How do you define the concept of Hybrid Warfare and Lawfare?

Lawrence Friedman is correct. Hybrid Warfare is merely a "grand strategy" implemented across all domains, including diplomatic, economic, and other institutional policies within its bounds. Traditional warfare is conducted only by purely military institutions, and partially or generally ignores the efficiencies potentially gained by having a unified grand strategy (one that is INCLUSIVE of non-military dimensions). Lawfare is simply the aggressive use of legal actions to promote such a grand strategy. Similar to the word propaganda, which was once honorable before Nazi Foreign Minister Goebbles gave it a bad name, legal proceedings can in theory be ethical. But as generally practiced today, it is as focused as anything Goebbles did. In both cases, the missing element is ethics. Goebbles used principles like "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." Lawfare in practice is more or less a narrowly focused application of the same principle: IF it advances the ends of an imperial power (e.g. the USSR, or PRC) OR IF it advances the ends of a political movement (the hard left bent on insuring total economic control by national and international institutions).

Hybrid warfare is only a different nomenclature. The concepts of national war', total war ' and ' nation in arms ' with the ' concept of mass army ' from the time of nepolian , jomini , clausewitzs , liddle hart war had gain both military and non military measures .

Absolutely correct, Dr. Singh!

The concept of "hybrid warfare" I think is about the military application of assets or actions that are not explicitly or traditionally military, e.g. armed and un-uniformed gangs; information disruption. Think of the opposite: Tanks and artillery banging away at each other on a flat plain. (Feel free to embellish!)

In Chinese, the idea is literally translated as "go beyond the limit war." Now more often simplified as "unlimited war." Two Senior Colonels wrote a book of that title a generation ago. It means that "in a war, one is not limited to the traditional instrumentalities of military institutions - rather one should use all means to weaken the enemy because of the synergistic effects." They think that includes trying to discourage the enemy population, and to encourage the home population. Everything counts. But this idea was at least theoretically included in the definition of "grand strategy" - which includes ALL measures possible - military and civilian. Because, it is assumed, there are synergistic effects as opposed to non-unified, purely military strategy, where some things one's nation does are counter-productive to the military effort. This idea is not popular in most countries. It has no room for personal freedom. Everyone would be constrained by a grand strategy.

I suspect you'll get as many definitions as replies on what hybrid warfare means to researchers. Frank Hoffmann coined the term in the current lexicon in 2008, though he was at pains to point out that the concepts involved are nothing new. NATO adopted it in 2014 to describe what Russia was doing to Ukraine (and perhaps to explain why the Alliance had been caught so unawares). As Lawrence Trevathan so rightly points out above, the 'western' view or definition may have nothing to do with the strategy as seen from the viewpoint of those alleged to be conducting it; you might get a different perspective Andrew Monaghan's work, where he suggests that the term 'hybrid' in Russian thinking describes how the 'west' has been exploiting those levers of power to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states to the point where there is an 'Arab Spring' or a 'colour revolution'. Mark Galeotti also considers the origin of the term in the western parlance in the context of emerging Russian doctrine. A very recent RAND report 'Modern Political Warfare' is probably as objective a study of the concept as I have seen.

Andy Corbett makes a fine and informed comment. It isn't like there is some sort of consensus, or likely to be one. I study PRC and find these ideas very consistent with the authors of one of their more famous books - yet that is not usually considered to be the same as Russian or Western ideas. Whatever you write, it is unlikely to be come a universal framework for strategic thinking. But a survey of the different national perspectives might be useful to students of strategy. More or less as we are doing here.