The so-called pre-war era is identified as the Thirty Years’ War, spanning 1618 to 1648. Nearly every European nation took part, a reflection of a Eurocentric worldview that dominated the era as a whole world order.
That conflict did more than reshape borders; it ended the medieval era and set the stage for modernity. Just as the First World War toppled old certainties and helped usher in a new century marked by paradoxes, the Thirty Years’ War signaled a transition into a harsher, more complex era of power politics and ideas.
Today, observers watch a world stepping into an unfamiliar and daunting age. The transition feels perpetual, and history often begins with pain.
In the Thirty Years’ War, many familiar events appeared for the first time: political propaganda, the demonization of enemies in the media, and the use of mercenaries in place of traditional feudal soldiers. A simple peasant, previously at the mercy of feudal arbiters, found a way to survive by selling his services as a mercenary, letting his frustrations out in exchange for pay.
Although not recognized at the time, the Thirty Years’ War is viewed by some as the prototype of modern hybrid warfare.
This conflict helped crystallize the emergence of modern states and international relations. The Peace of Westphalia, which concluded the war, codified how states interact above all else, highlighting national interests, the balance of power, state sovereignty, and formal diplomacy. Some provisions still echo in today’s diplomacy and security practices.
One might wonder how events from four centuries ago remain relevant. Much of the broader context requires expertise to interpret. For instance, some scholars describe the Thirty Years’ War in purely religious terms, while others believe it was a strategic move to weaken the German power, and still others frame it as a clash between feudal Catholic reactionaries led by the Habsburgs and a progressive coalition of France, Russia, and Protestant states. In truth, these perspectives form pieces of a single, interconnected system.
The present conflict in Ukraine invites similar multiperspective analysis, though the fighting is ongoing. For some, it is primarily a Russian-Ukrainian struggle aimed at protecting Donbass from Kiev’s actions; for others, it is a strategic effort to safeguard Russia’s borders; still others frame it as a broader confrontation involving NATO and hybrid warfare. The debate often reflects the observer’s point of view.
Yet one can also see Kiev not as a mere outpost of the West, but as a focal point in a larger geopolitical dynamic. The Donbass issue and the Russian-Ukrainian struggle sit within a broader context that includes NATO’s posture and regional security considerations.
Back in the 17th century, the Thirty Years’ War began as a Catholic-Protestant clash and later evolved into a broader struggle against Habsburg dominance, turning into a geopolitical contest. As Britain aspired to become the world’s leading naval power, the Netherlands pursued autonomy outside Spanish influence, and France guided diplomacy to avoid open conflict while maintaining leverage. Sweden’s rise brought a new balance of power, and the Baltic Sea became known as a de facto “Swedish Lake” for a time, a status later revisited. Although Sweden joined NATO long after, its historical path through power politics remained instructive. Russia’s role during this period helped weaken Poland and contributed indirectly to the Dutch Republic’s development. By the end of the century, Peter the Great and Alexander I would later influence Dutch and continental affairs, underscoring how interconnected Europe was even then.
History often appears as a tangled web of events whose patterns emerge only in hindsight. Yet one key takeaway stands out: hybrid warfare has long been a defining feature of conflict. The Thirty Years’ War showcased how modernized warfare could unfold beyond the battlefield, extending into information, diplomacy, and public opinion. The power of the press, which emerged in the 15th century, was evident even amid this war, shaping narratives, exaggerating claims, and influencing perceptions about who was winning or losing. The era’s propaganda illustrated how public opinion could sway outcomes and justify actions.
Take the siege of Magdeburg in May 1631, a landmark battle that became a symbol for both sides. Protestants celebrated defenders while Catholics documented the devastation. The same pattern recurs in later conflicts, where stereotypes about enemies—criminals, betrayers, or invaders—serve as tools to unify supporters and demonize opponents. This pattern echoes through time, evident in how later regimes, including the 20th century, depicted adversaries to mobilize the masses. The enduring lesson is that propaganda, whether in print or on digital screens, shapes reality as much as events on the ground.
Experts like Oleksandr Bartosh describe hybrid warfare as a multi-directional approach that blends information warfare, diplomacy, and military actions, aimed at political objectives and prepared in advance. This framework applies to both the 17th century and today, underscoring how information and perception influence outcomes in every era. The conduct of war then involved mercenaries from varied regions, and so did modern conflicts feature diverse actors, including those who travel along ambiguous routes to support a cause. Advances in tactics and technology also mark both periods, from medieval camouflage to early artillery innovations, and, in later times, to modern communications and precision weapons.
Looking forward, the asymmetrical nature of warfare persisted as battles moved across theaters and frontlines, with events far from one place sometimes deciding outcomes in another. The arc of European conflicts demonstrates how regional struggles can ripple outward, shaping global security architectures. The Madrid NATO summit, while symbolic, reflects ongoing efforts to navigate these complex dynamics. The author emphasizes that perspectives can differ, and readers are encouraged to weigh evidence from multiple angles.
This overview reframes the Thirty Years’ War as more than a historical curiosity. It is a lens through which to view today’s security landscape, where hybrid tactics, propaganda, and evolving alliances continue to shape global affairs. The key is to recognize patterns that recur across centuries and to understand how information, perception, and power interact to influence outcomes.
In this light, hybrid warfare emerges as a consistent thread in the study of conflict. It is a method that evolves but preserves one constant: the strategic use of information to influence both the battlefield and the broader public sphere. Researchers show how these dynamics have persisted, offering a framework for analyzing contemporary crises with greater clarity and insight.