Growing threats to cultural heritage in conflict and peacetime

Intentional attacks, collateral damage, theft, and sabotage – cultural heritage faces a wide array of threats, both in armed conflicts and during peacetime. To protect these invaluable assets, there is a need for a more integrated approach—one that addresses both traditional military threats and the increasing risks posed by hybrid warfare tactics.

While physical destruction remain a threat, a new report by researchers Anna McWilliams and Sofia Olsson, highlights the rise of hybrid threats—combining conventional warfare with methods such as misinformation, cyberattacks, and economic sabotage. A broader, collaborative response involving military, cultural, and political sectors is essential to safeguarding cultural heritage, say McWilliams and Olsson.

“Physical protection of heritage remains critical in times of war,” McWilliams notes. “But as the threat landscape evolves, we must also recognise that hybrid threats—whether through digital attacks, propaganda, or economic warfare—are now just as dangerous, if not more so.”

After the end of the Cold War, the protection of cultural heritage was primarily viewed through the lens of national disasters or accidents. However, recent geopolitical events, including Russia's military actions in Georgia (2008), the illegal annexation of Crimea (2014), and the ongoing war in Ukraine, have shifted this perspective, emphasising the importance of addressing both traditional military threats and new forms of hybrid warfare.

Attacks on cultural heritage often serve multiple purposes. They can be attempts to erase historical evidence that challenges a particular narrative, create fear or confusion among populations, or deny access to knowledge connected to the targeted heritage. These actions are frequently aimed at undermining a nation’s or peoples’ identity and destabilising affected communities, which makes protecting heritage sites even more critical.

“By fostering international dialogue and innovative strategies, we can build better resilience for our heritage,” McWilliams explains. “Combining expertise from various fields will not only benefit the heritage sector but will also strengthen defences against the broader threat of hybrid warfare.”

The study stresses the need for collaboration to develop effective responses to both traditional and hybrid threats to cultural heritage, particularly within Europe and NATO. As the threat environment grows more complex, McWilliams and Olsson argue that the ability to mitigate these risks must be significantly improved to ensure the protection of cultural assets in the face of evolving geopolitical tensions.