Analytical Report Segment: Constructed Force Majeure in Hybrid Warfare. #HybridWarfare #IrkitovConcept #ConstructedForceMajeure #ГибриднаяВойна #ДмитрийИркитов #ОбстоятельстваНепреодолимойСилы

Copyright & Attribution

Concept Author: Dmitry Nikolaevich Irkitov

Original Concept: "Force Majeure Circumstances in Hybrid Warfare"

Publication Date: June 25, 2020

Legal Status: Protected by Copyright Law. All rights reserved.

#HybridWarfare #IrkitovConcept #ConstructedForceMajeure #ГибриднаяВойна #ДмитрийИркитов #ОбстоятельстваНепреодолимойСилы

Analytical Report Segment: Constructed Force Majeure in Hybrid Warfare.

Definition and Mechanism.

In the context of hybrid warfare, "Constructed Force Majeure" refers to a deliberately engineered system of crisis situations, constrained by strict timeframes and designed to exceed the operational control of the target state. This technology reflects a multi-dimensional approach where the aggressor orchestrates a combination of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage, information warfare, kinetic actions, and calculated bluffing.

The Illusion of Spontaneity.

A critical feature of this strategy is the pre-planned nature of events. The aggressor creates an illusion of spontaneous, chaotic developments while maintaining strict management of the overall process. By opening multiple fronts simultaneously, the aggressor forces the target state to fragment its limited resources, leading to strategic exhaustion.

Strategic Paralysis and Decision-Making

The division of the conflict into specific time segments and the imposition of artificial deadlines generate extreme stress for the target state's leadership. This deprives decision-makers of room for maneuver, effectively funneling them toward choices that align with the aggressor's predetermined objectives.

Vulnerabilities: Bureaucracy and Corruption

The implementation of this methodology is significantly streamlined in environments characterized by excessive bureaucracy and corruption. These factors render effective countermeasures nearly impossible:

Information Overload: Bureaucratic structures are incapable of rapidly verifying the authenticity or assessing the priority of massive data inflows across multiple channels.

Operational Lag: The combination of rigid hierarchy and limited time prevents the state from reacting to provocations in real-time.

Consequently, the aggressor secures a decisive advantage by ensuring the target state remains in a reactive, rather than proactive, posture.

Architectural Elements of the Strategy

1. Multi-Front Impact (Multi-Vector Assault)

The aggressor initiates simultaneous crises across various domains to overwhelm the target:

Diplomatic: Systematic pressure within international organizations.

Economic: Sanctions, blockades, and targeted attacks on critical logistics.

Informational: Large-scale disinformation campaigns and psychological manipulation.

Kinetic/Force: Direct provocations, sabotage, or proxy-led attacks.

Domestic Political: Fomenting internal conflicts and civil unrest.

2. Temporal Compression (Time-Constrained Pressure)

Imposing strict deadlines on decision-making serves to:

Paralyze Bureaucracy: Information verification mechanisms fail under time pressure.

Induce Errors: Forcing decisions based on incomplete or flawed analytics.

Enforce Reactivity: Depriving the victim of strategic initiative, forcing them into a purely reactive mode.

3. Dynamic Adaptation

The aggressor maintains a fluid strategy, continuously adjusting tactics based on:

The victim’s real-time response.

The measurable effectiveness of current measures.

Fluctuations in the external geopolitical environment.

Implementation Tools

1. Psychological Warfare

Exploitation of Vulnerabilities: Leveraging psychological profiles of the target state's leadership.

Manufactured Despair: Creating "false hopes" for compromise to delay decisive action.

Chronic Stress Induction: Utilizing persistent uncertainty to degrade cognitive functions of the leadership.

Structural Vulnerabilities and Dominance Mechanisms

1. Critical Vulnerability Factors

The effectiveness of this strategy relies on exploiting the inherent weaknesses of the target state:

Bureaucratic Inertia: An institutional inability to generate rapid responses to evolving threats.

Systemic Corruption: Erosion of inter-agency coordination and trust.

Internal Fractures: Pre-existing social, ethnic, or political divisions that are easily weaponized.

Resource Dependency: Vulnerability to external blockades, sanctions, and supply chain disruptions.

Technological Lag: Weak defense infrastructure against sophisticated cyber and electronic warfare.

2. Mechanisms for Achieving Strategic Dominance

The aggressor secures a decisive advantage through:

Resource Dissipation: Forcing the target to spread its assets thin across multiple, simultaneous crisis fronts.

Loss of Strategic Initiative: Trapping the target in a perpetual "firefighting mode," where it can only react to the aggressor’s moves.

The Chain Reaction Effect: Engineering crises so that one failure triggers subsequent collapses across different sectors.

Engineered Dependency: Creating resource deficits that coerce the target into diplomatic or economic concessions.

Conclusion

The strategy of "Constructed Force Majeure" is a complex, adaptive system characterized by three pillars:

Synergistic Impact: The synchronization of diverse pressures creates a cumulative effect greater than the sum of its parts.

Temporal Paralysis: Strict time constraints effectively neutralize any potential countermeasures.

Dynamic Volatility: Constant tactical shifts prevent the target from developing a sustainable defense or long-term strategy.