Keywords: ontology of war, hybrid warfare, security studies, peace studies, conflict resolution paradigm


The paper considers the role of the concepts of war and peace in current security studies. The theoretical issue of the correlation between terminological and ordinary representations of war and peace is analyzed. The thesis is argued that the dichotomy between war and peace are blurred by hybrid warfare. The paper illustrates the blur with examples from contemporary security researche, esp. critical war studies so as studies of peace. Approaches towards peace in the context of modern “peace studies” are not fully consistent with the realities of Russian hybrid warfare against Ukraine with its occupation of the part of Ukrainian territory and the continuation of the “hot” conflict in eastern Ukraine including the participation of Russian regular forces and local proxy groups. The peace in the context of conflict studies implies a compromise, the option of win-win solution when both sides become the “winners”. However in the framework of military research the purpose of war is to achieve political goals by defeating the enemy imposing, according Lassa Oppenheim, such conditions of peace as the victor pleases. The victory in the context of contemporary hybrid warfare is realized primarily in the cognitive dimension and presupposes a rejection of the enemy demands (depriving Ukraine of the right to choose its foreign policy course). If we are dealing with an inter-state war, as in the case of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the ability for reconciliation and the compromise with the aggressor is severely limited. The purpose of Russian-Ukranian war is to establish peace through the victory of Ukraine, both at the cognitive level and at the level of restoring the territorial integrity of our state. Conflict resolution approaches should be viewed as complementary aimed at reducing the intensity of the conflict. At the same time, such measures create a risk of frozen conflict with the possibility of the resumption of hot conflict.


1. Parakhonskyi, B. O., & Yavorska, H. M. (2017). Ontolohiia hibrydnoi viiny: hra prykhovanykh smysliv [Ontology of hybrid war: a game of hidden meanings]. Stratehichna panorama – Strategic Panorama, 1, 7–16 [in Ukrainian].

2. Barkawi, Tarak, & Brighton, Shane. (2011). Powersof War: Fighting Knowledge, and Critique. International Political Sociology. Vol. 5. No. 2. Pp. 126–143 [in English].

3. Nordin, Astrid H., & Öberg, Dan M. (2015). Targeting the Ontology of War: From Clausewitz to Baudrill ard Millennium. Journal of International Studies. Vol. 43 (2). Pр. 392–410 [in English].

4. Jerrid, Allen K. (2017). Cognitive Depth and Hybrid Warfare: Exploring the Nature of Unique Time, Space, and Logic Frames U.S. Army. Kansas. P. 17. www.dtic.mil. Retrieved from www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1038857.pdf (viewed 27.01.2019) [in English].

5. Hoffman, Frank G. (2009). Hybrid Warfare and Challenges. JFQ. Issus 52. January. National Defense University Press. smallwarsjournal.com. Retrieved from http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/jfqhoffman.pdf (viewed 18.01.2019) [in English].

6. Yavorska, H. M., & Yizhak, O. I. (2017). Fenomen hibrydnoi viiny [The phenomenon of the hybrid war]. Svitova hibrydna viina: Ukrainskyi front – World Hybrid War: Ukrainian Farefront. (V. P. Horbulin, Ed.). Kharkiv: Folio [in Ukrainian].

7. Yavorska, H. M., & Chmyr, O. R. (2018). Semantyka viiny i myru v suchasnykh slovianskykh movakh: istoryko- typolohichnyi aspekt [Semantics of war and peace in modern Slavic languages: historical and typological aspect]. Movoznavstvo – Linguistics, 3, 15–29 [in Ukrainian].

8. Yavorska, H. M., & Bohomolov, O. V. (2010). Nepevnyi obiekt bazhannia: YeVROPA v ukrainskomu politychnomu dyskursi [Uncertain object of desire: EUROPE in the Ukrainian political discourse]. Kyiv: Vydavnychyi dim Dm. Buraho. (136 p.) [in Ukrainian].

9. McDonald, Jack. (2017). Enemies Known and Unknown: Targeted Killings in America’s Transnational Wars. New York: Oxford University Press. P. 56. [in English].

10. Zadorozhnii, O. (2014). Riznytsia mizh stanom viiny i voiennym stanom [The difference between the state of war and the military state]. uainfo.org. Retrieved from https://uainfo.org/blognews/384329-rznicya-mzh-stanom-vyni- voyennim-stanom.html (viewed 18.01.2019) [in Ukrainian].

11. Guzzini, Stefano, & Jung, Dietrich (Еds). (2004). Contemporary Security Analysis and Copenhagen Peace Research. London: Routledge [in English].
How to Cite
Yavorska, G. (2019). WAR AND PEACE IN CONTEMPORARY SECURITY STUDIES. Strategic Priorities, 49(1), 110-116. Retrieved from https://niss-priority.com/index.php/journal/article/view/244