menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Rethinking Deterrence in Gray Zone Conflict

71 0
08.08.2026

*Originally published in 2022 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

A particular form of international competition dominates the headlines today. Whether it is the "little green men" in Ukraine, "little blue men" in the South China Sea, Iranian backed militias throughout the Middle East, or the malicious attacks pervasive throughout the cyber-domain, scholars and practitioners agree that international competition is regularly occurring in a gray area between war and peace. The key feature of these gray zone conflicts is that actors are “pulling-their-punches'' by intentionally limiting the intensity and capacity with which they conduct military operations. Rather than overt military actions that attempt to resolve issues or disputes, gray-zone conflict involves destabilization, disruption, and subversion. By engaging in the gray-zone, revisionist states can gain concessions from their adversaries while avoiding the usual costs of war. While there is much to be said on the novelty of these methods (how new is gray zone conflict?) or on their correct labeling (are these hybrid wars, non-linear wars, salami tactics, limited wars, hassling, or military operations other than war?), we focus on the implications of gray zone conflict. Does the gray zone conflict observed today actually represent a failure of Western deterrence? Or is it something different altogether?

Recent literature suggests that the conventional conceptions of deterrence are inadequate to address burgeoning threats in the gray zone. In the most basic framework of war, a state deters challengers by demonstrating how costly war would be for them. Gray-zone conflict complicates this model, as defenders can turn to gray-zone conflict to test their adversaries or gain concessions without going to war. Capable defenders, in turn, appear ill-equipped to respond to revisionism in the gray zone. While these conflicts may not be the bloodiest, they still create international instability and undermine the existing international order. In this framing, the gray zone conflict observed today constitutes a deterrence failure.

Our research challenges this convention by viewing gray-zone conflict as a symptom of deterrence........

© E-International