“To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” (The Art of War by Sun Tzu)
1. Evolution of Generational Warfare
The evolution of warfare across five generations reflects the interplay between technological innovation, strategic thought, and political change. The First Generation (1GW), emerging from the Peace of Westphalia, was defined by rigid, linear battlefield tactics, mass formations, and smooth-bore muskets. Military order, discipline, uniforms, and hierarchical structures — all introduced in this era — remain fundamental pillars of modern military organization (Lind et al., 1989).
Second Generation Warfare (2GW) matured during World War I, where rifled artillery, machine guns, and indirect fire shifted warfare toward attrition. Trench systems, fire-and-movement doctrine, and industrial-scale logistics reshaped the battlefield (Strachan, 2001).
Third Generation Warfare (3GW) emerged prominently during World War II. Blitzkrieg, mobile armoured warfare, deep manoeuvre, and rapid penetration placed speed, initiative, and disruption at the core of operational doctrine. Rather than destroying the enemy frontally, the goal became paralysis through encirclement and operational shock (Citino, 2005).
Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) marks a deeper transformation. State monopoly over violence eroded as non-state actors — insurgents, terrorists, militias — increasingly waged conflict across political, social, ideological, and cyber domains. The battlefield expanded into civilian populations and the information space. As Hammes argues, 4GW seeks not the destruction of enemy forces, but the erosion of political will (Hammes, 2006).
2. Drivers of Transition Between Generations
Two forces consistently drive generational change:
- Technological innovation — e.g., machine guns, tanks, precision weapons, AI, drones.
- Shifts in strategic thought and doctrine
The move from 2GW to 3GW resulted from both the tank and manoeuvre warfare theory, while 4GW emerged from globalization, mass communication, and identity-based politics (Snow & Benford, 2000).
THE CONTEMPORARY STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT
The emerging environment is shaped by converging mega-trends:
- globalization and hyper-connectivity
- radicalization and identity-based politics
- urbanization and demographic stress
- resource competition
- WMD proliferation
- AI-enabled and cyber technologies
- renewed great-power rivalry
Urbanization is particularly significant — by 2030 over 60% of the world’s population will live in cities, creating complex operational battlefields where insurgents blend seamlessly among civilians (UN DESA, 2023).
HYBRID WARFARE: CONCEPT & CHARACTERISTICS
Hybrid warfare, as defined by Frank Hoffman, is:
“the simultaneous employment of conventional and unconventional tools — including terrorism, insurgency, cyber operations, economic coercion, and information manipulation — employed in a coordinated campaign to achieve strategic objectives.” (Hoffman, 2007; 2009)
Hybrid adversaries exhibit:
- state + non-state cooperation
- multi-domain blending
- information dominance
- legal warfare (“lawfare”)
- proxy warfare
- plausible deniability
Key contemporary examples include:
- Russian operations in Crimea & Donbas
- Iran-backed militias in the Middle East
- ISIS’ proto-state structure
- Hezbollah’s political-military hybrid model
- Grey-zone Chinese coercion in the South China Sea
DISTINGUISHING 5GW FROM HYBRID WARFARE
There remains scholarly debate. However, the following distinctions are widely accepted:
| Hybrid Warfare | 5th Generation Warfare (5GW) |
|---|---|
| Blends conventional + irregular tactics | Operates primarily in cognitive & information domains |
| Conducted primarily by states & proxies | Conducted by states, non-state actors, corporations, networks, AI systems |
| Visible battlefield remains significant | Invisible battlefield — perception, belief, narrative |
| Focus on operational advantage | Focus on behavioural manipulation & societal control |
| Example: Crimea 2014, Hezbollah 2006 | Example: election interference, deep-fake operations, info-war shaping revolutions |
5GW emphasizes:
- information dominance
- psychological manipulation
- economic pressure
- cyber warfare
- algorithmic propaganda
- AI-driven influence operations
It seeks strategic victory without conventional war.
As Daniel Abbott notes:
“5GW is war that is so complex and opaque that the victims often do not realize they are under attack.” (Abbott, 2010)
TECHNOLOGY ENABLED 5GW
Key enablers include:
- Artificial Intelligence
- Big-data surveillance
- Deepfakes & digital deception
- Social-media information ops
- Quantum communications
- Cyber espionage & ransomware
- Unmanned aerial & maritime systems
- Economic warfare & sanctions
China terms this “Unrestricted Warfare” — the use of law, finance, information, psychology, science, and military pressure collectively (Qiao Liang & Wang Xiangsui, 1999).
CONTEMPORARY ENVIRONMENT
The following section examines the geostrategic factors driving the change of the strategic environment thereby setting the stage and laying the conditions for the new form of generational warfare to emerge.
a. Globalization is a key trend that will impact the next generation of warfare. Unbridled mass communications via social media, global connectivity and technological advancements, coupled with increasing industrialization and prosperity accentuating income gaps would inevitably provide the perfect breeding ground for spreading dissent and burgeoning tensions.
b. The rise of radicalism is another feature of the future operating environment. Increasing numbers of supporters for extremist radical Islamic groups such as the so called Islamic State pose a significant cause for concern. The often visceral response from non-Muslim communities leading to ‘racism, religious bigotry and Islamophobia exacerbate the situation, further polarizing and destabilizing the world.’ Conflicts involving religious radicals will be complex, difficult to resolve and protracted in duration.
c. Global and regional demographic trends such as rapid population growth and growing income gaps will add to the growing instability, especially in developing countries. By 2025, owing to rapid urbanization, close to one-third of the world’s population will be living in urban areas. Terrorist groups and extremists will be able to seek subterfuge amongst the urban population dwellings, making it difficult to conduct counter-terror operations in such areas.
d. With natural resources such as food, water, energy and commodities in limited supply, and as populations grow exponentially and developing economies seek first world status, the demand for resources is set to increase accordingly. Priorities of states in the future would shift to become a mad scramble to obtain these limited resources. This has a destabilatory effect on regional and global politics. The potential for states with their survival at stake to secure access to these resources via the use of armed force will likely increase, leading to possible conflict.
e. The proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is another area of concern that would increase the possibility for devastating consequences in the future strategic environment. With North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and countries such as India, Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Libya allegedly developing nuclear weapons in secret, the potential for new nuclear capable nations emerging is real. The possession of WMDs, ranging from chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear devices with the potential for causing widespread destruction to people, property or infrastructure, will be within the reach of weak, failing states with unstable regimes. The possible usage of nuclear weapons or WMDs in future conflicts will become increasingly more likely.
f. The advent of science and technology would bring about much change that would undoubtedly alter the future strategic operating environment. The drivers of future transformatory change could be from any one of the following areas: artificial intelligence, genomics, alternative fuels, nanotechnology, robotics, trans-humanism, augmented reality and quantum computing. As a result of these technological advancements, one can expect very significant economic, social and political transformations to come. Military applications of these technologies could soon follow, adding to the uncertainty of the future battlefield.
g. The end of the Cold War saw the shift from a bipolar world to a unipolar one, with the United States (US) performing the role as the global hegemon. Some international relations theorists and academics such as Colin Gray predict that with the rise of major powers such as China and Russia, inter-state war may very well experience resurgence. It is theorized that in the near future, geopolitical rivalries between major powers fuelled by crisis of the environment would pose the greatest likelihood for conflicts.
HYBRID WAR VIEWED AS POSSIBLE DIMENSION OF BEGINNING OF 5TH GW
As the generations of warfare transit from one to the next, there will be certain elements that will persist and carry forward into the next era. In the transition between 1st Generation Warfare (1GW) to 2GW, the culture of obedience, order and discipline remain. From 2GW to 3GW, although the focus shifted to manoeuvre, the concept of indirect fire support is still maintained. In 4GW, the notion of flexibility and initiative was a theme borrowed from 3GW. Likewise, in 5GW, some elements of 4GW will be retained. Nathan Freier seemed to think that the ‘irregular’ and asymmetric nature of conflict will remain a feature of future wars, especially as a threat against the powerful states like US. However, he also opined that potential future adversaries will likely also employ strategies that are ‘traditional, catastrophic and disruptive’ at the same time. Thus, aligned with the thinking of Freier, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the element of asymmetric fighting could perhaps be the feature that would be carried forward from 4GW into 5GW.
The blurred lines between warfare modalities and elements are further exacerbated by rapid technological change. State, state-sponsored and non-state actors now have a wider range of options in terms of tactics and technologies and would be able to creatively exploit these to their advantage in ways previously not thought possible, to further their respective interests and objectives. Technologies that are traditional to conventional warfare such as command, control and communications information systems and modern high-tech weaponry such as anti-satellite jamming systems can be used in concert with improvised explosive devices and man portable anti-aircraft rockets to devastating effect. This mix of conventional and insurgent capabilities will result in an added dimension of complexity in future conflicts.
