"Grey zone" is a term used everywhere : security studies, geopolitics, hybrid warfare, corporate strategy. But it has never been rigorously defined.
The Grey Zone is the first systematic conceptualization of this concept.
Not just a geopolitical doctrine.
Not just "the space between war and peace."
The Grey Zone is a structural definition of how power operates across all domains: geopolitical, organizational, interpersonal, psychological.
A way to recognize a specific configuration of power, and to act inside it without being played by it.
Everything you need to know about the Grey Zone is in the Protocol.
The problem with existing definitions
Most “grey zone” definitions are descriptive:
- "Actions below the threshold of war"
- "Ambiguous operations without clear attribution"
- "Hybrid warfare tactics"
These describe symptoms, not the structure.
They describe what it looks like in geopolitics, not what it is, why it exists, how it works, and why the same structure appears in companies, relationships, and the mind.
My work provides the structure.
The rigorous definition
The Grey Zone is a systems-based model of power in complex environments. It draws on complexity theory, systems dynamics, and cognitive science to describe how influence behaves when political, legal, and informational systems become fragmented, non-linear, and interdependent.
In this configuration, actors seek strategic advantage by operating between established categories (war and peace, legal and illegal, public and covert etc) in order to avoid attribution and block conventional response.
A situation is a Grey Zone situation only when five conditions are simultaneously present:
1. Liminality: the action sits between recognized categories (legal/illegal, war/peace, public/covert, internal/external).
2. Strategic ambiguity: uncertainty is produced on purpose (about intent, facts, rules, roles, or meaning).
3. Non-attribution: no actor can be publicly and definitively held responsible.
4. Cognitive targeting: the primary objective is to shape perception, decision-making, legitimacy, or coherence not just to destroy assets
5. Multi-vectorial: several levers are activated at once (narrative, legal, economic, cyber, diplomatic, organizational, social...).
All five present? You're in the Grey Zone.
If one is missing, you’re in something else.
Four domains of application:
The same geometry that operates in geopolitics operates at every scale.
- Geopolitical: proxy conflicts, cyber ops, coercion, deniable influence
- Organizational: Internal power plays, restructuring, sabotage
- Interpersonal: Manipulation, gaslighting, undefined relationships
- Psychological: Cognitive dissonance, internal contradictions
The 3 axes of the Grey Zone
1. Ambiguity as a strategic resource
The Grey Zone operates by exploiting ambiguity with INTENTION. On the legal, political, moral, institutional realms! Ambiguity neutralizes resistance. Therefore, it's an excellent tool. It allows actors to move freely while others are stuck debating definitions.
2. Influence without attribution
In the Grey Zone, power hides its authorship. Actors shape decisions, narratives, and alliances without appearing anywhere officially. No flag. No title. No responsibility. It's about proximity, access, and deniability, not visibility or recognition.
3. The cognitive terrain as the primary battleground
The Grey Zone does not fight over resources or borders. It fights over PERCEPTION. It aims to frame, more than inform. It doesn't spread lies. It uses truth with timing and emotional leverage. It targets belief, fear, identity and not logic. The battlefield is the mind... and even more than that, the architecture of coherence itself, that defines what the mind accepts as real.
Why now? Why dominant?
The Grey Zone always existed. What changed is that it became the default mode of many strategic conflicts. There are a few reasons for this, and I explore this topic everyweek in the newsletter.
The three main reasons are :
1) The technological acceleration. Every new technology creates a legal vacuum. AI, cyber, biotech, crypto... regulation lags behind. By the time law arrives, actors who moved first have set the rules. The Grey Zone thrives in regulatory voids.
2) The fragmentation of reality. Information warfare isn't 20th-century propaganda (one state, one message, control of media). It's decentralized narrative warfare. Millions of actors. Bots. Influencers. Everyone pushing a version of reality.
Result: reality itself becomes contested. The Grey Zone thrives when there's no shared reality.
3) The institutional collapse. Trust in institutions (governments, media, science, churches) is at all-time lows (please refer to my Global Perception report). When there's no recognized authority, the Grey Zone becomes the default.
If you don't understand it, you operate blind.
You will search for clarity where ambiguity is the weapon. You will demand attribution where non-attribution IS the strategy. You will try to resolve contradictions that are designed to coexist and apply conventional frameworks to situations where they structurally fail.
How to navigate the Grey Zone
Three operational modes:
1. Survival mode
When you're targeted by Grey Zone operations:
- Recognize the structure (don't gaslight yourself)
- Don't demand clarity (it won't come)
- Operate in ambiguity without needing resolution
- Create your own attribution when none is given
2. Strategic mode
When you need to operate within Grey Zone and liminal environments:
- Understand the five criteria (know when you're in it)
- Use ambiguity strategically (when appropriate)
- Maintain operational security
- Design multi-vectorial interventions
3. Resistance mode
When you need to collapse Grey Zone operations:
- Force attribution (name what's happening)
- Demand categorization (force choice)
- Make ambiguity untenable
- Expose the structure
In-depth exploration
- The full conceptual architecture
- Learn to navigate the Grey Zone (protocols and courses)
- Read weekly analyses and case studies from the Grey Zone
- In the mind of a Grey Zone Operator (profiling)
Fundamentals corpus:
- Fluidity of power in the Grey Zone
- The Grey Zone and the Law (architecture of fraud)
- Grey Zone and triangulation
- Truth, power, and perception
- Perception shapes reality: the reflexivity theory by George Soros
- Cumulating "frames of references" or the ability to perceive reality from an infinite number of angles
- How to talk across frames: dialogue beyond worldviews
- How to answer the question behind the question
- How to develop an advanced perception
- Identity shifting: the art of shaping your reality
- Language in the Grey Zone and use of jargon (Karp)
Case studies
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
Oriane Cohen
For decision-makers
If you're operating in environments where:
- Threats are real but unattributable
- Adversaries operate without fingerprints
- Conventional responses are blocked by ambiguity
- You're being targeted but can't prove it
You're in the Grey Zone.
You can contact me.
Intellectual lineage
This conceptualization builds on but extends:
- Carl Schmitt (friend/enemy, exception, political theology)
- Victor Turner (liminality, ritual process)
- Gregory Bateson (double bind, schismogenesis)
- Michel Foucault (microphysics of power)
- Hybrid warfare literature (Gerasimov, Hoffman)
- Complexity science (emergence, non-linearity)
But synthesizes them into a unified, operational framework applicable across all domains.