Grey Zone

811 Words2 Pages

The 'gray zone' is best understood conceptually as a modern strategy of coercion which is ambiguous and unconventional in nature. Gray zone strategy is the employment of non-military tools of statecraft or unconventional, non-confrontational use of military forces to achieve political objectives without escalating any conflicts to the point of traditional military warfare. It is reflective and defining of three modern political trends within the current international order: the transformative intentions of persistent revisionist powers; the deployment of phased and incremental tactics to amend elements of the international order; and the use of unconventional tools of statecraft to gain a strategic objective that lies between peace and conventional …show more content…

Through the implementation of consistent low level provocative tactics, which individually do not justify an armed retaliation, the opposition can either choose to react with disproportional military force instigating escalation to the point of war; or, wait and risk the conclusion of the instigator's strategic aim which would change global order. Hence, this method of coercion places the opposition in a no-win scenario. The employment of this this stratagem incurs an ever present risk of escalation for the practitioner due to the instillation of a competitive zero-sum atmosphere with potential military domination in retaliation. While gray zone strategies are aimed to lower the risk of military armed conflict compared to directly attacking an opponent, it also holds a weaker assurance of achieving successful political objectives, attains significant costs in implementation and diminished international diplomatic …show more content…

The cost of a traditional war has become exceedingly high due to modern dynamics including nuclear escalation, increased exposure to international media, and potential loss of membership to international economic, technological and social organizations which are vital to state legitimacy and prosperity. Furthermore, the benefits of armed conflict are unlikely to wield significant rewards as was once historically the case. Resources and materials are accessible through global trade and the conquering of territory is no longer recognized by the international order as a legitimate form of expansion due to the notion of sovereignty. Despite these drawbacks, the human mannerisms of rivalry, aggression and competition are still prominent in international

Open Document