Diplomacy in the era of hybrid conflicts: The examples of Europe, Africa and the Middle East

Download article
Article

Diplomacy in the era of hybrid conflicts: The examples of Europe, Africa and the Middle East

Anna Stychynska

Received 09.06.2025, Revised 15.10.2025, Accepted 15.12.2025

https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2025.04

Retrieved from Vol. 1, No. 1, 2025

Pages 4-15

Abstract

The aim of the study was to justify new approaches to understanding diplomacy as an adaptive system capable of integrating military, information, legal and economic instruments for effective interaction in the context of hybrid threats. The methodology was based on a combination of an interdisciplinary approach, which included instruments of political science, international relations, security studies, law and communication studies, with the use of comparative analysis, case studies, institutional analysis and critical discourse analysis. The results of the study showed that diplomacy in hybrid conflicts has undergone qualitative changes, moving away from the classical model of inter-state negotiations in favour of a multidimensional approach integrated with military and information tools. An analysis of peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Mali, Congo and Ukraine confirmed the decisive role of combining diplomatic and security components to achieve stability. It was found that international organisations such as the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance acted as key coordinators in shaping the institutional framework for responding to hybrid threats. The study highlighted the growing importance of “third parties” in conflict resolution, as demonstrated by Turkey and Qatar, which used humanitarian and economic instruments for mediation. One area of focus was countering disinformation campaigns, where the United States, France and Eastern European countries demonstrated different models of institutional responses, including legislative initiatives and the creation of specialised centres to combat propaganda. The analysis showed that the development of cyber diplomacy and institutional initiatives, in particular European strategic communications projects, have become necessary to ensure the sustainability of states. It was found that the effectiveness of diplomacy depended on the ability to combine traditional negotiation practices with new tools of digital interaction and strategic communications. Based on the analysis, it is recommended to develop integrated diplomatic strategies that combine traditional negotiations with modern tools of cybersecurity and countering disinformation, taking into account regional specifics. The results can be used to improve national and international strategies for countering hybrid threats and to develop effective diplomatic practices in the new global security environment

References
  1. Abu-Jaber, R.F. (2024). Historical phases of diplomacy development. Contemporary Journal of Legal Studies, 2(2), 386-405. doi: 10.70411/MJLS.2.2.2024118.
  2. Act of France No. 151 “On Combating the Manipulation of Information”. (2018, July). Retrieved from https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/textes/l15t0151_texte-adopte-seance.pdf.
  3. Act of the United States No. H.R. 3776 “To Support United States International Cyber Diplomacy, and for Other Purposes”. (2018, June). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3776/text/rs.
  4. Akgül, F. (2021). A comparison between the concepts of gray zone and hybrid war: What is new for international security? Journal of Security Strategies, 17(38), 411-439. doi: 10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.964066.  
  5. Aras, B., & Kardaş, Ş. (2021). Geopolitics of the new middle east: Perspectives from inside and outside. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 23(3), 397-402. doi: 10.1080/19448953.2021.1888251.  
  6. Arkan, Z. (2025). Narratives on European security and the leitmotif of hybrid threats. In European security and hybrid threats: A narrative in the making (pp. 39-65). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-86793-4_3.  
  7. Barman, S. (2024). Digital diplomacy: The influence of digital platforms on global diplomacy and foreign policy. Vidya-a Journal of Gujarat University, 3(1), 61-75. doi: 10.47413/vidya.v3i1.304.  
  8. Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2022). The rise of hybrid diplomacy: From digital adaptation to digital adoption. International Affairs, 98(2), 471-491. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiac005.  
  9. Borges, E. (2024). What is social media threat intelligence? Retrieved from https://www.recordedfuture.com/threat-intelligence-101/intelligence-sources-collection/social-media-threat-intelligence.
  10. Boutellis, A. (2024). The UN stabilization mission in Mali (MINUSMA): Peacekeeping caught in the geopolitical crossfire. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-66466-3.  
  11. Center for Countering Disinformation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cpd.gov.ua/en/.
  12. Clavijo, J. (2024). Diplomacy in times of pandemic and wars: Transnational actors are coming of age in an era of fragmentation and friction. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 44(1), 21-36. doi: 10.1353/sais.2024.a925809.  
  13. Dandashly, A., Dijkstra, H., Marafona, M., Noutcheva, G., & Paikin, Z. (2021). Multipolarity and EU foreign and security policy: Divergent approaches to conflict and crisis response. In JOINT research papers (No. 6, pp. 1-54). Roma: Instituto Affari Internazionali.
  14. Dursun-Özkanca, O. (2024). Changing responses to a frozen conflict: The Republic of Cyprus soft balancing vis-à-vis Turkey. International Political Science Review, 45(1), 15-30. doi: 10.1177/01925121231177443.  
  15. Eady, G., Paskhalis, T., Zilinsky, J., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J.A. (2023). Exposure to the Russian internet research agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior. Nature Communications, 14(1), article number 62. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35576-9.  
  16. Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ecowas.int/.
  17. EEAS Strategic Communication Task Forces. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eeas-strategic-communication-task-forces_en?s=2803.
  18. EUvsDisinfo. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ua/.
  19. Gizelis, T.I., Dorussen, H., & Petrova, M. (2016). Research findings on the evolution of peacekeeping. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.25.
  20. Gupta, M. (2025). Social media intelligence: AI-powered threat detection for a safer digital world. Retrieved from https://innefu.com/social-media-intelligence-ai-powered-threat-detection-for-a-safer-digital-world/.
  21. Jazbec, M. (2021). Diplomatic functions in the 21st century diplomacy. Journal of Law and Politics, 2(1), 1-12.
  22. Kacziba, P., & Hasan, B. (2022). Hybrid foreign policies in the EU’s eastern flank: Adaptive diplomacy. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 13, 207-235.
  23. Khan, Z.F. (2025). Cyber warfare and international security: A new geopolitical frontier. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(2), 513-527. doi: 10.59075/k9cbhz04.  
  24. Kiçmari, S. (2024). Functions of diplomacy. In Introduction into diplomacy (pp. 91-121). Singapore: Springer.  doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-3897-7_5.  
  25. Kondratov, E., & Johansson-Nogués, E. (2023). Russia’s hybrid interference campaigns in France, Germany and the UK: A challenge against trust in liberal democracies? Geopolitics, 28(5), 2169-2199. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2022.2129012.  
  26. Law of the United States No. 114-328 “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017”. (2016, December). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ328/PLAW-114publ328.pdf.
  27. Lecocq, S. (2024). European foreign policy towards hybrid actors in the middle east and north Africa: An exploration of diplomatic practices. Geopolitics, 29(2), 607-629. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2023.2174432.  
  28. Maliqi, N., Racaj, M., & Totich, M. (2022). Hybrid warfare and how to deal with hybrid warfare. Vizione, 39, 235-246.
  29. MONUSCO. (2025). Retrieved from https://monusco.unmissions.org/en.
  30. Murithi, T. (2022). The failure of the United Nations Security Council in creating the framework conditions for mediation in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Strategic Review for Southern Africa, 44(1), 65-92. doi: 10.35293/srsa.v44i1.4082.
  31. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://stratcomcoe.org/.
  32. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/.
  33. OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (closed). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine-closed.
  34. Piskorska, B. (2025). The European Union as a diplomatic actor in turbulent times. Studia Europejskie in European Affairs, 29(1), 209-230.
  35. Rao, S. (2022). Relevance of normandy format talks in the Ukrainian crisis. Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.
  36. Sadr, O. (2024). How peace negotiations fail: The case of Afghanistan and the Taliban (2020-2021). Afghanistan, 7, 112-134. doi: 10.3366/afg.2024.0147.  
  37. Saliu, H. (2021). The specifics and complexity of EU public diplomacy. Social Science Debates, 37(96-97), 189-207.
  38. Sarı, B., & Sula, I.E. (2024). Turkish foreign policy in a transforming world order: Middle power strategies and prospects. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 29(1), 4-23.
  39. Shabbir, M.F. (2022). Hybrid warfare: An umbrella for terrorism in an era of great power competition? Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/trecms/AD1201753/.
  40. Sofos, S.A. (2022). Turkey as mediator. The Peace and Conflict Resolution Evidence Platform, 189-213.
  41. Song, W., & Fanoulis, E. (2023). Global perspectives on European Union public diplomacy: An introduction. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 31(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1080/14782804.2022.2156486.  
  42. Szeląg, P. (2024). The „limited recognition” problem and the international presence of the Republic of Kosovo. Balcanica Posnaniensia. Acta Et Studia, 31, 299-330. doi: 10.14746/bp.2024.31.15.
  43. Teibowei, M.T. (2024). Digital diplomacy and language in the digital age. Research Journal of Mass Communication and Information Technology, 10(1), 80-88.
  44. Teixeira, V.A.G. (2024). An incoherent state‐identity approach to African regional disorder. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 42(2), 259-278. doi: 10.1002/crq.21443.
  45. Teodosiev, P. (2024). Trends in the development of modern international relations. The new challenges for diplomacy. In Proceedings of the 15th international scientific and practical conference (Vol. 4, pp. 275-281). Rezekne: Rezekne Academy of Technologies. doi: 10.17770/etr2024vol4.8207.  
  46. The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hybridcoe.fi/.
  47. U.S. Departament of State. (n.d.). Global engagement center. Retrieved from https://2021-2025.state.gov/about-us-global-engagement-center-2/.
  48. United Nations. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/.
  49. Weissmann, M., Nilsson, N., Palmertz, B., & Thunholm, P. (Eds.). (2021). Hybrid warfare: Security and asymmetric conflict in international relations. London: Bloomsbury Academic. doi: 10.5040/9781788317795.
  50. Whitehurst, T. (2023). The importance of the United Nations peacekeeping operations: A study on Mali, the democratic republic of Congo, and South Sudan. Honors Theses, article number 3734.
Suggested citation
Stychynska, A. (2025). Diplomacy in the era of hybrid conflicts: The examples of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Journal of Global Political Transformations, 1(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2025.04