Conceptualization and mechanisms of digital citizen engagement in local development: from electronic participation to contractual-participatory relations.
Abstract
This article presents a comprehensive conceptual model for institutionalizing public administration of national security specifically adapted to address the multifaceted challenges of hybrid warfare. The research substantiates the critical necessity for fundamental transformation of traditional security institution approaches, demonstrating how sectoral specialization and rigid competency demarcation prove structurally inadequate when confronting complex multidimensional threats that systematically exploit inter-agency gaps and organizational fractures.
The study develops an innovative multilevel integration model that synthesizes strategic, operational, and regional management levels through a systematic framework of foundational principles, architectural elements, and adaptive mechanisms. Thirteen core principles are proposed for constructing an integrated management system: systemic integrity, adaptive architecture, network-centricity, information integration, proactivity, distributed resilience, inclusiveness, continuity, technological innovation, strategic communication, legal legitimacy, continuous learning, and economic efficiency. These principles address specific vulnerabilities of fragmented security systems while ensuring operational effectiveness in dynamic threat environments.
The architectural framework operates across three distinct levels, featuring an innovative functional cluster approach at the operational level that organizes related agencies under unified command structures. Key innovations include establishment of a National Resilience Center as an inter-agency coordination structure responsible for critical infrastructure protection and crisis management, alongside a network of Regional Security and Resilience Centers providing territorial coordination capabilities. This architecture maintains functional specialization while achieving deep institutional integration through horizontal networking mechanisms and shared information platforms.
Critical adaptation mechanisms enable system evolution in response to hybrid threat dynamics through early weak signal detection systems, scenario-based forecasting methodologies, organizational flexibility protocols, and cognitive adaptability frameworks. The model incorporates advanced technological platforms including artificial intelligence analytics, quantum-secured communications, blockchain data integrity systems, and digital twin infrastructure modeling capabilities.
The research demonstrates that this integrated approach generates synergistic effects exceeding the arithmetic sum of individual agency capabilities, while preserving essential functional autonomy and operational specialization. The model addresses the fundamental challenge of coordinating heterogeneous security components against multi-domain threats characteristic of contemporary hybrid aggression. Implementation requires not merely structural reforms but transformational changes in organizational culture, inter-agency trust development, and professional education approaches. The framework provides concrete architectural solutions for all management levels while maintaining sufficient flexibility for adaptation to evolving security environments and national contexts.
Downloads
References
Abramov, V.I., Sytnyk, H.P., & Smolianiuk, V.F. (2016). Global and National Security. Kyiv: NADU [in Ukrainian].
Vlasiuk, O.S. (2016). National Security of Ukraine: Evolution of Domestic Policy Problems. Kyiv: NISD [in Ukrainian].
Horbulin, V.P. (2017). World Hybrid War: Ukrainian Front. Kyiv: NISD, 496 p. [in Ukrainian].
Horbulin, V.P., Vlasiuk, O.S., Libanova, E.M., & Liashenko, O.M. (2015). Donbas and Crimea: The Price of Return. Kyiv: NISD [in Ukrainian].
Hordiienko, S.H., & Doronin, I.M. (2021). State Security of Ukraine in Modern Conditions: Problems of Competence of State Bodies. Informatsiia i pravo, 2(37), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.37750/2616-6798.2021.2(37).238340 [in Ukrainian].
Lipkan, V.A. (2009). National Security of Ukraine. Kyiv: Kondor [in Ukrainian].
Mahda, Ye.V. (2015). Hybrid War: Survive and Win. Kharkiv: Vivat [in Ukrainian].
Reznikova, O.O. (2022). National Resilience in a Changing Security Environment. Kyiv: NISD [in Ukrainian].
Reznikova, O.O., Tsiukalo, V.Yu., Palyvoda, V.O., Dromov, S.V., & Somin, S.V. (2015). Conceptual Foundations for the Development of Ukraine’s National Security System. Kyiv: NISD [in Ukrainian].
World Hybrid War: Ukrainian Front. (2017). Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii nauk Ukrainy, 2, 3–8. https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/114454 [in Ukrainian].
Sytnyk, H.P. (2007). National Security of Ukraine: Theory and Practice. Kyiv: Kondor [in Ukrainian].
Sytnyk, H.P., & Orel, M.H. (2021). National Security in the Context of Ukraine’s European Integration. Kyiv: MAUP [in Ukrainian].
Turchenko, O.H., & Hrutsenko, Yu.I. (2023). National Security and State Security: Polyvariance of Definition and Correlation. Pravnychyi chasopys Donetskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Vasylia Stusa, 2, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.31558/2786-5835.2023.2.8 [in Ukrainian].
Alberts, D.S., & Hayes, R.E. (2006). Understanding Command and Control. Washington: CCRP Publication Series, 284 p.
Arquilla, J., & Ronfeldt, D. (2000). Swarming and the Future of Conflict. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 112 p.
Carlucci, P., & Mumford, A. (2023). Hybrid Warfare: The Continuation of Ambiguity by Other Means. European Journal of International Security, 8(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2022.19
Christensen, C.M. (2016). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 252 p.
Clarke, R.A., & Knake, R.K. (2010). Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It. New York: Ecco, 290 p.
Dannreuther, R. (2007). International Security: The Contemporary Agenda. Cambridge: Polity Press, 256 p.
Dziundziuk, V. (2011). Stopping Cyberterror. Per Concordiam. Journal of European Security and Defense Issues, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 17–21.
Dziundziuk V. (2015). A War of Words. Per Concordiam. Journal of European Security and Defense Issues, Vol. 6, Issue 1, 50–55.
Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109–116.
Hoffman, F.G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 72 p.
Jackson, B.A., & Frelinger, D.R. (2009). Understanding Why Terrorist Operations Succeed or Fail. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 68 p.
Libicki, M.C. (2009). Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 240 p.
McCuen, J.J. (2008). Hybrid Wars. Military Review, 88(2), 107–113.
Nye, J.S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York: PublicAffairs, 320 p.
Senge, P.M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday, 445 p.
Singer, P.W., & Friedman, A. (2014). Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 320 p.
Weissmann, M., Nilsson, N., Palmertz, B., & Thunholm, P. (2021). Hybrid Warfare: Security and Asymmetric Conflict in International Relations. London: I.B. Tauris, 288 p.
Wither, J.K. (2023). Hybrid Warfare Revisite. A Battle of ‘Buzzwords’. Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 22(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.11610/Connections.22.1.02