The Battle for Truth in Hybrid Warfare

Dear Participants,

From time to time, ethical debate confronts a difficult question, namely, are our terms of debate still fit for purpose? Do they still describe the reality we face, or do they reflect a world that no longer exists? In other words, do we need to update our moral language?

In this brief presentation, I approach the question of truth by examining our normative criteria for analysing the use of military force. My focus is not a philosophical account of truth, but the challenge posed to peace ethics by Russia’s actions in the so-called “grey zone.”

Our political, legal, and moral categories of war and peace are among the most established concepts in Western societies. They structure international law, ethics, and public debate. Yet today, this clarity has become a vulnerability. Russia deliberately exploits these categories by turning them against us politically and militarily.

While Western democracies maintain a clear distinction between war and peace, Russia operates within a different framework. From the perspective of the Putin regime, conflict is a continuum in which military, economic, informational, and social means are intertwined. This is not merely a scholarly observation, but a political and military reality.

My central argument, therefore, is that we must acknowledge this truth and think about ethically defensible and politically effective responses to Russia’s grey zone actions. One possible response is to view such sub-threshold activity through a developing moral vocabulary designed for what is often called force-short-of-war.

Russia’s recent conduct toward NATO states follows a deliberate strategy of staying below the threshold of a casus belli. Cyberattacks, disinformation, interference in democratic processes, economic pressure, sabotage, and airspace violations are not isolated incidents, but elements of a coherent strategy.

The goal is the gradual erosion of political agency, social trust, and normative clarity without crossing into open war. Because these actions are not clearly “war,” Western democracies struggle to respond appropriately. This difficulty is compounded by growing cracks within NATO, intensified by the erratic manoeuvring of the second Trump administration—another uncomfortable truth we must confront.

As German Chief of Defence, General Carsten Breuer, has put it, we are in a situation that is “no longer quite peace, but not yet war.” Our own categories create a grey zone that Russia systematically exploits.

An ethically defensible response must begin with an uncomfortable recognition, namely, our established categories governing the use of force are themselves under attack. They have become part of the strategic battlefield. This requires reflection on whether we need a refined moral vocabulary to address sub-threshold action. This presentation is an invitation to engage in that task.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting we abandon our normative standards. On the contrary, we must recognise that these standards are being exploited by an opponent seeking to turn them against us. Truth, in this context, means finding appropriate responses within our ethical and legal frameworks, not surrendering them.

In practice, not every response to hybrid aggression can—or should—be military. A premature kinetic response often serves Russia’s goal of escalation and alliance division. Many will recall the debate over whether Russian jets should have been shot down after entering NATO airspace.

Rather than tit-for-tat reactions, we should exhaust all legal means before considering force. These include sanctions, diplomatic isolation, legal proceedings, infrastructure protection, strategic communication, cyber defence, and societal resilience.

These instruments are not signs of weakness. They express strategic power exercised beyond military means and help preserve the moral high ground, a proven element of long-term success. This is precisely why recent violations of international law by the Trump administration are so damaging—they undermine our moral standing.

In the hybrid domain, non-kinetic measures are often more effective than military ones. Even regarding economic pressure, one may ask whether the West has fully used its options, as illustrated by ongoing debates over frozen Russian assets.

Ethically, we are in need of deeper reflection. The Just War tradition offers limited guidance for hybrid aggression, but it certainly rejects passive inaction. A Just Peace approach requires active engagement to limit and overcome violence. 

In response, the concept of ius ad vim—the just use of force short of war—has emerged to morally assess limited force below the war threshold. In a nutshell, ius ad vim refers to the moral principles governing the use of force that falls short of full-scale war. It addresses actions like limited military strikes, drone operations, or covert uses of force that do not rise to the level of ius ad bellum. 

In my work, I argue that ius ad vim offers a useful moral vocabulary for understanding grey zone action. However, I do not support abandoning the distinction between the ethics of war and peace. Its value lies in sharpening our ethical awareness of force-short-of-war.

What this framework does is it highlights a serious danger: such force risks becoming habitual and self-perpetuating—what critics call vis perpetua, an endless low-intensity violence. Because Russia treats the grey zone as a permanent strategy, automatic responses risk creating constant escalation and permanent tension.

For this reason, thinking about ius ad vim must be embedded within the pursuit of a just peace. An ethically defensible response requires a sense of truth: recognising the threat without becoming normatively corrupted by it.

Regarding Russia, this means clear red lines, credible deterrence, and consistent non-kinetic measures, embedded in a long-term strategy grounded in resilience and the rule of law.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Russian hybrid aggression forces us to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. Our categories of war and peace are being used strategically against us. 

Truth here does not mean the abandonment of our values, but their realistic application. Peace cannot be secured by misjudging reality—but only by confronting it with a clear gaze, a limited readiness to use force, and the consistent application of all legal means – always before the horizon of a just peace.

Thank you for your attention.