Key Takeaways from 'Hybrid Threats: Countering the Weaponisation of Gender and Identity' Roundtable

The roundtable was part of the research project ‘Enhancing NATO Counter Hybrid Threats Strategies with Gender Analysis’. The project is designed to help NATO analysts, planners and practitioners detect, assess and factor in identity-targeting tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) in hybrid operations. It treats gendered and other identity-based targeting as part of adversaries’ tradecraft, not as a separate values or social policy agenda. The focus is on how hostile actors weaponise existing prejudices and inequalities, for example by portraying migrants as a sexual threat, using ‘family values’ language to attack allies, or targeting women journalists, politicians or activists with sexualised disinformation to degrade resilience, fuel polarisation and weaken Alliance cohesion.

The roundtable brought together NATO and EU officials, diplomats of EU and NATO member states, private sector representations and experts from think tanks in Brussels. It was held under RUSI rules, wherein discussions are off-the-record and unattributable. 

Below is an overview of the key takeaways from the roundtable.

Experts at the roundtable emphasised the evolution of modern conflict, shifting from traditional warfare towards the hybrid destabilisation of societies. Although gender and other-identity based analyses have historically been lacking in this context, these factors are now recognised as critical for detecting and deterring modern TTPs.

Contemporary hybrid warfare exploits the speed and scale provided by globalisation to spread hostile narratives more effectively than during the Cold War era. Instead of merely targeting physical assets, modern TTPs increasingly target cognitive resilience. By exploiting emotive topics like immigration or global conflicts, hostile actors capitalise on social polarisation to undermine democratic institutions and values.

The core theme of the discussion was the systematic weaponisation of gender and other identity factors as a tool for destabilisation and undermining trust in leadership, media, and international organisations like NATO and the EU. Experts noted that hybrid TTPs often manifest as:

• Coordinated attacks and sexualised narratives aimed to silence or undermine female politicians or public figures.
• Promoting hyper-masculinity narratives and exploiting social expectations and grievances of men and boys.
• Weaponising exiting social tensions around issues like LGBTQI+ rights and migration issues.

The roundtable emphasised that historic blurred lines between civilian and military domains has led to significant institutional blockages in addressing emerging hybrid threats. Additionally, as these threats often operate below the threshold of conventional war, it can be difficult to define, fund and prioritise military responsibilities for wider societal resilience. 

However, experts noted promising shifts towards more holistic thinking and practices – from building a more coherent understanding of how civilian environments impact military objectives and resilience, and vice versa, to integrating intersectional gender analysis into counter-hybrid threats efforts. 

Some major hurdles remain, particularly around the lack of live data-sharing between organisations, including NATO and the EU. This has resulted in, as one expert noted, them both 'fighting with two hands behind their backs' against fast-moving hybrid campaigns.

Key takeaways include:

• Gender and intersectional analysis: Need to treat gender and other identity factors as core to hybrid threat TTPs, not as a secondary concern.
   
• Proactive defence: Build societal resilience and digital literacy to better prevent information manipulation campaigns from gaining traction, particularly on social media.
   
• Civilian investment: Enhance community-level investments to help civilians understand how and identify when identity-based grievances are being weaponised.
   
• Institutional readiness: Implement training in military and security sectors both on how to operationalise this analysis, as well as to recognise where internal biases erode readiness.