Executive summary:
The United States is dangerously vulnerable to gray zone warfare, with adversaries exploiting systemic weaknesses across economic, technological, and social domains. This article articulates our vulnerabilities across diverse attack vectors and outlines a unified framework for reform across technology, policy, organizational structure, and workforce development. A clear doctrine of deterrence, combined with these structural changes, will help to protect U.S. interests and secure national resilience.
This framework emphasizes rapid adaptation to meet the ever-evolving nature of gray zone tactics and highlights the critical role of collaboration across government and industry.
Talbot West, with its Cognitive Hive AI (CHAI) architecture, offers a modular, scalable AI solution to support detection and response capabilities in this complex threat landscape.
To explore how strategic AI solutions like CHAI can strengthen gray zone defenses, we invite defense leaders and industry stakeholders to engage with Talbot West as implementation partners in this crucial effort.
In the last decade, adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have intensified their use of gray zone tactics to undercut U.S. security and influence. Operating deliberately below the threshold of armed conflict, these nations exploit gaps in U.S. defenses that were built around traditional warfare.
By using a mix of cyber intrusions, influence operations, economic pressure, and proxy engagements, they advance their strategic objectives without risking open confrontation. As a result, U.S. power is gradually eroding across critical domains—technology, infrastructure, societal cohesion, and geopolitical standing—while American responses remain fragmented and reactive.
Each adversary leverages different attack vectors and gray zone tactics to achieve low-cost, high-impact victories at the expense of U.S. national security:
Each success of these adversaries signals the growing consequences of the United States’ inadequate gray zone defenses. The costs are substantial and mounting across multiple dimensions:
Gray zone warfare exploits critical gaps in U.S. defenses, gaps that cut across sectors and remain unaddressed by existing strategies. Adversaries capitalize on this fragmentation, combining economic, technological, and social tactics to degrade American power over time. Countering these threats requires a transformation of U.S. defenses into a coordinated, multi-domain strategy that can deter, detect, and counter gray zone aggression at its onset.
In short, the cost of inaction is no longer affordable. To protect U.S. interests, safeguard national resilience, and restore deterrence, the U.S. must act now with comprehensive, cross-domain reforms capable of facing the unique and persistent challenges of gray zone warfare.
This section highlights specific vulnerabilities that adversaries exploit through gray zone tactics, connecting each gap to examples of adversarial actions. By detailing weaknesses in governance, technology, law, and other areas, this assessment emphasizes the need for systemic reforms.
The U.S. national defense structure lacks streamlined command and control mechanisms, with overlapping authorities and fragmented decision-making among agencies. This structure creates bureaucratic friction, unclear response ownership, and delays in threat response.
Adversaries such as China and Russia exploit these inefficiencies through rapid, low-visibility operations that evade prompt responses. For example, Chinese cyber-espionage campaigns often fall between the jurisdictions of civilian law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies, delaying response and allowing adversaries to exploit U.S. bureaucratic gaps. These missed response windows provide adversaries with strategic advantages with minimal resistance.
Outdated monitoring capabilities and limited integration of artificial intelligence hinder effective threat detection. Current systems lack AI-driven pattern recognition and cross-domain data integration, both essential for identifying complex gray zone threats.
Current U.S. monitoring capabilities fall short in connecting data across multiple domains—cyber, economic, and social—leaving critical gaps in gray zone detection. This lack of cross-domain data fusion and limited integration of AI-driven analysis prevent defense agencies from seeing the full picture of sophisticated adversary campaigns.
For example, if cyber intrusions coincide with economic manipulation or disinformation campaigns, these connections often go unnoticed, allowing adversaries to capitalize on blind spots. The inability to fuse data across sectors delays detection and compromises timely responses to complex, coordinated threats.
Current U.S. legal frameworks, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), were crafted for traditional military and intelligence threats. These laws lack flexibility for hybrid tactics that mix cyber, economic, and influence operations, resulting in jurisdictional ambiguities and delayed responses.
Adversaries, notably Iran and North Korea, exploit these legal gaps to conduct cyber sabotage and covert financing without triggering adequate responses. These legal blind spots provide adversaries with unregulated pathways to carry out sub-threshold aggression, underscoring the need for updated regulatory frameworks that allow for rapid and effective gray zone responses.
The absence of a clear and actionable deterrence framework for gray zone actions leaves adversaries perceiving these tactics as low-risk, inviting escalation in hybrid warfare tactics.
Without a robust deterrence doctrine, adversaries continue their gray zone campaigns, confident of minimal U.S. retaliation. Russia’s repeated disinformation operations and China’s systematic technology theft illustrate how adversaries operate under the assumption that the U.S. will not respond forcefully to sub-threshold provocations. Establishing a deterrence doctrine with clear consequences for specific actions is crucial to reducing the effectiveness of these gray zone tactics.
The gap between public and private sectors, along with bureaucratic defense acquisition processes, delays the integration of advanced technologies into defense applications. Bureaucratic hurdles and limited DoD-Silicon Valley collaboration prevent swift adoption of advanced capabilities, undermining gray zone readiness.
U.S. defense lags in adopting essential technologies like autonomous surveillance and quantum-resistant cybersecurity, allowing adversaries to gain a strategic edge. For example, China’s state-backed innovation strategy has enabled rapid advancements in AI and quantum computing, which now outpace the pace of U.S. defense tech adoption. Closing this gap is vital for maintaining a technological advantage in gray zone warfare.
The U.S. defense sector faces a shortage in cross-functional expertise, especially in skills critical to gray zone operations, such as cyber, economic, and influence warfare. Traditional silos, limited gray zone-specific training, and a lack of dedicated recruitment pipelines exacerbate this skills gap.
This shortage limits U.S. defense agility and the capacity to counter complex gray zone operations. The recent influence campaigns targeting U.S. elections highlighted a lack of expertise in social media and information operations, slowing response times and effectiveness. Establishing pipelines and training programs for cross-functional gray zone expertise is essential for strengthening national defense.
The U.S. is highly dependent on adversarial-controlled supply chains and critical resources, particularly in areas like rare earth elements, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals. These dependencies create exploitable economic vulnerabilities that adversaries leverage for strategic influence and coercion.
Supply chain disruptions—whether through economic manipulation or cyber interference—expose U.S. infrastructure to significant risks. For instance, China’s control over rare earth elements presents a critical vulnerability, as demonstrated by its leverage during recent trade tensions. Strengthening supply chain resilience and reducing strategic dependencies are essential to safeguarding national security.
Adversaries exploit societal divides and information vulnerabilities to erode public trust in U.S. institutions. Disinformation campaigns, often amplified through social media, polarize society, degrade trust, and destabilize coordinated responses to gray zone threats.
Social fragmentation creates openings for adversaries to manipulate public opinion and undermine democratic processes, as evidenced by Russia’s election interference campaigns. These influence operations weaken national unity and trust in U.S. institutions, hampering collective resilience. Enhancing information security and building societal resilience are critical steps toward countering disinformation and reducing domestic vulnerabilities.
To effectively counter gray zone threats, the U.S. needs a coordinated, integrated approach to close critical gaps across governance, technology, legal frameworks, deterrence, and social and economic resilience.
As Dr. Gregory Bernard puts it, “we can’t just stay in our stovepiped approach to gray zone attacks,” because our adversaries certainly aren’t. Dr. Bernard is the Director of the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security and emphasizes that “what is needed to counter gray zone aggression is systems thinking” and a multidisciplinary approach.
Dr. Bernard’s sentiments are shared by many other stakeholders and scholars, who are sounding the alarm and pointing us to solutions. Let’s look at some specific initiatives that will set America on the right track.
To overcome fragmented authority and improve decision-making, the U.S. should establish a gray zone operations center within the National Security Council (NSC). This center would centralize coordination, streamline command structures, and enable rapid, cohesive responses to gray zone actions.
We recommend that the executive branch lead the establishment of this center, granting it the authority to unify command across the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and intelligence agencies. By consolidating these command functions, the NSC would reduce bureaucratic friction, clarify response ownership, and close gaps that adversaries currently exploit to bypass or delay U.S. defenses.
The U.S. must bridge the gap between cutting-edge private-sector innovation and defense application to ensure timely access to advanced technologies. Accelerating technological adoption is essential to close vulnerabilities that adversaries exploit with faster tech cycles and state-backed R&D initiatives.
The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) should take an expanded role in driving technology adoption across defense agencies, streamlining acquisition processes and reducing delays in the transition from prototype to deployment. The technology sector can collaborate with DIU and the DoD on AI-driven threat detection and predictive analytics, enhancing cross-domain situational awareness and real-time response.
To advance preparedness against gray zone threats, U.S. defense agencies must leverage AI's predictive capabilities to anticipate adversary movements. By deploying AI systems capable of analyzing patterns in global data, defense agencies can proactively identify likely threat vectors and preempt adversarial moves. These systems should be configurable, explainable, and agile. They should enhance situational awareness by forecasting gray zone maneuvers before they materialize, offering a vital edge in disrupting adversary plans and mitigating threats in real time.
Congress can support the above initiatives by providing sustained funding for critical research and development in areas such as AI, quantum computing, and cybersecurity. To promote public-private collaboration, policymakers should incentivize partnerships, establish knowledge-sharing platforms, and protect intellectual property from foreign threats. The private sector can further aid these efforts by participating in rapid prototyping programs, fostering innovation pipelines, and ensuring timely transfer of capabilities into defense applications.
Outdated statutes like FISA constrain the U.S. ability to respond rapidly to hybrid threats. To provide flexibility for addressing cyber, economic, and hybrid domains, Congress should enact legislative reforms that extend FISA’s scope, clarify agency authorities, and streamline interagency collaboration. New legal pathways are necessary to counter gray zone tactics that currently evade traditional regulatory frameworks.
In tandem, the judiciary should work to uphold constitutional protections while supporting revised authorities for swift, proportionate responses to unconventional threats. These updates would close jurisdictional gaps and empower agencies to address gray zone activities across sectors, from cyber operations to economic coercion.
To deter gray zone tactics effectively, the U.S. needs a doctrine that clearly signals which behaviors are unacceptable, without specifying predetermined responses, thus preserving flexibility across the full spectrum of response options.
The executive branch should define clear boundaries for actions that will prompt a U.S. response, such as persistent cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, or covert economic manipulation. To support this doctrine, defense and intelligence agencies should invest in enhanced attribution technologies that strengthen the ability to detect and trace covert adversarial actions, even in complex, ambiguous scenarios.
Real-time attribution tools, powered by AI, can strengthen deterrence by removing the cover of plausible deniability often exploited by adversaries. By swiftly and accurately identifying the source of gray zone actions—including cyber intrusions, economic interference, or disinformation—defense agencies can ensure a timely and proportional response. This capability signals to adversaries that gray zone activities, even those shrouded in ambiguity, will be traced back to their origin, reducing adversarial reliance on covert tactics. AI-driven attribution enhances the credibility of deterrence by underscoring that any detected violation will incur a calibrated response.
A multidisciplinary workforce is essential to counter gray zone threats that cross conventional domains, from cyber and intelligence to economic security and influence operations. Educational institutions should partner with the DoD and intelligence agencies to create specialized curricula that equip the next generation of defense professionals with the skills needed for gray zone resilience. Cross-domain expertise in areas like cyber warfare, economic security, and disinformation would prepare them to counter the complex, hybrid tactics used by adversaries.
Congress can provide funding to expand recruitment, retention, and upskilling programs focused on gray zone competencies. In defense agencies, expanded multidisciplinary training would ensure that personnel are prepared to manage the demands of gray zone operations, bridging skill gaps that limit defense agility and effectiveness.
To counter economic vulnerabilities, the U.S. should reduce dependence on adversarial-controlled supply chains and bolster domestic production capacity for critical resources, such as semiconductors and rare earth elements. This approach would limit adversaries' ability to leverage economic pressure and secure essential supply lines.
The private sector should diversify supply sources and increase production capacity, particularly for strategic materials susceptible to manipulation. Congress can support this effort by providing targeted subsidies and incentives to strengthen U.S. manufacturing in critical industries, helping reduce reliance on foreign sources. State and local governments should also coordinate with federal agencies to protect critical infrastructure and collaborate on regional supply chain resilience efforts. Together, these measures would fortify economic stability, reducing exploitable dependencies.
Strengthening societal cohesion and public trust is crucial to counter adversarial influence operations that seek to polarize and destabilize American society. We recommend that the executive branch lead public awareness campaigns to educate citizens on the nature of gray zone threats and promote trust in democratic institutions. Transparency and proactive communication can build resilience against disinformation, helping communities recognize and resist efforts to divide and manipulate public sentiment.
Educational institutions should integrate media literacy, critical thinking, and resilience-focused content into curricula to reduce the impact of disinformation. Meanwhile, the private sector and civil society can engage in public education efforts that promote digital literacy, providing communities with the skills to discern credible information and protect against misinformation.
This roadmap details a phased approach to establishing a comprehensive gray zone defense, assigning responsibilities to specific stakeholders at each stage to ensure coordinated action. Each phase is designed to build on prior progress, moving from immediate structural reforms to long-term resilience and adaptation.
To quickly establish a cohesive gray zone response, the executive branch should lead the creation of a centralized gray zone operations center within the National Security Council (NSC). This center will unify command across the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and intelligence agencies, reducing fragmented decision-making and enabling rapid, coordinated responses. Centralizing this authority is essential to mitigating current bureaucratic delays and ensuring that the U.S. can respond swiftly to emergent gray zone activities.
In parallel, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), in collaboration with the technology sector, should deploy initial AI-enabled monitoring tools to improve threat detection capabilities across critical infrastructure. These foundational AI systems will focus on automated pattern recognition and cross-domain threat analysis, helping to detect complex gray zone tactics at an early stage and enabling faster responses. The executive branch should also implement rapid-response protocols across defense and intelligence agencies to establish pre-approved actions for common gray zone threats, streamlining authorization processes and minimizing delays.
Finally, to build societal resilience against adversarial disinformation, the executive branch should launch public awareness campaigns in collaboration with private sector and civil society organizations. These campaigns will educate the public on the nature of gray zone operations and their impact on national security, fostering societal cohesion and trust in institutions. By initiating this outreach early, the U.S. can build a foundation of public awareness and resilience that is essential for countering influence campaigns.
Building on the centralized command structure, AI capabilities, and rapid-response protocols established in Phase 1, the NSC should work with DIU, DoD, and DHS to expand AI-driven detection systems across all critical sectors. This expansion will incorporate more advanced AI capabilities for cross-domain threat recognition and real-time alerting, allowing for comprehensive situational awareness. In parallel, educational institutions should partner with defense agencies to develop gray zone-focused curricula, establishing pilot programs that address the unique skills required for gray zone defense, including cybersecurity, economic resilience, and influence operations.
Congress should also prioritize legislative reforms that update outdated statutes, such as FISA, to address the hybrid and multifaceted nature of gray zone threats. These reforms will clarify interagency authorities, reduce jurisdictional overlap, and ensure that U.S. law supports agile, multi-domain responses to adversarial tactics. Furthermore, the executive branch, with input from defense and intelligence agencies, should establish a flexible deterrence framework that outlines clear boundaries for adversarial actions, while preserving a range of response options across cyber, economic, and diplomatic domains. This doctrine will communicate that certain behaviors, even if obscured by plausible deniability, will prompt U.S. action, diminishing the appeal of gray zone tactics.
By the third phase, the U.S. should focus on fully integrating AI-enabled detection networks across all critical infrastructure, with real-time data sharing across federal, state, and private sector entities. These networks will enable seamless coordination and rapid responses to emerging threats, fostering a proactive defense posture. Concurrently, educational institutions and defense agencies should expand gray zone-specific training programs, building a sustainable pipeline of multidisciplinary talent to address ongoing and future gray zone challenges.
To secure supply chains and reduce economic vulnerabilities, Congress, working with the private sector, should implement policies that incentivize domestic production of critical resources like semiconductors and rare earth elements. State and local governments, in coordination with federal agencies, will play a key role in safeguarding regional infrastructure and strengthening supply chain security. Additionally, the NSC should oversee the development of public-private threat intelligence-sharing frameworks that standardize secure information exchanges across sectors, enhancing situational awareness and facilitating collaborative threat responses.
The final phase centers on achieving a proactive, anticipatory defense posture that can disrupt gray zone tactics before they escalate. The DoD and intelligence agencies should lead this transformation by fully operationalizing the deterrence doctrine, equipping rapid-response teams with the flexibility to act across domains in accordance with the established deterrent framework. This approach will reinforce that adversarial actions below the threshold of conflict will not go unchecked, even if attribution is initially ambiguous.
The NSC, DoD, and private sector should also establish an ongoing assessment and adaptation framework to continuously evaluate and refine gray zone defense measures. This framework would incorporate regular audits, scenario-based exercises, and feedback loops that allow tactics and strategies to evolve as adversaries adjust their methods. To sustain long-term economic resilience, the private sector, with support from Congress, should complete efforts to diversify and secure supply chains, ensuring the stability of critical industries and reducing dependencies on foreign resources susceptible to exploitation.
By following this phased roadmap, the U.S. can build a layered and adaptable defense against gray zone threats, ensuring that foundational improvements lead to long-term resilience. This approach aligns immediate priorities with future transformation, establishing a gray zone defense posture that is proactive, integrated, and equipped to counter adversaries’ evolving tactics.
To evaluate the effectiveness of gray zone defense reforms, the U.S. should implement clear, actionable metrics tied to each strategic objective. Success in this domain requires regular assessments that track progress, reveal gaps, and enable ongoing improvements. By establishing measurable benchmarks across deterrence, operational capabilities, economic resilience, and public trust, we can ensure that U.S. defenses remain agile and responsive to evolving gray zone tactics. Each metric is designed to support transparent evaluation, enhance accountability, and maintain momentum toward achieving a resilient defense posture.
The credibility of the U.S. deterrence doctrine will be gauged by observing reductions in adversarial gray zone activities and shifts in adversary behavior, indicating that threats have been disincentivized. Effective deterrence should lead to measurable decreases in cyber intrusions, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion efforts. In addition, improved attribution speeds and response times will signal that our deterrence mechanisms are not only visible but actionable. For each of these indicators, the National Security Council (NSC), in collaboration with the intelligence community, will monitor adversarial activities and analyze patterns to assess the impact of deterrent signals on reducing gray zone aggressions.
The strength of U.S. operational capabilities can be evaluated through metrics that track response speed, cross-domain coordination, and the effectiveness of public-private integration. Reducing the time between threat detection and response will demonstrate enhanced agility in addressing gray zone incidents, particularly cyber and economic threats. Success in operational coordination will also be measured by the frequency and quality of interagency collaborations, public-private information-sharing efficacy, and the performance of joint exercises. Regular evaluation reports produced by the NSC and the Department of Defense (DoD) should capture these metrics, ensuring that response systems are continuously adapted for high-tempo gray zone operations.
Building a resilient economic foundation against gray zone tactics requires robust tracking of indicators related to supply chain security, technology independence, and critical infrastructure stability. Success in this area will be measured by reductions in supply chain vulnerabilities, particularly in sectors dependent on foreign-controlled resources. Metrics will include the proportion of strategic materials sourced domestically or from secure allies, and the strength of protections for intellectual property, critical infrastructure, and sensitive technologies. The Department of Commerce, working with private industry and Congress, will be responsible for evaluating these metrics and reporting on improvements in economic resilience and resource security.
Success in workforce transformation will be determined by metrics that reflect progress in recruiting, training, and retaining gray zone defense talent. Indicators such as the number of personnel with cross-domain expertise, participation in gray zone-specific training programs, and retention rates in specialized roles will signal growth in the national defense talent pool. Defense agencies, in collaboration with educational institutions, will track workforce pipeline metrics and assess whether cross-functional teams are adequately staffed to meet gray zone challenges. Additionally, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) should track the impact of ongoing training and upskilling programs on operational readiness and adaptability.
To gauge progress in building societal resilience, the government will measure shifts in public awareness, media literacy, and trust in democratic institutions. This will include surveying public attitudes toward gray zone awareness campaigns and evaluating the effectiveness of media literacy programs in reducing susceptibility to disinformation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with support from educational institutions and civil society, should track social resilience metrics, including engagement in public education campaigns, levels of polarization, and trust in public institutions.
As gray zone tactics continue to evolve and adversaries exploit gaps in U.S. defenses, a coordinated, cross-domain approach is essential to safeguard national security and maintain strategic resilience. The vulnerabilities assessed here underscore the critical need for structural reforms across governance, technology, legal frameworks, and societal resilience. Each targeted solution outlined provides a roadmap for addressing specific weaknesses, enabling the U.S. to close exploitable gaps and establish credible deterrence against sub-threshold aggression.
The reforms we propose are not merely tactical but foundational, building the agility and adaptability required to stay ahead of hybrid threats. By investing in a comprehensive gray zone defense posture—from centralized command structures to resilient supply chains and public awareness—the U.S. can reduce adversaries’ opportunities to destabilize and coerce through ambiguity and deniability. Measuring progress through defined metrics will ensure that these initiatives remain effective, adaptive, and accountable.
However, success depends on the commitment of all stakeholders, including federal agencies, Congress, private industry, educational institutions, and civil society. Each entity has a distinct role to play, whether in funding critical infrastructure, advancing public-private partnerships, securing supply chains, or fostering a multidisciplinary workforce. Only through sustained, collaborative effort can the U.S. achieve the level of resilience and deterrence needed to counter modern gray zone threats.
The time to act is now. As adversaries rapidly adapt their strategies, so too must the U.S. defense posture evolve. By following this framework and embracing the required reforms, we can protect national interests, uphold democratic values, and preserve strategic stability in an increasingly contested world.
Talbot West is dedicated to strengthening American technological and military power via AI solutions that meet the demands of gray zone warfare. We understand that maintaining U.S. security and influence in today’s complex environment requires robust, adaptive capabilities across domains. Our Cognitive Hive AI (CHAI) architecture meets these needs, offering transparent, modular AI solutions that outmatch traditional, closed “black box” systems.
CHAI enables U.S. defense and intelligence agencies to deploy real-time, cross-domain insights, equipping them to stay agile, responsive, and proactive against hybrid threats. At Talbot West, we’re committed to leading in the gray zone, empowering our partners to protect national interests and uphold U.S. resilience on the global stage. If you’d like to explore a CHAI deployment or other type of AI implementation to counter gray zone tactics, contact us today.
Gray zone tactics have been used for centuries but have evolved with technology. Historic examples include Cold War espionage and economic coercion seen in oil embargoes. Modern examples are more technology-driven, such as cyber intrusions, state-backed media influence campaigns, and covert economic manipulation like China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Gray zone warfare encompasses a wide range of tactics, only some of which involve cyber operations. Cyber warfare focuses specifically on digital attacks, often with clear aims like data theft or system disruption. Gray zone warfare, by contrast, includes economic pressure, disinformation, and influence operations, aiming to create ambiguity and destabilization without direct confrontation.
International laws largely focus on clear-cut acts of war, and gray zone tactics often exploit the gaps between these laws. For example, economic coercion and covert influence campaigns often fall below the threshold of traditional conflict and remain legally ambiguous. International bodies like the United Nations have begun discussing norms for cyberspace and economic security, but binding agreements are rare, and enforcement is inconsistent.
Public-private partnerships are essential because many assets targeted in gray zone operations—like critical infrastructure, technology, and data—are privately owned. These partnerships enable information sharing, secure supply chains, and a unified response to threats. Involving private entities ensures comprehensive protection across sectors and increases resilience by pooling resources and expertise.
Allied nations are often prime targets for gray zone tactics that seek to weaken U.S.-aligned coalitions. The U.S. can support allies by coordinating intelligence-sharing on shared threats, offering technical support for cyber defenses, and providing resources to strengthen economic resilience. Strengthening alliances increases collective security and makes it harder for adversaries to target any one nation effectively.
Ordinary citizens are often the targets of disinformation campaigns and influence operations. To protect against these tactics, individuals can improve media literacy, critically assess sources of information, and remain skeptical of emotionally charged or sensationalized content. Educational initiatives in digital literacy and critical thinking can empower citizens to recognize and resist manipulation.
AI is a powerful tool in gray zone defense, helping to monitor large-scale data for early signs of disinformation, cyber intrusions, and economic manipulations. By using AI to detect patterns and irregularities, defense agencies can better anticipate and respond to adversarial tactics. However, implementing AI at scale presents challenges in data security, privacy, and interagency coordination.
Gray zone warfare blurs the lines between peace and conflict, rendering traditional doctrines, which often separate wartime and peacetime strategies, less effective. Military doctrines traditionally focus on clear, identifiable threats, whereas gray zone tactics create ambiguity. Defense strategies must now adapt to incorporate cyber, economic, and social dimensions, making cross-domain coordination essential.
Gray zone resilience can strengthen economic security by protecting critical supply chains, intellectual property, and financial infrastructure. Reducing dependence on foreign-controlled resources and improving supply chain security can prevent economic manipulation. Economic resilience ensures that critical industries can withstand external pressures and operate independently of adversarial influence.
If left unchallenged, gray zone tactics can lead to sustained erosion of U.S. influence, weakened alliances, and compromised national security. Long-term effects include economic instability, social division, and a decreased ability to deter traditional military conflicts. Over time, failing to address gray zone threats risks diminishing the U.S.'s global leadership and undermining democratic values worldwide.
Talbot West bridges the gap between AI developers and the average executive who's swamped by the rapidity of change. You don't need to be up to speed with RAG, know how to write an AI corporate governance framework, or be able to explain transformer architecture. That's what Talbot West is for.
