Hybrid warfare against Armenia is conducted only by Baku and Ankara. This was stated by military expert Hayk Nahapetyan.
Threats facing Armenia
Nahapetyan emphasizes that discussions about hybrid warfare against Armenia have intensified recently, and this threat indeed exists. However, according to him, when speaking about hybrid warfare, the focus is often directed in the wrong direction.
“It is not possible to define the actions of a state as hybrid warfare if that state has never waged a ‘hot’ war against you. Therefore, if we are talking about hybrid warfare, it is undoubtedly being conducted against Armenia by Azerbaijan together with its number one strategic ally — Turkey,” he stated.
He recalled that since 1991 the primary state that has waged a “hot” war against Armenia has been Azerbaijan, stressing that the term “hybrid warfare” is often misunderstood.
Information warfare as a “cold” front
According to Nahapetyan, technological development has changed the nature of warfare. In addition to “hot” military operations on the ground, there is also informational or “cold” warfare. In this struggle, the main target is human perception.
“When you are able, through mass media, to change people’s value systems or perceptions, you effectively begin to control their behavior,” the expert emphasized.
As an example, he refers to 1991, noting that the Soviet Union was defeated not through military confrontation, but as a result of informational warfare — without any NATO troop invasion.
Hybrid warfare as a combination of two fronts
The expert notes that modern conflicts often have a combined nature. When “hot” and “cold” warfare operate simultaneously, hybrid warfare emerges.
According to him, these two components complement each other, and their combined use can be decisive for the outcome of a conflict. Nahapetyan again emphasizes that history shows it is possible to suffer a strategic defeat on the informational front even without a classical military defeat.
He cites the Vietnam War as a classic example of the impact of information warfare. Despite the United States having military superiority, the final outcome was determined by a shift in public opinion: American society was unwilling to continue the war under conditions of heavy losses, which led to troop withdrawal and Vietnam’s victory.