War Without Borders: The Ontological Shift in Modern Warfare

The concept of war has evolved not only on the battlefield but also within the realms of technology, politics, and thought throughout history. From ancient times and medieval siege techniques to the World Wars, from the nuclear deterrence doctrines of the Cold War to the post-9/11 geopolitical landscape, both the actors and objectives of war have undergone significant transformation.
Today, however, this evolution reveals that it is not merely the instruments of war that are changing — the very nature of war itself is undergoing a profound transformation. Contemporary warfare is no longer a struggle confined to traditional frontlines, tanks, artillery, and rifles. It has become a multidimensional cognitive operation, shaped in data centres, on screens, through algorithms, and within the collective subconscious of societies. This transformation demands a fundamental redefinition not only in military terms, but also in core concepts such as sovereignty, legitimacy, truth, and resistance.
Concepts like network-centric warfare, hybrid warfare, fifth-generation warfare, and cognitive warfare indicate that modern conflict is now waged not through physical supremacy alone, but through dominance in information, data, narrative, and initiative. These new forms of warfare unfold in a landscape where non-state actors, tech companies, artificial intelligence algorithms, and digital infrastructure providers have become influential players. Crucially, the primary target of warfare has increasingly become the human mind, public perception, and collective memory (Krishnan, 2022).
In this context, the Russia–Ukraine war and Israel’s military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran provide striking examples for understanding the evolving nature of modern warfare. These cases, shaped by technological evolution, tactical shifts, alliance structures, and propaganda battles, vividly reflect the on-the-ground implications of new security paradigms.
Understanding the role of ontological security in shaping decision-making processes among both state and non- state actors remains a vital yet underexplored avenue in conflict studies. Ontological security—the need to maintain a consistent sense of self and stable narrative identity—has often been sidelined in favour of more materialist or strategic accounts of war. However, as this paper argues, the erosion of normative boundaries and the rise of identity-driven conflict call for a deeper engagement with this concept (Mitzen, 2006).
Future research should focus on how actors’ pursuit of ontological security influences their engagement with violence, especially in asymmetrical and hybrid warfare environments. For example, non-state armed groups frequently invoke historical grievances and collective trauma to justify their actions and mobilise support. These narratives serve not only strategic objectives but also existential needs, offering members a coherent identity in the face of marginalisation or perceived erasure. Similarly, states may embark on risky or escalatory behaviour not solely for territorial gains but to reaffirm national narratives under threat (Mitzen, 2006; Steele, 2008; Kinnvall, 2004).
To this end, interdisciplinary methodologies that draw from political psychology, narrative analysis, and international relations theory are required. Empirical case studies—particularly those involving groups in prolonged identity-based conflicts (e.g., Hezbollah, the PKK, or Houthi rebels)—could shed light on how ontological insecurity motivates behaviours that might otherwise appear irrational through a purely strategic lens.
By clarifying the psychological and narrative underpinnings of conflict behaviour, such research could contribute to the design of more effective diplomacy and conflict resolution frameworks. Understanding the “why” behind seemingly entrenched violence could, ultimately, enable more empathetic and context-sensitive policy interventions, particularly in post-conflict or transitional settings.
This discussion paper aims to examine the transformation of warfare not merely through technical developments or operational tactics, but also at conceptual, political, and epistemological levels. In this new era of warfare— where data, perception, and strategic autonomy have become decisive—the ways in which global actors adapt, and the directions in which security doctrines, defence industries, and cognitive capacities are evolving, will be analysed as integral components of this transformation.