.
Maslova M.V. Mnogomernost' cheloveka i fenomen gibridnykh voyn // Bezopasnost' Evrazii. 2015. № 1 (49). S. 252-254.
Belozerov V.K., Solov'ev A.V. Gibridnaya voyna v otechestvennom politicheskom i nauchnom diskurse // Vlast'. 2015. № 9. S. 5-11.
Raskin A.V. Setevye tekhnologii v gibridnoy voyne // Informatsionnye voyny. 2016. № 1 (37). S. 2-4.
Zimin S.I., Kerentsev M.M., Koshokin V.P. Analiz setevykh voyn // Obuchenie i vospitanie: metodiki i praktika. 2012. № 1. S. 097-105.
Naletov G.A., Antonovich P.I., Baranov R.P., Loyko V.V. K voprosu o kharaktere sovremennykh ugroz voennoy bezopasnosti rossiyskoy federatsii v informatsionnoy sfere // Vestnik akademii voennykh nauk. 2012. № 4 (41). S. 38-41.
Fedorov M.V., Kalinin K.M., Bogomolov A.V., Stetsyuk A.N. Matematicheskaya mo