11 
HIBRIDNE	GROŽNJE	IN	RAZVOJ	NOVEGA	
NATOVEGA	SPLOŠNEGA	kONCEPTA
HYBRID	THREATS	AND	THE	DEVELOPMENT	
OF	THE	NEW	NATO	OVERARCHING	CONCEPT
Strokovni članek
Professional article
Prispevek obravnava vidike novih varnostnih izzivov, ki jih vojaški teoretiki in avtorji 
varnostnih in obrambno-strateških dokumentov imenujejo hibridne grožnje. Trenutno 
so precejšnji izziv za zavezništvo in njegove interese. Hibridne grožnje vključujejo 
nasprotnike, vključno z državami, »malopridnimi« državami, nedržavnimi akterji ali 
terorističnimi organizacijami, ki lahko za doseganje svojih ciljev uporabijo različne 
kombinacije ukrepov v vse manj omejenem operativnem okolju. Hibridne grožnje 
so lahko kombinacija vseh vidikov vojskovanja ter skupek dejavnosti več nasprot-
nikov. Izkušnje iz trenutnih operacij so pokazale, da lahko nasprotniki zdaj izvajajo 
sovražne ukrepe s pomočjo številnih konvencionalnih ali nekonvencionalnih sredstev, 
metod in postopkov ter so pri tem uspešni, tudi če delujejo proti Natovim silam, ki so 
tehnološko in vojaško bolje podprte. Zavedanje razsežnosti in kompleksnosti prihod-
njih groženj je zahtevalo razvoj splošnega sklepnega koncepta (Capstone Concept) 
za prispevek Nata k zoperstavljanju hibridnim grožnjam (Military Contribution to 
Countering Hybrid Threats – MCCHT). Ta koncept obravnava posebne izzive, ki jih 
predstavljajo trenutne in prihodnje grožnje, ter pojasnjuje, zakaj lahko ti izzivi od 
Nata zahtevajo, da prilagodi svoje strategijo, strukturo in zmogljivosti za naslednjih 
dvajset let.
Hibridne grožnje, hibridno vojskovanje, varnostni izzivi, koncept.
This article deals with aspects of newly emerging security challenges that military 
theoreticians and authors of security and defense strategic documents name 
‘Hybrid Threats’. They currently present a significant challenge for the Alliance 
and its interests. Hybrid Threats involve adversaries (including states, rogue states, 
non-state actors or terrorist organizations) that may employ a combination of actions 
in an increasingly unconstrained operating environment in order to achieve their 
aims. Hybrid Threats may consist of a combination of every aspect of warfare and 
Povzetek
Ključne 
besede
Abstract
Ján Spišák
DOI:10.33179/BSV.99.SVI.11.CMC.13.3.1
Sodobni	vojaški	izzivi,	november	2011	–	13/št.	3
Contemporary	Military	Challenges,	November	2011	–	13/No.	3
 12 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
compound the activities of multiple adversaries. Experience from current operations 
has demonstrated that adversaries can now conduct hostile actions through a broad 
array of conventional or non-conventional means, methods and procedures, having 
a favorable outcome against a NATO force that is technologically and militarily 
superior. Cognition of the scale and complexity of future threats has demanded a de-
velopment of an overarching Capstone Concept1 for the NATO Military Contribution 
to Countering Hybrid Threats (MCCHT). This Concept articulates the unique chal-
lenges posed by current and future Hybrid Threats and explains why these chal-
lenges may require NATO to adapt its strategy, structure and capabilities for the next 
twenty years.
Hybrid threats, hybrid warfare, security challenges, concept.
Hybrid Threats are those posed by adversaries, with the ability to simultaneous-
ly employ conventional and non-conventional means adaptively in pursuit of their 
objectives.2
Perhaps no country in NATO has dedicated so much effort in facing global security 
challenges as intensively as the United States. Representatives of the security 
community indicated an increase of various threats, which include traditional, 
irregular, terrorist or disruptive threats or challenges facing the state. This generates 
an unusual dilemma for today‘s military planners, whether to abandon the idea of 
preparing for war against state actors with conventional capabilities, or re-orienting 
for more likely scenarios of conflict with a non-state adversary using asymmetric op-
erations and ‘irregular tactics’. At the same time they also recognize that both modes 
of actions can not exist separately.
A number of military theoreticians and strategists seek to discover and justify the 
existence of new forms of warfare, merging combined features of various types 
of military and non-military, combat and non-combat activities. They assume that 
future warfare will be hidden in the synergies, combining all the ways, methods 
and styles, which have been used to date. Their thoughts are turning to the „hybrid 
threats, „hybrid wars“ and „hybrid warfare“ and show that the combination will 
be used specifically against the weaknesses of their opponents. The particular chal-
lenges that were presented by separate philosophies of conventional enemies, terror-
ists or insurgents, converge in expectations of a collision with opponents that use all 
possible forms of violent actions. A part of the problem may even be criminal activi-
ties that destabilize local governments and/or encourage insurgents and foreign mer-
cenaries, providing them with resources and assets, or undermining the authority of 
the host country and the legitimacy of its representatives.
1 MC 0583: A Capstone Concept is an overarching concept with the purpose of leading force development and 
employment primarily by providing a broad description of how to operate across significant portions of the 
complete spectrum of operations and describing what is required to meet strategic objectives.
2 NATO agreed (31 May 10) see ref.: Internet sources [1]
Key words
Introduction
Ján Spišák
 13 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Hybrid Threats that sooner or later will be visible in hybrid warfare include, according 
to these theoreticians,3 a whole spectrum of different aspects, including the capabili-
ties of conventional, asymmetric, insurgent and terrorist acts and criminal activities. 
Hybrid wars can be waged between states and various non-state actors. They can be 
kept by separate units or even a single unit, operationally integrated and tactically 
incorporated and coordinated within the same operational area.
 1 UNDERSTANDING OF MODERN THREATS
The origin of the term “hybrid wars” is often attributed to various authors. According 
to the one of the architects of the counterinsurgency doctrine, Dave Kilcullen, the 
first author who used the term “hybrid wars” was Erin Simpson who, during the 
conference for the Midwest Political Science Association (Chicago, April 2005) 
presented a paper “Thinking about modern conflict: Hybrid wars, strategy, and war 
aims”. According to Kilcullen, Simpson is the originator of this “extraordinarily 
valuable conceptual framework” (Kilcullen, 2008).4
Others offer Frank Hoffman, for his memoir “Conflict in the 21st Century: The 
Rise of Hybrid Wars.” He states, however, that the credit for the first use of the 
term ‘hybrid’ belongs to R. Walker who, in his unpublished doctoral thesis at the 
Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, defined the Marine Expeditionary Unit as 
a “hybrid force for Hybrid Wars” back in 1998 (Hoffman, 2005).
Notwithstanding these and similar conjectures, one of the first provoking and 
certainly most inspirational thoughts inflaming the debate on the issue of hybrid 
wars, were those of General James N. Mattis and F. Hoffman, published in the U.S. 
Naval Institute Proceedings with title: “Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars.”. 
Mattis in his speech pointed out to the experience from Afghanistan and Iraq, high-
lighting the unexpected combination of technologies and methods of unorthodox 
tactical activities, that an unconventional enemy could use in the future. According 
to Mattis, so-called irregular challenges and methods of terrorism, fighting insur-
gents, unrestricted warfare, guerrilla wars or coercion by narco-criminals, will 
mostly likely represent the threats of the future (Mattis, Hoffman, 2005).
3 Beside authors cited in references see e.g. BIDDLE, Stephen., FRIEDMAN, Jeffrey A., 2008. The 2006 Lebanon 
Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy. Strategic Studies Institute, 
U. S. Army War College, Carlisle, ISBN 1-58487-362-0. EVANS, Michael., 2003. From Kadesh to Kandahar: 
Military Theory and the Future of War. Naval War College Review. SIMPSON, Erin., 2005. Thinking about 
Modern Conflict: Hybrid Wars, Strategy, and War Aims. The Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 
Illinois. KILCULLEN, David., 2009. Accidental Guerrilla, New York: Oxford University Press. HOFFMAN, G. 
Frank., 2009. Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict. Washington, DC: 
Institute for National Strategic Studies, Strategic Forum 240.
4 Based on D. Kilcullen´s blogging with Simpson in February 2008, regarding to paper, Thinking about modern 
conflict: Hybrid wars, strategy, and war aims. 
HYBRID THREATS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW NATO OVERARCHING CONCEPT
 14 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
“We do not face a range of four separate challengers as much as the amendments 
to the combination of approaches - and manager of a different modes and means 
of war. This unprecedented synthesis is what we call Hybrid Warfare” (Mattis, 
Hoffman, 2005, p. 1).
Mattis continues that the war, which we will face in the future, is no longer just the 
General Krulak´s ‘Three Block War’. All aspects that must be taken into the account, 
Mattis characterized as follows:
“In hybrid wars we may face remnants of the fielded army of a rogue state in future 
wars, and they may employ conventional weapons in very novel or non-traditional 
ways. We can also expect to face unorthodox attacks or random acts of violence by 
sympathetic groups of non-state actors against our critical infrastructure or our 
transportation networks. We may also see other forms of economic war or crippling 
forms of computer network attacks against military or financial targets” (Mattis, 
Hoffman, 2005, p. 2).
The issues of hybrid wars are not only the mere deliberations of several military theo-
reticians. The United States National Defence Strategy (NDS) significantly expanded 
the understanding of modern threats. The previous mainstream of American thinking 
“To fight and win the nation’s wars” which featured warfare against a conventional 
enemy, is heading toward a wide range of enemies that exist outside of the “tradi-
tional”. The Strategy includes three other threats: irregular, terroristic and disruptive, 
that in the complex may usurp American power and hegemony through advanced 
technologies.
The Strategy assumed that the most complex challenges of the future might arise 
from the synergy of simultaneous applications of multiple methods of warfare (NDS, 
2005). The Strategy even mentioned that the Department of Defence has invested too 
much into the traditional forms of warfare and there exists a need to shift resources 
and attention to other challenges. As Hoffman noted, National Defense Strategy and 
the “Quadrennial Defence Review (2006) well accepted that future challenges will 
avoid the U.S.’s unmatched power and seek alternative paths. “We can no longer 
focus just on battles against preferred enemies” (Hoffman, 2007, p. 9).
According to Hoffman, future scenarios will likely present a unique combination of 
synergies directed against Western society in general, and especially against the vul-
nerabilities of the United States. The future indicates that adversaries will be smarter 
than they are now and rarely restrict themselves in using only one tool available from 
the whole range of ways and methods that can be used simultaneously. Conventional, 
irregular and catastrophic-terrorist challenges will not be different and independent 
ways of warfare. All of them will be present in some form simultaneously. Mixing 
modes of warfare with a wide, diverse and complex range of technologies is ‘hybrid 
warfare’ (Hoffman, 2007).
Ján Spišák
 15 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
 2 THE SOURCES OF THE NEW NATO´S CONCEPT
Before Hoffman published his ideas there were several military thinkers dealing with 
emerging threats. It is worth mentioning General Krulak´s famous prediction about 
the character of future conflicts, published by Robert Holzer in the Defence News 
article: “Krulak Warns of Over-Reliance on Technology”. According to Krulak: 
“…future conflicts would be unlike the large-scale mechanized sweeps of Operation 
Desert Storm, but more like the “Stepchild of Somalia and Chechnya”. The Chechens 
employed swarming tactics inside their own cities to thwart Russian domination. In 
Somalia, despite overwhelming superiority in firepower and technology, a group of 
lightly-armed ‘rebels’ effectively forced the US military out of the country by inflict-
ing casualties on an elite unit” (Holzer, 1996, p. 4).
William Lind, one of the authors of the Theory of Fourth Generation Warfare in the 
article “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation”, predicted in 1989 
the nature of future threats. Lind says: 
“… warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinc-
tion between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be non-
linear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinc-
tion between ‘civilian’ and ‘military’ may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently 
throughout all participants’ depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a 
physical, entity” (Lind, 1989, p. 2).
The ‘Fourth Generation’ concept has its opponents, such as the above mentioned 
General Mattis. For his own defence Lind, in another article “Understanding Fourth 
Generation War”, tries repeatedly to explain the essence of the concept, citing 
Mattis, who, according to him, lacks the point of such warfare:
“Ultimately, a real understanding of history means that we face nothing new under 
the sun. For all the ‘4th Generation of War’ intellectuals running around today 
saying that the nature of war has fundamentally changed, the tactics are wholly new, 
etc., I must respectfully say…’Not really… (Lind, 2004).
Later on, Lind accents on his own defence that the concept of ‘Fourth Generation 
War’ is not new, but represents a return to a method of warfare, that was waged 
before the establishment of the legal state as an institution.
“Now, as then, many different entities, not just governments of states, will wage war. 
They will wage war for many different reasons, not just “the extension of politics 
by other means.” And they will use many different tools to fight war, not restricting 
themselves to what we recognize as military forces” (Lind, 2004).
HYBRID THREATS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW NATO OVERARCHING CONCEPT
 16 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Antulio J. Echevarria II is another determined opponent. He points out, in his article, 
“Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths”, that what is being called ‘Fourth 
Generation Warfare’ is just insurgency. He also claims that the concept was ‘discov-
ered’ by Lind. Echevarria writes: “The generational model is an ineffective way to 
depict changes in warfare. Simple displacement rarely takes place, significant devel-
opments typically occur in parallel” (Echevarria, 2005, p. 10).
Although the theory of ‘Fourth Generation War’ has its opponents, it is obvious that 
it has provided a number of clues as to the development of hybrid threats and hybrid 
war concepts. The new concepts have also begun to address a broader community of 
experts. Many of them have brought more mature thoughts to the NATO overarch-
ing operating concept.
David. E. Johnson´s study paper, “Military Capabilities for Hybrid War - Insights 
from the Israeli Defence Forces in Lebanon and Gaza” is a part of an ongoing 
project – “An Army for Full Spectrum Operations: Lessons from Irregular Wars”. 
It represents one of the major contributions to the development of the Hybrid Wars 
Theory. Its objective is to evaluate current irregular and hybrid conflicts and their 
consequences for the U.S. Army, their capabilities and other forces supporting or 
operating with the Army. As current operations demonstrate, the Army is particu-
larly important when fighting an enemy that applies irregular forms of warfare and 
where the claim “to have boots on the ground” (Johnson, 2010, p. 13) exists. The 
intention of the project is to gain experience from the hybrid fighting of Israel’s 
Defence Forces in Lebanon and Gaza.5 According to the project, insights into the 
operational context of warfare could bring information on the structure and capabili-
ties of the forces that are exposed to hybrid threats.
 3 HYBRID THREATS - FROM THEORIES TO THE CONCEPT
“The publication of this concept, based upon the leverage of on-going national 
thoughts and collaborative work with NATO and national Subject Matter Experts, 
focuses on outlining the challenges posed by hybrid threats and provides an initial 
framework for countering them.” 6
  Alex Smethurst, ACT lead analyst on the concept
One of the primary sources that justify the existence, scope and complexity of 
both conventional and unconventional future threats, was the final review of Allied 
Command Transformation (ACT) from the project “Multiple Futures Project” 
(MFP). The International Military Staff (IMS) ordered in consequences, that both 
strategic commands will initiate the development of the new overarching concept 
5 For a similar study from the conflict between IDF and Hezbollah see: BIDDLE, Stephen., FRIEDMAN, Jeffrey 
A., 2008. The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy. 
Strategic Studies Institute, U. S. Army War College, Carlisle, ISBN 1-58487-362-0.
6 http://www.act.nato.int/multimedia/archive/41-top-headlines/464-act-sees-progress-on-countering-hybrid-
threats-concept
Ján Spišák
 17 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
for the resolution of hybrid threats. The analysis of major strategic documents (di-
rectives, doctrine, research reports, etc.) was conducted by strategic headquarters, 
national representatives, NATO Centres of Excellence (COE) and the other partners. 
The crucial role in developing the new concept pertains to the Counter Threat Hybrid 
Integrated Project Team which, since the beginning of 2009, has dealt with issues 
of hybrid threats assessment. The team created a detailed plan for the evaluation of 
hybrid threats and broader challenges. Since then it has made a number of interna-
tional workshops conducted by ACT, where numbers of representatives from both 
member and non-NATO nations are present, helping to develop the concept.
The reality of the possible advent of hybrid threats has become an important issue for 
political and military leaders of NATO. Half of the year 2010 brought a number of 
activities that have contributed to the draft development of the new NATO operating 
concept “Military Contribution to Countering Hybrid Threats” (MCCHT). ACT 
conducted a detailed analysis of the security environment, created and published 
(August 2010) the first draft of the concept dealing with many problems and chal-
lenges that may affect the existence of NATO over the next two decades. Many of the 
key issues were then raised during the NATO summit in Lisbon (November 2010) and 
in the concluding declaration of the participating Heads of States and Governments.
The proposed draft highlights three important issues. Firstly, while the contemporary 
NATO policy, strategy and doctrinal framework remain valid, there are new areas 
of threats, which may expand beyond the current horizon. Secondly, the division 
between military and civilian responsibilities in the changing security environment 
is becoming more difficult to define and thirdly, the Alliance will require much more 
collaboration and partnerships beyond its existing scope.
The draft of the new concept identifies the emerging challenges and addresses them 
with the term ‘hybrid threat’. It describes how these threats manifest themselves 
and provides an estimate of how NATO could contribute to manage them. There are 
serious considerations about cyber attack, energy security, terrorism, international 
crime, lack of strategic resources and the increasing commercial availability of lethal 
technologies and materials. With regard to emerging security challenges, the draft 
of the concept provides the key implications for NATO and offers some possible 
solutions in facing them.
The document stresses the Alliance’s obligation in strengthening its own capabil-
ity and to act against hybrid threats comprehensively. Their complexity requires a 
holistic approach and the ability to respond in conjunction with the broad interna-
tional community. In some aspects the individual countries could count on taking 
over the leading role in the fight against the threat with the support of the NATO 
military component. Hybrid threats will have a tendency to exploit the gaps in the 
security environment across the spectrum of conflict. NATO should hence enhance 
cooperation with other organizations to respond to any threat effectively.
HYBRID THREATS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW NATO OVERARCHING CONCEPT
 18 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
 4 COUNTER HYBRID THREATS EXPERIMENT – A WAY AHEAD
The USJFCOM Joint Irregular Warfare Centre (JIWC) provided significant help 
to execute the ACT experiment “Counter Threats Hybrid Experiment”7 in May 
2011. Rather than being based on formal policy, it was taken more as an intellectual 
forum in which individual participants analyzed, discussed and better understood 
the complex set of issues facing NATO and the wider community to address the new 
security challenges. The main purpose of the experiment was to find and discuss the 
critical implications of proposals for the new concept and to elaborate possible ap-
proaches to solving the critical issues. The experiment has attracted the attention 
and participation of not only NATO member states, but also representatives from 
academia, business and international partners. One of the key outcomes of the exper-
iment was to provide a clear recommendation to the political and military leadership 
of NATO, about what this organization must do to support the broad international 
community in coping with a set of hybrid challenges. The results of the experiment 
were directly taken into account in subsequent development and refinement of the 
concept. It is assumed that the final product – Military Contribution to Countering 
Hybrid Threats – will be finished at the end of 2011.
Even though a draft, this concept offers a careful analysis of the evolving security 
environment in which NATO will have to react. It is obvious that the complexity of 
future challenges will require adjustment of NATO’s structures, processes and capa-
bilities in several key areas to be effective. Any response of NATO will likely depend 
on aspects outside the existing scope of NATO’s military community and may be 
particularly problematic especially with regard to the issue of cooperation with non-
military agencies and a thorough understanding of the civil-military interface needed 
to achieve unity. It will therefore be necessary to consult the issues with representa-
tives of the political sphere. Political consensus among NATO member states in the 
region (beyond purely military involvement), has remained an important issue, as 
well as dealing with the consequences of rapid technological development.
Authors of this concept are aware that further development is based on the current re-
strictions. It is also a matter of sensitive intellectual debate about the future security 
challenges beyond a rigid paradigm. They assume both further follow-up discussions 
on new hybrid threats and sophisticated decision-making, in which the Alliance will 
need to transform.
7 For all the agenda concerning the experiment, relevant documents and activities, see: https://transnet.act.nato.
int/WISE/ACTIPT/JOUIPT/20102011CH/Experiment
Conclusion
Bibliography
Internet 
sources
Ján Spišák
19 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
1. BIDDLE, Stephen., FRIEDMAN, Jeffrey A., 2008. The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the
Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy. Strategic Studies Institute,
U. S. Army War College, Carlisle, ISBN 1-58487-362-0.
2. ECHEVARRIA, J. Antulio II., 2005. Fourth-Generation War and Other Myth. Strategic
Studies Institute, U. S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave, Carlisle, PA 17013-5244.
3. EVANS, Michael., 2003. From Kadesh to Kandahar: Military Theory and the Future of
War. Naval War College Review.
4. HOFFMAN, F., 2007. Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington,
VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 72 p.
5. HOFFMAN, G. Frank., 2009. Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character
of Modern Conflict. Washington, DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, Strategic
Forum 240.
6. HOFFMAN, G. Frank., 2009. Hybrid warfare and challenges. Joint Force Quarterly, p.
34–48.
7. HOLZER, Robert., 1996. Krulak Warns of Over-Reliance on Technology. Defense News,
p. 7-13.
8. KILCULLEN, David., 2009. Accidental Guerrilla, New York: Oxford University Press.
9. McCUEN, J. John., 2008. Hybrid Wars. Military Review, p. 107–113.
10. SIMPSON, Erin., 2005. Thinking about Modern Conflict: Hybrid Wars, Strategy, and War
Aims. The Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
1. https://transnet.act.nato.int/WISE/CollaboCat/ACTIPT/JOUIPT, 16 August 2011.
2. https://transnet.act.nato.int/WISE/ACTIPT/JOUIPT/20102011CH/Experiment May 2011.
10 May 2011
3. JOHNSON D. E., 2010. Military Capabilities for Hybrid War - Insights from the Israel
Defense Forces in Lebanon and Gaza. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 20 p. ISBN
978-0-8330-4926-1. http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP285.
pdf, 10 May 2011.
4. LIND, William., NIGHTENGALE, Keith., SCHMITT, John F., SUTTON, Joseph W.,
WILSON, Gary I., 1989. The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation. Marine
Corps Gazette, p. 22-26. http://twm.co.nz/4thgenwar.htm, 6 April 2011.
5. LIND, William., 2004. Understanding Fourth Generation War. http://antiwar.com/lind/
index.php?articleid=1702, 12 April 2011.
6. MATTIS, James N., HOFFMAN, Frank., 2005. Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid
Wars. Naval Institute Proceedings Vol. 132, No. 11. http://www.usni.org/magazines/
proceedings/2005,18 April 2011.
7. National Defence Strategy, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defence. 25 p.
http://www.defense.gov/news/Mar2005/d20050318nds2.pdf, 20 April 2011.
8. SACT MULTIPLE FUTURES PROJECT FINAL REPORT, 2009. 195 p. http://www.bits.
de/NRANEU/nato-strategy/20090503_MFP_annexes.pdf, 18 May 2011.
Bibliography
Internet 
sources
HYBRID THREATS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW NATO OVERARCHING CONCEPT