The paper aims to map and conceptualize a theoretical framework for the phenomenon widely labeled as hybrid war. Most analysts associate the hybrid war with its means (cyber, disinformation, violent covert action) depending on perceived vulnerabilities, or the degree of uncertainty (mix of tools and measures, actions below threshold of war, gray zone conflict), exploring various metaphors to explain the key traits of these diverse models. While such attempts provide valuable contributions for understanding modern conflict, they are limited in fully revealing the threat’s nature.
In order to better understand war, I propose a different analytic approach, by conceptualizing and introducing the interstate aggression as unit of analysis, of which conventional war is a subtype, among others. Therefore, I suggest to stop using conventional war as the main logical anchor and referential point for interstate violent conflict.
In my analysis I intend to explore the analytic tool labeled “contest success function” to better understand their mechanisms, and then contrast and compare three types of violent interstate aggression: conventional war, proxy war, and hybrid war. I will focus on their sought ends, which is to undermine or destroy the sovereignty of the target country, by acquiring control of its territory (and resources), population or ruling elites. Each type of interstate aggression (conventional, proxy or hybrid) uses distinct and different mechanisms to achieve the same goal. I will examine and explain this in detail, building the “conceptual maps” of the three types of interstate aggression, providing evidence and illustration using micro-comparative cases.