‘What do you mean by "hybrid threats"?’ The narrative instrumentalisation of the 'hybrid terminology by member states

This paper problematises and explores the instrumentalisation of the hybrid lexicon and terminology within the EU. From 2014-2015 both member states and the EU started focusing on how to counter the so-called hybrid threats; the emergence of this issue as an issue that should be addressed at the EU level (in addition to member state level) followed the circulation of several non-papers by a group of states which thought that the EU should be more proactive in this field. Since then, the EU has published toolboxes, policies, and memoranda on countering hybrid threats, it has tried to bring some conceptual clarity on the issue, and it has stepped up its cooperation with NATO on the same issue. However, there is still some disagreement among the EU member states about what ‘hybrid’ means exactly. For example, Greece is using the hybrid terminology predominantly to describe the migratory pressures from Turkey (e.g., the 2020 March crisis between the two countries). For the Baltic states and for Finland the concept of hybrid threats is essentially used to describe the threat from Russia and Russian actions. While other states, such as France for example, are much more interested in highlighting the terrorism dimension within the broader umbrell of hybrid threats. Therefore, the key questions that this paper addresses are the following. What explains these discrepancies in the narrative use of the hybrid terminology? What are the implications for an effective EU response to hybrid threats? This paper argues that narratives about hybrid threats are used instrumentally by states to pursue their own interests, invoking the hybrid lexicon to get the attention and support of the EU regarding issues of national importance. In other words, states employ the ‘hybrid threats’ in a tactical manner hoping to garner rhetorical or other support from the EU institutions.