Russia’s fear of Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization catalyzed the current conflict in Ukraine. The invasion also alarmed other countries, such as Finland and Sweden, who have themselves considered a formal partnership with NATO. Russia’s actions to date have created massive instability and political tensions that uniquely influence the health and socio-political life of civilians in Ukraine and the entire region. The direct and indirect threats of war “gone regional,” “global”, or “nuclear” have energized these countries and their historical alliances to reassess their own socio-political, environmental, and health-care consequences. All countries of the region have clear histories of forced occupation and decades of threats resulting from World War II and its aftermath. The purpose of this rapid communication is 2-fold. First, it discusses the socio-political and health-care consequences of the ongoing Ukrainian conflict in Finland, Russia, Sweden, Poland, and Ukraine. Second, it clarifies the most essential elements of the Hybrid War which cause uniquely distinctive violations of humanitarian laws, treaties, and conventions.

There are several reasons why war occurs. The most lethal wars are those caused by 1 man’s decisions solely driven by an obsessive need for power. With disregard for International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Convention, these wars, referred to as hybrid warfare, purposefully target civilians directly resulting in millions of deaths, injuries, mass migration, and other severe global and public health consequences. The purpose of this commentary is to investigate the developmental nature of those decision-makers and the consequences of their acts of aggression both locally and globally. There is a clear relationship between the psychological developments of individuals with narcissistic and psychopathological disorders and the implications of an abnormal progression of these individuals and their obsessive desire for singular leadership, which seriously impacts health-care security and its essential elements provided by international humanitarian law and Geneva Convention. Current double standards of the West allow narcissistic sociopaths and autocratic leaders to neglect international law, especially the so-called international humanitarian law. This double standard must be ceased and replaced by an international investigative system with universal standards, a special tribunal covering hybrid war crimes as well as the crime of aggression, and to prevent future leaders from choosing the same strategies.

Concerns over disinformation have intensified in recent years. Policymakers, pundits, and observers worry that countries like Russia are spreading false narratives and disseminating rumours in order to shape international opinion and, by extension, government policies to their liking. Despite the importance of this topic, mainstream theories in International Relations offer contradictory guidance on how to think about disinformation. I argue that disinformation is ineffective in terms of changing the policies of a target as regards to its foreign policy alignments and armaments – that is, the balance of power. To be strategically effective, disinformation must somehow overcome three powerful obstacles: first, the fundamental uncertainty that international anarchy generates over any information broadcasted by adversaries; second, the pre-existing prejudices of foreign policy elites and ordinary citizens; and third, the countermeasures that are available even amid political polarisation. I examine the most likely case of there seemingly being a conscious and effective strategy that emphasises disinformation: the Russian campaign that has targeted the Baltic states, especially since the 2014 annexation of Crimea. The available evidence strongly suggests that the strategic effects of disinformation are exaggerated.