Syed Ata Hussain Column: Wars Easy Start, Tough End

Syed Ata Hasnain Governor of Bihar and former Commander of Kashmir Corps

The terminology of conflicts has now changed considerably. Words like hybrid, un-restricted and cognitive warfare are in vogue in strategic discourse. Nevertheless, the ‘grey zone’ is often interpreted in a very limited sense, i.e. activities that fall below the threshold of conventional war – such as cyber intrusions, proxy conflicts, economic pressure or disinformation campaigns. But recent conflicts reflect a deeper change.

Modern wars are now fought in persistent ‘grey zone’ conditions – a strategic environment characterized by ambiguity, controlled escalation, political restraint, technological asymmetry and competing narratives. In this, gray zone operations are merely tools, while gray zone situations constitute the broader strategic environment in which recent conflicts are taking place. The warfare of the 21st century can be understood from this difference.

Traditional conflicts were clearly based on two things – peace or war, victory or defeat. This notion is now coming to an end. Modern wars rarely reach complete victory. Instead, states or other non-state groups seek to gain situational advantage, strategic advantage, and psychological influence in the conflict. At the same time, they also avoid crossing the limits where it is difficult to handle the situation politically.

This is what is visible today in the Iran war. This ambiguity is not an accidental incident of conflict, but has become a deliberate strategic weapon. Many structural factors are responsible for this change. Major powers exercise caution because of nuclear weapons.

Economic interdependence greatly increases the costs of protracted conflicts. The information revolution has greatly reduced the response time and has made social media like a battlefield. Most importantly, technological advances have given everyone access to capabilities that were once the monopoly of only major military powers.

As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve a clear victory. This is clearly visible in the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite a major conventional military confrontation, the war remains stuck in a vast gray zone created by nuclear threats, sanctions, cyber operations and drone warfare. Despite expending huge resources, no one gained a decisive edge.

The conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen also show that military superiority no longer guarantees a political solution. Israel has an overwhelming military advantage, but a decisive result could not be achieved because groups like the Houthis are disrupting vital sea lanes in the Red Sea with cheap drone and missile attacks. Weaker rivals are no longer seeking outright victory, but rather the ability to survive, disrupt, and persist.

The proliferation of technology has also given weak states and proxy groups access to drones, cyber tools, precision strike missiles, and information warfare capabilities. They may not be able to win wars, but they have the unprecedented ability to prevent decisive victories from stronger rivals.

Now this created a new strategic situation – withdrawing from the war without achieving victory. Often wars now end not in a formal peace agreement or surrender, but in an uneasy truce, temporary ceasefire, or managed military disengagement. Great powers maintain military superiority but are unable to fully achieve political objectives. Strategic fatigue is now giving way to decisive results.

Another important change is the expansion of the battlefield. War is no longer limited to just troops and borders, but infrastructure, communication systems, energy grids, financial networks and common sense – all have also come into the battlefield. Narrative management has also become a key strategic tool with military operations. Only those countries which can maintain social unity, economic stability and public trust during prolonged tension will have a long-term strategic advantage.

The era of wars with decisive results is coming to an end. They are being replaced by permanent competitions that continue around and within the boundaries of conventional warfare. Strategic ambiguity has now become a major reality. (These are the author’s own views)

Make Dainik Bhaskar your favorite source on Google ➔