Syed Ata Hasnain's column: Wars are easy to start, but difficult to end

The vocabulary of conflicts has now changed significantly. Terms like hybrid, un-restricted and cognitive warfare are very much in vogue in strategic discourse. Yet, the 'grey zone' is often interpreted in a very limited sense, i.e. activities that occur below the limits of conventional warfare – such as cyber intrusions, proxy conflicts, economic pressures or disinformation campaigns. But the recent conflicts show a profound shift. Modern wars are now being fought in a persistent 'grey zone' environment — a strategic environment characterized by ambiguity, controlled escalation, political restraint, technological asymmetry and narrative competition. Gray zone operations are mere tools, while grey zone conditions create the broader strategic environment in which recent conflicts are taking place. The warfare of the 21st century can be understood from this difference. Traditional conflicts were clearly based on two things – peace or war, victory or defeat. This perception is now disappearing. Modern wars rarely reach complete victory. Instead, countries or other non-state groups try to gain situational advantage, strategic edge, and psychological influence in the conflict. At the same time, they also avoid crossing the border where the situation is difficult to handle politically. This is what we see in the Iran war today. This ambiguity has become not an accidental occurrence of conflict, but a well-thought-out strategic weapon. Several structural factors are responsible for this shift. Nuclear weapons cause the big powers to take precautions. Interdependence greatly increases the price of protracted conflicts. The information revolution has greatly reduced the time to retaliate and has made social media look like a battlefield. Most importantly, technological advances have made it accessible to everyone to capabilities that were once monopolized only by large military powers. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve a clear victory. This is also evident in the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite major conventional military confrontations, the war is still stuck in a broad grey zone created by nuclear threats, sanctions, cyber operations and drone warfare. Despite the huge resource expenditure, no one got a decisive edge. The conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen also show that military superiority no longer guarantees a political solution. Israel has a tremendous military advantage, but the decisive result has not been achieved as groups like the Houthis have been blocking key sea lanes to the Red Sea with cheap drone and missile attacks. Weaker opponents are no longer looking to win outright, but to gain the ability to hold on, hinder and persist. The proliferation of technology has also given vulnerable countries and proxy groups access to capabilities in drones, cyber tools, precision strike missiles, and information warfare. Even if they are not able to win the war, they have an unprecedented ability to hold off the decisive victory of strong rivals. Now this created a new strategic situation - to withdraw from the war without victory. Too often wars no longer end in a formal peace agreement or surrender, but in the form of an uncomfortable pause, temporary ceasefire, or a managed military disengagement. The great powers maintain military superiority, but do not fully achieve the political objective. Decisive results are now beginning to be replaced by strategic fatigue. Another important change is the expansion of the battlefield. War is no longer limited to the army and borders, but infrastructure, communication systems, energy grids, financial networks and common perception have also come to the battlefield. Narrative management has also become a key strategic tool along with military operations. Only countries that can maintain social cohesion, economic stability and public trust during prolonged tensions will get a long-term strategic advantage. The era of wars with decisive results is coming to an end. They are being replaced by enduring competitions that continue around and within the confines of conventional warfare. Strategic ambiguity has now become a major reality. (These are the author's own views)