Forming a digital national security ecosystem to counter hybrid threats
Abstract
Hybrid threats, which combine military, informational, cyber, economic and diplomatic tools of influence, constitute one of the most serious challenges to national security in the 21st century. Traditional models of security system organization, built on principles of departmentalization and vertical hierarchy, demonstrate limited effectiveness in countering threats that are inherently multidimensional, dynamic and transborder. Ukraine’s experience, which has been resisting large-scale hybrid aggression since 2014, demonstrates the critical need to integrate diverse security actors, technologies and processes into a unified digital ecosystem capable of ensuring synergetic effect in detecting, analyzing and neutralizing threats. The article aims to develop a conceptual model of a digital national security ecosystem and identify key principles, architectural solutions and institutional mechanisms for its formation under conditions of hybrid warfare.
The article substantiates that an effective digital national security ecosystem should be based on five interconnected components: information-analytical infrastructure for collecting and processing data from diverse sources; technological platform integrating artificial intelligence, big data, blockchain and cybersecurity tools; analytical instruments for transforming data into actionable information; process mechanisms for coordination and decision-making; governance system defining rules of interaction between state, private and civil society actors. Each component performs specific functions, but their effectiveness is achieved only through tight integration and interaction.
Analysis of international experience shows that the most effective ecosystems are characterized by a balance of centralized coordination and decentralized initiative, combination of state regulation and market competition, integration of technological capabilities and institutional mechanisms of trust. Israeli model demonstrates advantages of tight integration between defense sector, academia and private business. Estonian model shows effectiveness of distributed architecture and international partnership. American experience underscores importance of specialized coordination agencies. Singapore practice illustrates possibilities of centralized planning while preserving private sector role.
Ukrainian context presents specific requirements for ecosystem formation: necessity to function under active conflict conditions, limited resources, presence of legacy systems and institutional barriers, high corruption risks. Simultaneously, Ukraine possesses significant opportunities: powerful innovative potential of IT sector with world-class expertise and readiness for cooperation, unique experience of countering hybrid threats accumulated over decade of conflict, international support from partners, high level of civil society mobilization. Recommendations are formulated for phased implementation of ecosystem approach with prioritization of critical functions, use of quick wins to create institutional momentum, ensuring multilayer cybersecurity and competence development at all transformation stages.
Downloads
References
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030
Berzins, J. (2020). The theory and practice of new generation warfare: The case of Ukraine and Syria. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 33(3), 355–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2020.1824109
Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
Buchanan, B. (2020). The AI Triad and What It Means for National Security Strategy. Washington: Center for Security and Emerging Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51593/20200021
Coaffee, J., & Lee, P. (2016). Urban resilience: Planning for risk, crisis and uncertainty. London: Palgrave Macmillan. URL: http://www.macmillanihe.com/t/9781137288820/
Dunn C. M. (2018). Cybersecurity in Switzerland. Zurich: Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10620-5
Gil-Garcia, J., Dawes, S., & Pardo, T. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181.
Hoffman, F. (2007). Conflict in the 21st century: The rise of hybrid wars. Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 72. URL: https://www.potomacinstitute.org/images/stories/publications/potomac_hybridwar_0108.pdf
Jackson, W. (2019). Cybersecurity ecosystem: Building collaboration for resilience. Cambridge: MIT Press. URL: https://rlj0713.medium.com/cybersecurity-an-introduction-630cc8a9ba8d
Jacobides, M., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., & Tan, Y. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 67–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.002
Lanoszka, A. (2016). Russian hybrid warfare and extended deterrence in eastern Europe. International Affairs, 92(1), 175–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12509
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371(1987), 20120382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13172133_Predators_and_Prey_A_New_Ecology_of_Competition
Renz, B., & Smith, H. (2016). Russia and hybrid warfare: Going beyond the label. Helsinki: Aleksanteri Institute. URL: https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/9514b166-0249-42a4-a408-9195e7d32292/content
Shelest, Hanna (2015) After the Ukrainian crisis: Is there a place for Russia? Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 15:2, 191-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2015.1060019
Stoker, D. (2019). Why America loses wars: Limited war and US strategy from the Korean War to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108611794
Vespignani, A. (2012). Modelling dynamical processes in complex socio-technical systems. Nature Physics, 8(1), 32–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2160
Wilson, A. (2014). Ukraine crisis: What it means for the West. New Haven: Yale University Press, 236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2019.20
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
