The primary arena for great power competition has shifted from conventional military confrontation to a persistent, multi-domain struggle in the “gray zone” between peace and war. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the alternative forms of conflict employed by the United States, the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China. It moves beyond theoretical frameworks to assess the practical application and effectiveness of economic warfare, cyber operations, information warfare, proxy conflicts, and legal warfare (“lawfare”). The analysis reveals distinct strategic approaches: the United States acts primarily as a defender of the existing international order, using its systemic advantages for targeted coercion; Russia operates as a strategic disrupter, employing asymmetric tools to generate chaos and undermine Western cohesion; and China functions as a systemic revisionist, patiently executing a long-term strategy to displace U.S. influence and reshape global norms in its favor.

The key finding of this report is that while these gray zone methods have proven effective at achieving discrete objectives and managing escalation, their long-term strategic success is mixed. Critically, they often produce significant unintended consequences that are actively reshaping the global security and economic order. The use of broad economic sanctions and tariffs, for example, has accelerated the formation of an alternative, non-Western economic bloc and spurred efforts to de-dollarize international trade. Similarly, persistent cyber and information attacks, while achieving tactical surprise and disruption, have hardened defenses and eroded the trust necessary for international cooperation. The gray zone is not a temporary state of affairs but the new, permanent battlespace where the future of the international order will be decided. Navigating this environment requires a fundamental shift in strategy from crisis response to one of perpetual, integrated competition across all instruments of national power.

Section I: The Strategic Environment: Redefining Conflict in the 21st Century

From Open War to Pervasive Competition

The 21st-century strategic landscape is defined by a distinct shift away from the paradigm of declared, conventional warfare between major powers. The overwhelming military and technological superiority of the United States and its alliance network has created a powerful disincentive for peer competitors to engage in direct armed conflict.¹ Consequently, rivals such as Russia and China have adapted by developing and refining a sophisticated toolkit of alternative conflict methods. These strategies are designed to challenge the U.S.-led international order, erode its influence, and achieve significant strategic gains without crossing the unambiguous threshold of armed aggression that would trigger a conventional military response from the United States and its allies.¹ This evolution does not signify an era of peace, but rather a transformation in the character of conflict to a state of persistent, pervasive competition waged across every domain of state power, from the economic and digital to the informational and legal.

Anatomy of the Gray Zone

This new era of competition is primarily conducted within a strategically ambiguous space known as the “gray zone.” The United States Special Operations Command defines this arena as “competitive interactions among and within state and non-state actors that fall between the traditional war and peace duality”.³ The central characteristic of gray zone operations is the deliberate calibration of actions to remain below the threshold of what could be legally and politically defined as a use of force warranting a conventional military response under international law (jus ad bellum).²

Ambiguity and plausible deniability are the currency of the gray zone. Actions are designed to be difficult to attribute and interpret, thereby creating confusion and sowing hesitation within an adversary’s decision-making cycle.⁴ This calculated ambiguity is particularly effective against democratic nations. The legal and bureaucratic structures of democracies are often optimized for a clear distinction between peace and war, making them slow to recognize and counter threats that defy this binary.³ This can lead to policy paralysis or responses that are either disproportionately escalatory or strategically insignificant, a vulnerability that actors like Russia and China consistently exploit.³ The toolkit for gray zone operations is extensive, including but not limited to information operations, political coercion, economic pressure, cyberattacks, support for proxies, and provocations by state-controlled forces.¹ While many of these tactics are as old as statecraft itself, their integrated and synergistic application, amplified by modern information and communication technologies, represents a distinct evolution in the nature of conflict.¹

The Hybrid Warfare Playbook

If the gray zone is the strategic arena, “hybrid warfare” is the tactical playbook used to compete within it. While not a formally defined term in international law, it is widely understood to describe the synchronized use of multiple instruments of power—military and non-military, conventional and unconventional, overt and covert—to destabilize an adversary and achieve strategic objectives.² The objective is to create synergistic effects where the whole of the campaign is greater than the sum of its parts.²

The Russian strategic approach, often associated with Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, explicitly elevates the role of non-military means, viewing them as often more effective than armed force in achieving political and strategic goals.⁵ This doctrine was vividly demonstrated in the lead-up to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, where Russia combined a massive military buildup with a sophisticated disinformation campaign, cyberattacks, economic pressure on European energy markets, and nuclear blackmail to shape the strategic environment.²

It is essential to distinguish between these two concepts: the gray zone describes the operational space where competition occurs, while hybrid warfare describes the methods employed within that space.² Most hybrid tactics are deliberately applied in the gray zone precisely to exploit its ambiguity and avoid triggering a formal state of armed conflict as defined by international humanitarian law.³ This strategic choice is not an accident but a calculated effort to wage conflict in a manner that neutralizes the primary strengths of a conventionally superior adversary. The gray zone is, therefore, an asymmetric battlespace, deliberately crafted to turn the foundational pillars of the liberal international order—its commitment to the rule of law, open economies, and freedom of information—into exploitable vulnerabilities.

Section II: The Economic Arsenal: Geopolitics by Other Means

The US-China Tariff War: A Case Study in Economic Coercion

The economic competition between the United States and China escalated into open economic conflict in 2018, providing a clear case study in the use, effectiveness, and limitations of tariffs as a tool of modern statecraft.

Goals vs. Reality

The Trump administration initiated the trade war with a set of clearly articulated objectives: to force fundamental changes to what it termed China’s “longstanding unfair trade practices,” to halt the systemic theft of U.S. intellectual property, and to significantly reduce the large bilateral trade deficit.⁸ Beginning in January 2018 with tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, the conflict rapidly escalated. The U.S. imposed successive rounds of tariffs, eventually covering hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as its legal justification.⁸ China responded with immediate and symmetrical retaliation, targeting key U.S. exports with high political sensitivity, such as soybeans, pork, and automobiles, directly impacting the agricultural and manufacturing heartlands of the United States.⁸ This tit-for-tat escalation continued through 2019, culminating in a tense “Phase One” agreement in January 2020 that sought to de-escalate the conflict.⁸

Effectiveness Assessment: A Blunt Instrument

Despite the scale of the tariffs, the trade war largely failed to achieve its primary stated goals. The purchase commitments made by China in the Phase One deal were never fulfilled, with Beijing ultimately buying none of the additional $200 billion in U.S. exports it had pledged.⁸ Rigorous economic analysis has demonstrated that the economic burden of the tariffs was borne almost entirely by U.S. firms and consumers, not by Chinese exporters.¹¹ This resulted in higher prices for a wide range of goods and was estimated to have reduced U.S. real income by $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018.¹²

Furthermore, the pervasive policy uncertainty generated by the conflict had a chilling effect on global business investment and economic growth.¹³ Companies, unable to predict the future of the world’s most important trade relationship, delayed capital expenditures, disrupting global supply chains and slowing economic activity far beyond the borders of the two belligerents.¹³ The trade war thus serves as a powerful example of how broad-based tariffs function as a blunt and costly instrument, inflicting significant self-harm while yielding limited strategic gains.

Unintended Consequences

The most profound and lasting impacts of the trade war were not its intended effects but its unintended consequences. Rather than forcing a rebalancing of the U.S.-China economic relationship, the conflict accelerated a process of strategic decoupling. It compelled multinational corporations to begin the costly and complex process of diversifying their supply chains away from China, a trend that benefited manufacturing hubs in other parts of Asia, particularly Vietnam.¹⁵

Perhaps more significantly, the trade war reinforced Beijing’s conviction that it could not rely on an open, rules-based global economic system dominated by the United States. In response, China has intensified its national drive for technological self-sufficiency in critical sectors like semiconductors, a move that could, in the long term, diminish U.S. technological and economic leverage.¹⁶ By sidelining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in favor of unilateral action, the United States also weakened the very multilateral institutions it had built, encouraging a global shift toward protectionism and regional trade blocs.¹⁴

The Sanctions Regime Against Russia: Testing Economic Containment

The Western response to Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine represents the most comprehensive and coordinated use of economic sanctions against a major power in modern history. This campaign serves as a critical test of the efficacy of economic containment in the 21st century.

Targeting the War Machine

The sanctions regime implemented by the United States and a broad coalition of allies was designed with a clear purpose: to cripple the Russian Federation’s ability to finance and technologically sustain its war of aggression.¹⁹ The measures were unprecedented in their scope and speed, targeting the core pillars of the Russian economy. Key actions included freezing hundreds of billions of dollars of the Russian Central Bank’s foreign reserves, disconnecting major Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system, imposing a near-total ban on the export of high-technology goods like semiconductors, and implementing a novel price cap on Russian seaborne crude oil exports.²¹ This multi-pronged assault aimed to deny Moscow the revenue, financing, and technology essential for its military-industrial complex.²⁰

The Limits of Efficacy and Russian Adaptation

While the sanctions have inflicted undeniable and significant damage on the Russian economy, they have failed to deliver a knockout blow or compel a change in Moscow’s strategic objectives. Estimates suggest that Russia’s GDP is now 10-12% smaller than it would have been without the invasion and subsequent sanctions.²² However, the Russian economy has proven far more resilient than initially expected.¹⁹

Moscow’s adaptation has been threefold. First, it transitioned its economy onto a full war footing, with massive increases in defense spending fueling industrial production and stimulating GDP growth, albeit in an unsustainable manner.¹⁹ Second, it proved adept at sanctions evasion. Russia successfully rerouted the majority of its energy exports from Europe to new markets in China and India, often selling at a discount but still generating substantial revenue.²¹ It also developed a “shadow fleet” of oil tankers operating outside of Western insurance and financial systems to circumvent the G7 price cap.²² Third, and most critically, it leveraged its partnership with China to procure essential dual-use technologies, such as microelectronics and machine tools, that were cut off by Western export controls.²⁰

Strategic Realignment

The most significant long-term consequence of the sanctions regime has been a fundamental and likely irreversible strategic realignment of the Russian economy. Forced out of Western markets and financial systems, Moscow has dramatically deepened its economic, technological, and financial integration with China. Bilateral trade has surged to record levels, and the Chinese yuan has increasingly replaced the U.S. dollar in Russia’s trade and foreign reserves.¹⁷ This has accelerated the consolidation of a powerful Eurasian economic bloc positioned as a direct counterweight to the U.S.-led financial and trade system. The sanctions, intended to isolate Russia, have inadvertently catalyzed the creation of a more robust and resilient alternative economic architecture, thereby spurring global de-dollarization efforts and potentially weakening the long-term efficacy of U.S. financial power.¹⁹

This dynamic illustrates a central paradox of modern economic warfare: the aggressive use of systemic economic power, while effective at inflicting short-term pain, simultaneously provides a powerful incentive for adversaries to build parallel systems designed to be immune to that very power. Each application of sanctions against Russia or tariffs against China acts as a catalyst for the construction of an alternative global economic order, eroding the foundations of U.S. leverage over time.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Influence Through Investment

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a cornerstone of its foreign policy and a primary instrument of its economic statecraft. While often portrayed through a simplistic lens, its strategic function is nuanced and far-reaching.

Beyond the “Debt-Trap” Narrative

In Western strategic discourse, the BRI is frequently characterized as a form of “debt-trap diplomacy”.²⁷ This narrative posits that China intentionally extends unsustainable loans to developing nations for large-scale infrastructure projects. When these nations inevitably default, Beijing allegedly seizes control of the strategic assets—such as ports or railways—thereby expanding its geopolitical and military footprint.²⁷ The case of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port is consistently cited as the primary evidence for this strategy.²⁷

A Nuanced Reality

A detailed examination of the Hambantota Port case, however, reveals a more complex reality that undermines the simplistic debt-trap thesis. The proposal for the port originated with the Sri Lankan government, not with Beijing, as part of a long-standing domestic development agenda.²⁷ Furthermore, Sri Lanka’s severe debt crisis in the mid-2010s was not primarily caused by Chinese lending, but by excessive borrowing from Western-dominated international capital markets and unsustainable domestic fiscal policies.²⁷ Chinese loans constituted a relatively small portion of Sri Lanka’s overall foreign debt.²⁷

Crucially, the port was not seized in a debt-for-equity swap. Instead, facing a balance of payments crisis, the Sri Lankan government chose to lease a majority stake in the port’s operations to a Chinese state-owned enterprise for 99 years in exchange for $1.1 billion in hard currency.²⁷ These funds were then used to shore up Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves and service its more pressing debts to Western creditors.²⁷

While the debt-trap narrative is an oversimplification, it does not mean the BRI is benign. It is a powerful instrument of geoeconomic influence. By becoming the primary financier and builder of critical infrastructure across the developing world, China creates long-term economic dependencies, secures access to resources, opens new markets for its companies, and builds political goodwill that can be translated into diplomatic support on the international stage.³⁰ The BRI allows China to systematically expand its global footprint and embed its economic and, increasingly, technological standards across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, thereby challenging the post-Cold War economic order.

Section III: The Digital Frontlines: Cyber and Electronic Warfare

The cyber domain has emerged as a central theater for great power competition, offering a low-cost, high-impact, and plausibly deniable means of projecting power and undermining adversaries. Russia and China have both developed sophisticated cyber capabilities, but they employ them in pursuit of distinct strategic objectives, reflecting their different geopolitical positions and long-term goals.

Russia’s Doctrine of Disruption

Russia’s approach to cyber warfare is fundamentally asymmetric and disruptive, designed to compensate for its relative weakness in the conventional military and economic domains. Its cyber operations prioritize psychological impact and the creation of societal chaos over permanent destruction.

This doctrine has been demonstrated through a series of high-profile operations against the United States. The cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2015-2016 were not merely an act of espionage but an influence operation designed to disrupt the U.S. presidential election and erode public trust in the democratic process.³² The 2020 SolarWinds supply chain attack represented a new level of sophistication, compromising the networks of numerous U.S. government agencies and thousands of private sector companies by inserting malicious code into a trusted software update.³⁴ This operation provided Russia with widespread, persistent access for espionage and potential future disruption. Similarly, the 2021 ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline, while attributed to a criminal group, highlighted the profound vulnerability of U.S. critical infrastructure to disruptive cyberattacks, causing widespread fuel shortages along the East Coast.³⁴

The strategic objective underpinning these actions is the generation of uncertainty and the degradation of an adversary’s will to act.³⁷ By demonstrating the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and democratic institutions, Russia aims to create a psychological effect that far exceeds the direct technical damage, sowing division and decision-making paralysis within the target nation.³⁷ Joint advisories from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) repeatedly confirm that Russian state-sponsored actors are persistently targeting U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including energy, finance, and defense, for both espionage and disruptive purposes.³⁸

China’s Strategy of Espionage and Exploitation

In contrast to Russia’s disruptive tactics, China’s cyber strategy is characterized by its industrial scale, persistence, and systematic focus on long-term intelligence gathering and intellectual property (IP) theft. It is not primarily a tool of chaos but a core component of China’s comprehensive national strategy to supplant the United States as the world’s leading economic and military power.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) maintains dedicated units, such as the infamous Unit 61398 (also known as APT1), tasked with conducting large-scale cyber espionage campaigns against foreign targets.⁴² These operations have successfully exfiltrated vast quantities of sensitive data from the United States. Notable examples include the systematic theft of design data for numerous advanced U.S. weapons systems, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-22 Raptor, and the Patriot missile system.³⁴ This stolen IP directly fuels China’s own military modernization, allowing it to reverse-engineer and replicate advanced technologies, thereby leapfrogging decades of costly research and development and rapidly eroding America’s qualitative military edge.³⁴

Beyond military secrets, China’s cyber espionage targets a wide array of sectors to advance its economic goals. This includes the theft of trade secrets from leading U.S. companies in industries ranging from energy to pharmaceuticals.³⁴ The massive 2015 breach of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which compromised the sensitive personal data of over 21 million current and former federal employees, provided Beijing with an invaluable database for identifying, targeting, and recruiting intelligence assets for decades to come.³⁴ Recent intelligence reports indicate a dramatic surge in Chinese cyber espionage operations, with a 150% increase in 2024 alone, highlighting the unabated intensity of this campaign.⁴⁴

Effectiveness and Asymmetry

Both Russia and China have successfully weaponized the cyber domain as a highly effective asymmetric tool. It allows them to contest U.S. power and impose significant costs while operating below the threshold of armed conflict and maintaining a degree of plausible deniability.⁴⁵ The difficulty of definitive, public attribution for cyberattacks creates a permissive environment for aggression, allowing state sponsors to operate with relative impunity.⁴⁵

This reality reveals a critical divergence in strategic timelines. Russia’s cyber doctrine is optimized for the short term, employing disruptive attacks to achieve immediate political and psychological effects that can shape a specific crisis or event. China, in contrast, is waging a long-term, strategic campaign of attrition. Its patient, industrial-scale espionage is designed to fundamentally alter the global balance of technological, economic, and military power over the course of decades. The United States, therefore, faces a dual cyber threat: Russia’s acute, shock-and-awe style disruptions and China’s chronic, corrosive campaign of exploitation. Effectively countering these divergent threats requires distinct strategies, mindsets, and capabilities.

Section IV: The War for Minds: Information and Influence Operations

In the gray zone, the cognitive domain is a primary battlefield. The strategic manipulation of information to shape perceptions, control narratives, and undermine societal cohesion has become a central pillar of modern conflict. Russia and China, while often collaborating in this space, pursue fundamentally different long-term objectives with their information and influence operations.

Russia’s “Active Measures 2.0”

Russia’s contemporary information warfare is a direct evolution of the Soviet Union’s “active measures,” updated for the digital age.³⁷ The core strategy is not to persuade foreign audiences of the superiority of the Russian model, but to degrade and disrupt the political systems of its adversaries from within.³⁷

The 2016 U.S. presidential election serves as the canonical example of this doctrine in practice. The operation, directed by President Vladimir Putin, was multifaceted, combining the cyber theft of sensitive information with a sophisticated social media campaign.³³ The GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, hacked the computer networks of the DNC and Clinton campaign officials, subsequently leaking the stolen emails through fronts like Guccifer 2.0 and platforms like WikiLeaks to generate damaging news cycles.³³

Simultaneously, the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), a state-sponsored “troll farm,” created thousands of fake social media accounts to impersonate American citizens and political groups.³³ The IRA’s primary tactic was not to spread pro-Russian propaganda, but to identify and inflame existing societal fault lines in the United States, particularly those related to race, gun control, immigration, and religion.⁵⁰ By creating and amplifying hyper-partisan content on both the far-left (e.g., supporting Black Lives Matter) and the far-right (e.g., supporting secessionist movements), the IRA’s goal was to deepen polarization, foster distrust in institutions, suppress voter turnout among targeted demographics, and ultimately undermine faith in the American democratic process itself.⁵⁰ This approach is highly effective because it acts as a social parasite, feeding on and magnifying organic divisions within an open society, making it difficult for citizens and policymakers to distinguish foreign manipulation from authentic domestic discourse.³⁷

China’s Quest for “Discourse Power”

China’s information strategy is more systematic, ambitious, and long-term than Russia’s. It is explicitly guided by the doctrine of the “Three Warfares”: public opinion warfare (shaping public perception), psychological warfare (influencing the cognition and decision-making of adversaries), and legal warfare (using law to seize the “legal high ground”).⁵⁴ The ultimate goal of this integrated strategy is to achieve what the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) calls “discourse power” (话语权).⁵⁶

Discourse power is the ability to shape global norms, values, and narratives to create consensus around a new, China-led international order.⁵⁶ This involves a multi-pronged effort to legitimize China’s authoritarian governance model and present it as a superior alternative to what it portrays as the chaotic and declining system of Western liberal democracy.⁵⁶ The CCP pursues this goal through several mechanisms:

• Massive Investment in State Media: Beijing has poured billions of dollars into expanding the global reach of its state-controlled media outlets, such as CGTN and Xinhua, to broadcast the CCP’s narratives directly to international audiences.⁵⁴
• United Front Work: The CCP’s United Front Work Department orchestrates a vast, global effort to co-opt and influence foreign elites, including politicians, academics, business leaders, and media figures, to advocate for China’s interests and silence criticism.⁵⁴
• Digital Dominance: China seeks to shape the global digital ecosystem by exporting its model of “cyber sovereignty,” which prioritizes state control over the free flow of information, and by promoting its own technical standards for next-generation technologies like 5G and AI.⁵⁶

While Russia’s information operations are often opportunistic and focused on tactical disruption, China’s are patient, strategic, and aimed at a fundamental, long-term revision of the global information order.⁵⁸ Russia seeks to burn down the existing house; China seeks to build a new one in its place, with itself as the architect.

The U.S. Response: Public Diplomacy

The primary instrument for the United States in the information domain is public diplomacy, executed largely through the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). The USAGM oversees a network of broadcasters, including Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and Radio Free Asia (RFA).⁶⁰ The stated mission of these entities is to provide accurate, objective, and comprehensive news and information to audiences in countries where a free press is restricted, thereby serving as a counterweight to state propaganda and supporting the principles of freedom and democracy.⁶⁰ However, the USAGM has historically faced challenges, including internal political disputes and questions regarding its strategic effectiveness in a modern, saturated, and highly fragmented digital media landscape.⁶¹

This reveals a fundamental divergence in strategic approaches. Russian information warfare is a strategy of cognitive disruption, designed to confuse, divide, and ultimately paralyze an opponent by turning its own open information environment against it. Chinese information warfare is a strategy of cognitive displacement, a long-term project aimed at methodically replacing the norms, values, and narratives of the liberal international order with its own. Countering the former requires tactical resilience and societal inoculation against division, while countering the latter requires a sustained, global competition of ideas and a compelling reaffirmation of the value of the democratic model.

Section V: Conflict by Other Means: Proxies and Lawfare

Beyond the economic and digital realms, great powers continue to engage in conflict through indirect means, leveraging third-party actors and legal frameworks to advance their interests while avoiding direct confrontation. Proxy warfare and lawfare are two prominent tools in the gray zone playbook, used to alter the strategic landscape and impose costs on adversaries without resorting to open hostilities.

The Modern Proxy War

Proxy warfare, a hallmark of the Cold War, has been adapted to the contemporary environment. States support and direct non-state or third-party state actors to wage conflict, allowing the sponsoring power to achieve strategic objectives with limited direct risk and cost.

Syria as a Microcosm

The Syrian Civil War serves as a stark example of modern, multi-layered proxy conflict. The Russian Federation intervened militarily in 2015 with the explicit goal of preserving the regime of its client, Bashar al-Assad, which was on the verge of collapse.⁶³ This intervention was a direct pushback against U.S. and Western influence, as it placed Russian forces and their proxies, including the Wagner Group, in direct opposition to various Syrian opposition groups that were receiving support from the United States and its regional partners.⁶³ This created a complex and dangerous battlespace where the proxies of two nuclear powers were engaged in active combat. Throughout this period, the People’s Republic of China played a crucial supporting role for Russia, using its position on the UN Security Council to provide diplomatic cover. Beijing repeatedly joined Moscow in vetoing resolutions that would have condemned or sanctioned the Assad regime, demonstrating a coordinated Sino-Russian effort to thwart Western policy objectives in the Middle East.⁶⁵

Ukraine and the “Proxy Supporter” Model

The war in Ukraine represents a different but equally significant model of proxy conflict. The United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a classic proxy war, providing massive military, financial, and intelligence support to Ukraine to enable its defense against direct Russian aggression.²⁵ A critical evolution in this conflict is the role played by China as a “proxy supporter” for Russia. While Beijing has refrained from providing large quantities of direct lethal aid, its comprehensive economic and technological support has been indispensable to sustaining Russia’s war effort.²⁵ China has become the primary destination for sanctioned Russian energy, the main supplier of critical dual-use components like microelectronics for Russia’s military-industrial complex, and a key diplomatic partner in shielding Moscow from international condemnation.¹⁷ This support, while falling short of a formal military alliance, effectively makes China a co-belligerent in a gray-zone context. The dynamic is further complicated by North Korea’s role as a direct arms supplier to Russia, providing vast quantities of artillery shells and even troops, illustrating a multi-layered proxy network designed to sustain Russia’s war and bleed Western resources.²⁵

China’s Lawfare in the South China Sea

“Lawfare” is the strategic use of legal processes and instruments to achieve operational or geopolitical objectives.⁶⁹ China has masterfully employed lawfare in the South China Sea as a primary tool to assert its expansive territorial claims and challenge the existing international maritime order.

Challenging the International Order

China’s strategy is centered on enforcing its “nine-dash line” claim, which encompasses nearly the entire South China Sea. This claim was authoritatively invalidated in 2016 by an arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a ruling that Beijing has rejected and ignored.⁶⁹ China’s lawfare is a systematic effort to create a new legal reality that conforms to its territorial ambitions.

Tactics of Creeping Jurisdiction

Beijing’s lawfare tactics are methodical and multi-faceted, designed to create a state of perpetual contestation and gradually normalize its control:

1. Domestic Legislation as International Law: China passes domestic laws that treat the international waters of the South China Sea as its own sovereign territory. For example, its 2021 Coast Guard Law authorizes its forces to use “all necessary means,” including lethal force, against foreign vessels in waters it claims, in direct contravention of UNCLOS.⁷⁰
2. Creating “Facts on the Water”: China has engaged in a massive campaign of land reclamation, building and militarizing artificial islands on submerged reefs and shoals. These outposts serve as forward operating bases for its military, coast guard, and maritime militia, allowing it to project power and physically enforce its claims.⁶⁹
3. Reinterpreting Legal Norms: China actively seeks to redefine long-standing principles of international law. It argues that the right to “freedom of navigation” applies only to commercial vessels and does not permit foreign military activities within its claimed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a position contrary to the consensus interpretation of UNCLOS.⁷⁰

This strategy of lawfare is not merely a legal or diplomatic maneuver; it is a foundational element of China’s gray zone strategy. By passing domestic laws that criminalize the lawful activities of other nations in international waters, China is attempting to create the legal and political pretext for future military action. This approach aims to reframe a potential act of aggression—such as firing on a Philippine or Vietnamese vessel—not as a violation of international law, but as a legitimate domestic law enforcement action within what it defines as its own jurisdiction. This calculated ambiguity is designed to paralyze the decision-making of adversaries and their allies, most notably the United States, thereby achieving a key objective of gray zone conflict.

Section VI: Strategic Assessment and Outlook

The preceding analysis demonstrates that the contemporary security environment is characterized by persistent, multi-domain competition in the gray zone. The United States, Russia, and China have each developed distinct doctrines and toolkits to navigate this new battlespace, with varying degrees of success and significant long-term consequences for the international order.

Comparative Analysis of National Strategies

The strategic approaches of the three major powers can be synthesized into a comparative framework that highlights their overarching goals and preferred methods across the key domains of conflict. The United States generally acts to preserve the existing international system from which it derives significant benefit, using its power for targeted enforcement and coercion. Russia, as a declining power with significant conventional limitations, acts as a disrupter, seeking to create chaos and exploit divisions to weaken its adversaries. China, as a rising and patient power, acts as a systemic revisionist, seeking to methodically build an alternative order and displace U.S. leadership over the long term.

Conflict Domain	United States Approach	Russian Approach	Chinese Approach
Economic	Systemic dominance (dollar, SWIFT), targeted sanctions, alliance-based trade pressure.	Asymmetric coercion (energy), sanctions evasion, strategic pivot to China, weaponization of food/commodities.	Systemic competition (BRI), supply chain dominance, technological self-sufficiency, targeted economic coercion.
Cyber	Intelligence gathering, offensive/defensive operations, alliance-based threat sharing.	Disruption of critical infrastructure, sowing chaos, psychological impact, election interference.	Industrial-scale espionage for economic/military gain, IP theft, strategic pre-positioning in critical networks (Volt Typhoon).
Information	Public diplomacy (USAGM), countering disinformation, promoting democratic values.	“Active Measures 2.0”: Exploiting and amplifying existing societal divisions, tactical disinformation.	“Discourse Power”: Long-term narrative shaping, censorship, promoting authoritarian model, co-opting elites.
Proxy	Support for state/non-state partners (e.g., Ukraine, Syrian opposition) to uphold international order.	Direct intervention with proxies (Wagner) and state forces to prop up clients and challenge U.S. influence.	Economic/military support to partners (e.g., Russia), avoiding direct military entanglement, using proxies for resource access.
Legal	Upholding international law (e.g., FONOPs), use of legal frameworks for sanctions.	Manipulation of legal norms, undermining international bodies, using legal pretexts for aggression.	“Lawfare”: Using domestic law to rewrite international law, creating new “facts on the ground” to legitimize claims.

What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why

A critical assessment of these strategies reveals clear patterns of effectiveness and failure.

What Works:

• Asymmetric and Low-Cost Tools: For Russia and China, gray zone tools like cyber operations, information warfare, and the use of proxies have proven highly effective. They impose significant strategic, economic, and political costs on the United States and its allies at a relatively low cost and risk to the aggressor.⁷³ These methods are particularly potent because they are designed to exploit the inherent openness and legal constraints of democratic societies.
• Incrementalism and Patience: China’s strategy of “creeping” aggression, particularly its lawfare and island-building campaign in the South China Sea, has been effective at changing the physical and strategic reality on the ground. By avoiding any single, dramatic action that would demand a forceful response, Beijing has incrementally advanced its position over years, achieving a significant strategic gain through a thousand small cuts.⁷⁴
• Targeted, Multilateral Coercion: For the United States, economic and diplomatic actions are most effective when they are targeted, multilateral, and leverage the collective weight of its alliance network. The initial shock of the coordinated financial sanctions against Russia demonstrated the immense power of this collective approach, even if its long-term coercive power has been blunted by Russian adaptation.¹⁹

What Doesn’t Work:

• Broad, Unilateral Economic Pressure: The U.S.-China trade war demonstrated that broad, unilateral tariffs are a blunt instrument that often inflicts more economic pain on the imposing country than on the target, while failing to achieve its core strategic objectives and producing negative unintended consequences for the global trading system.¹²
• A Purely Defensive Posture: A reactive and defensive strategy is insufficient to deter persistent gray zone aggression. Russia’s continued campaign of sabotage and subversion in Europe, despite heightened defensive measures, indicates that without the credible threat of proactive and costly consequences, adversaries will continue to operate in the gray zone with relative impunity.⁴⁷
• Building Compelling Alternative Narratives: While Russia is effective at disruptive information warfare and China is effective at censorship and control, both have largely failed to build a compelling, positive narrative that resonates with audiences in democratic nations. Their influence operations are most successful when they are parasitic on existing grievances rather than when they attempt to promote their own models.⁵⁹

Recommendations for the United States

To compete more effectively in this new battlespace, the United States must adapt its strategic posture. The following recommendations are derived from the analysis in this report:

1. Embrace Pervasive Competition: The U.S. national security apparatus must shift from a traditional crisis-response model to a posture of continuous, proactive competition across all domains. This requires institutional and cultural changes that recognize the gray zone as the primary arena of conflict.
2. Strengthen Societal Resilience: The most effective defense against information warfare and foreign influence is a resilient society. This requires a national effort to enhance media literacy, secure critical election infrastructure, and address the deep-seated domestic social and political divisions that adversaries so effectively exploit.
3. Integrate All Instruments of National Power: Gray zone threats are inherently multi-domain; the response must be as well. The U.S. must break down bureaucratic silos and develop a national strategy that seamlessly integrates economic, financial, intelligence, diplomatic, legal, and military tools to impose coordinated costs on adversaries.
4. Leverage Alliances Asymmetrically: The U.S. alliance network remains its greatest asymmetric advantage. This network must be leveraged not just for conventional military deterrence, but for gray zone competition. This includes building coalitions for coordinated cyber defense, developing joint strategies for economic security and supply chain resilience, and crafting unified diplomatic and informational campaigns to counter authoritarian narratives.

Future Trajectory of Conflict

The trends identified in this report are likely to accelerate and intensify. The proliferation of advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, will supercharge gray zone conflict. AI will enable the creation of hyper-personalized disinformation campaigns, deepfakes, and autonomous cyber weapons at a scale and speed that will overwhelm current defenses.⁵⁸ The ongoing fragmentation of the global economic and technological landscape will create more clearly defined blocs, turning the economic domain into an even more central and contentious battlefield. The gray zone is not a passing phase of international relations. It is the new, enduring reality of great power competition, a permanent battlespace where ambiguity is the weapon, attribution is the prize, and the contest for influence is constant.

---

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

---

Works cited

1. Gray Zone Project | CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/programs/gray-zone-project
2. Metaphors, Rules and War: Making Sense of Hybrid Threats and Grey Zone Conflict, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ejiltalk.org/metaphors-rules-and-war-making-sense-of-hybrid-threats-and-grey-zone-conflict/
3. Grey-zone (international relations) – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relations)
4. ‘Hybrid threats’, ‘grey zones’, ‘competition’, and ‘proxies’: When is it …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/01/16/hybrid-threats-grey-zones-competition-and-proxies-when-is-it-actually-war/
5. Hybrid Warfare: Aggression and Coercion in the Gray Zone | ASIL, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/21/issue/14/hybrid-warfare-aggression-and-coercion-gray-zone
6. “Hybrid Warfare: How to Escape the Conceptual Gray-Zone” by …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol17/iss1/1/
7. Russia’s hybrid war against the West – NATO Review, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html
8. China–United States trade war – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war
9. A Timeline of the U.S.-China Trade War During Trump’s Second Term – Time Magazine, accessed August 22, 2025, https://time.com/7292207/us-china-trade-war-trump-tariffs-timeline/
10. US-China Trade War | PIIE, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.piie.com/research/trade-investment/us-china-trade-war
11. Trade Wars: History, Pros & Cons, and U.S.-China Example – Investopedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade-war.asp
12. The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare – National Bureau of Economic Research, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25672/w25672.pdf
13. Five Economists Explain: Impacts of the U.S.-China Trade War – NCUSCR, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ncuscr.org/podcast/economists-explain-trade-war/
14. The global costs of the US-China tariff war are mounting. And the worst may be yet to come – Down To Earth, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/economy/the-global-costs-of-the-us-china-tariff-war-are-mounting-and-the-worst-may-be-yet-to-come
15. Four years into the trade war, are the US and China decoupling? | PIIE, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2022/four-years-trade-war-are-us-and-china-decoupling
16. The New U.S.-China Trade War: Strategic Motives, Domestic Consequences, and Global Ramifications | Beyond the Horizon ISSG, accessed August 22, 2025, https://behorizon.org/the-new-u-s-china-trade-war-strategic-motives-domestic-consequences-and-global-ramifications/
17. A Protracted U.S.-China Trade War Would Be a Gift to Moscow, accessed August 22, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/05/russia-china-trade-wars-opportunities?lang=en
18. Trade War – CEPR, accessed August 22, 2025, https://cepr.org/system/files/publication-files/60137-trade_war_the_clash_of_economic_systems_threatening_global_prosperity.pdf
19. The Economic Impact of Russia Sanctions – Congress.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12092
20. How Sanctions Have Reshaped Russia’s Future – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-sanctions-have-reshaped-russias-future
21. Three Years of War in Ukraine: Are Sanctions Against Russia Making a Difference?, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/three-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference
22. Sanctions effectiveness: what lessons three years into the war on Ukraine?, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.economicsobservatory.com/sanctions-effectiveness-what-lessons-three-years-into-the-war-on-ukraine
23. US sanctions against Russia – Brookings Institution, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/collection/us-sanctions-against-russia/
24. Sanctions and Russia’s War: Limiting Putin’s Capabilities | U.S. Department of the Treasury, accessed August 22, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/sanctions-and-russias-war-limiting-putins-capabilities
25. Ukraine Is Now a Proxy War for Asian Powers – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/11/ukraine-is-now-a-proxy-war-for-asian-powers.html
26. How the Latest Sanctions Will Impact Russia—and the World …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/06/finance-sanctions-russia-currency?lang=en
27. Debunking the Myth of ‘Debt-trap Diplomacy’ | 4. Sri Lanka and the BRI, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy/4-sri-lanka-and-bri
28. China’s Debt-Trap Diplomacy in Central Asia – CACI Analyst, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13823-chinas-debt-trap-diplomacy-in-central-asia.html
29. Full article: Chinese debt trap diplomacy: reality or myth? – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19480881.2023.2195280
30. Debt Distress on the Road to “Belt and Road” – Wilson Center, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/debt-distress-road-belt-and-road
31. Belt and Road Initiative – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
32. Democratic National Committee cyber attacks – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks
33. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
34. Cyber Clash with China (NSC) | CFR Education – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed August 22, 2025, https://education.cfr.org/learn/simulation/cyber-clash-china-nsc/background
35. CrowdStrike Chaos Highlights Key Cyber Vulnerabilities with Software Updates | U.S. GAO, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/blog/crowdstrike-chaos-highlights-key-cyber-vulnerabilities-software-updates
36. Russian Cyber Threats to U.S. Critical Infrastructure – SecuLore, accessed August 22, 2025, https://seculore.com/resources/russian-cyber-threats-to-u-s-critical-infrastructure/
37. Russian Cyber Information Warfare – Marine Corps University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-12-no-1/Russian-Cyber-Information-Warfare/
38. Russia Threat Overview and Advisories | CISA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/russia
39. Russia State-Sponsored Cyber Threat: Advisories – CISA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nation-state-cyber-actors/russia/publications
40. Russian Military Cyber Actors Target US and Global Critical Infrastructure – CISA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa24-249a
41. Russian Military Cyber Actors Target U.S. and Global Critical Infrastructure – Department of Defense, accessed August 22, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/05/2003537870/-1/-1/0/CSA-Russian-Military-Cyber-Target-US-Global-CI.PDF
42. Cyberwarfare and China – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_China
43. A Discussion on the Defense Department’s 2024 China Military Power Report – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/discussion-defense-departments-2024-china-military-power-report
44. Significant Cyber Incidents | Strategic Technologies Program | CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/significant-cyber-incidents
45. Cyberwarfare and the United States – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_the_United_States
46. CYBER THREATS FROM CHINA, RUSSIA, AND IRAN: PROTECTING AMERICAN CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE | Congress.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC801/text
47. Russia’s Shadow War Against the West – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west
48. Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident – DNI.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
49. Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election – Department of Justice, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl?inline=
50. Fact Sheet: What We Know about Russia’s Interference Operations – German Marshall Fund, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.gmfus.org/news/fact-sheet-what-we-know-about-russias-interference-operations
51. The IRA and Political Polarization in the United States – DemTech, accessed August 22, 2025, https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/posts/the-ira-and-political-polarization-in-the-united-states/
52. New Evidence Shows How Russia’s Election Interference Has Gotten More Brazen, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-evidence-shows-how-russias-election-interference-has-gotten-more
53. What’s Old Is New Again: Cold War Lessons for Countering Disinformation, accessed August 22, 2025, https://tnsr.org/2022/09/whats-old-is-new-again-cold-war-lessons-for-countering-disinformation/
54. To Win without Fighting – Marine Corps University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/Expeditions-with-MCUP-digital-journal/To-Win-without-Fighting/
55. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces – Air University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/
56. CHINESE DISCOURSE POWER: AMBITIONS AND REALITY IN THE DIGITAL DOMAIN – Atlantic Council, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Chinese-Discourse-Power-Ambitions-and-Reality-in-the-Digital-Domain.pdf
57. Asked and Answered: China’s Strategy of Political Warfare – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/asked-and-answered-chinas-strategy-political-warfare
58. Chinese information operations and information warfare – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_information_operations_and_information_warfare
59. Sino-Russian Convergence in Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference: A Global Threat to the US and Its Allies – CEPA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sino-russian-convergence-in-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference/
60. United States Agency for Global Media – U.S. Government Manual, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/Agency?EntityId=oPpn5fYQYfM=&ParentEId=+klubNxgV0o=&EType=jY3M4CTKVHY=
61. United States Agency for Global Media – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Global_Media
62. U.S. Agency for Global Media: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46968
63. Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
64. Russia’s Strategic Success in Syria and the Future of Moscow’s Middle East Policy, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/russias-strategic-success-syria-and-future-moscows-middle-east-policy
65. China’s Role in the Middle East, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/events/chinas-role-middle-east
66. China’s Evolving Stance on Syria – Middle East Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/chinas-evolving-stance-syria
67. The potential and limitations of Russia-China cooperation in the Middle East, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/potential-and-limitations-russia-china-cooperation-middle-east
68. US ambassador: China believes it is waging a proxy war through Russia – Atlantic Council, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/us-ambassador-china-believes-it-is-waging-a-proxy-war-through-russia/
69. What Has China’s Lawfare Achieved in the South China Sea? – ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ISEAS_Perspective_2023_51.pdf
70. Lawfare: China’s new gambit for global power – Universidad de Navarra, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.unav.edu/web/global-affairs/lawfare-china-s-new-gambit-for-global-power
71. 2023/51 “What Has China’s Lawfare Achieved in the South China Sea?” by Christian Schultheiss – ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2023-51-what-has-chinas-lawfare-achieved-in-the-south-china-sea-by-christian-schultheiss/
72. Chinese Lawfare in the South China Sea | Journal of Political Risk, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.jpolrisk.com/chinese-lawfare-in-the-south-china-sea-a-threat-to-global-interdependence-and-regional-stability/
73. Hybrid warfare – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare
74. The Changing Face of Conflict: What is Hybrid Warfare? – Global Security Review, accessed August 22, 2025, https://globalsecurityreview.com/hybrid-and-non-linear-warfare-systematically-erases-the-divide-between-war-peace/
75. Russia is Winning the Global Information War | Royal United Services Institute – RUSI, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russia-winning-global-information-war
76. how the US, China, and Russia are using artificial intelligence in their information warfare and influence operations – ResearchGate, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378764079_Artificial_intelligence_and_information_warfare_in_major_power_states_how_the_US_China_and_Russia_are_using_artificial_intelligence_in_their_information_warfare_and_influence_operations