I mentioned the book “Russian ‘Hybrid Warfare’ and the Annexation of Crimea” by Kent DeBenedictis in at least one recent post. I have since added the book to my list of indispensable, essential reading for understanding Russia, its actions over the years, the Soviet Union, and the history and meaning of Russian hybrid warfare. I have only just started digesting the book- it has so much information, leading to so many other sources and required reads (some of which I list below,) that it will take me some time to get through the entire thread.
In summary DeBenedictis explains hybrid warfare, (aka, new-generation warfare, non-linear warfare, or indirect warfare- used interchangeably but certainly with nuanced differences if the terms were deconstructed) as nothing new. Rather it is a rebranding, and adaptation for the 21st century of Soviet counter-revolution theory, used throughout Soviet history to confront its enemies. For analysis of Crimea, the author uses the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979 for comparison, offers an assessment of operational and tactical aspects of modern, hybrid warfare compared to “classical” soviet political warfare, that is Soviet counter-revolution theory as opposed to today’s Russian color revolution theory, and applies and contrasts both models.
For a deeper look at new-generation war/ hybrid warfare and the origins of color revolution theory, see the following sources, which include the writings of top Russian military leaders:
At the NATO Defense College publications page there are countless downloadable PDF’s; see specifically “Handbook of Russian Information Warfare” by Keir Giles, from November, 2016. It provides an introduction to Russia’s assault on information space, how they categorise information warfare, how their definitions and acceptability of targets differ from those of NATO and the west, and how the west is currently and has long-been under such an attack. A useful term from the monograph is “perception management,” an age old practice of course, but one that I tend to reiterate and force in every blog I write; it is nothing short the ongoing process of narrative creation, of Orwellian “mobile truth.” Again, beware any “information” coming out of Russia posing as news.
Also see General of the Army Gerasimov’s article from the Russian journal Military-Industrial Kurier, 27 February 2013- The Value of Science Is in the Foresight (translated and published by Robert Coalson of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), reprinted in the U.S. Army’s Military Review, January-February 2016.
For and analysis and interpretation of Gerasimov’s article, see “Getting Gerasimov Right”, by Charles K. Bartles, also from the U.S. Army’s Military Review, January-February 2016.
Finally, there is “The Nature and Content of a New-Generation War” by Chekinov and Bogdanov, cited by DeBenedictis and others as another source for Russia’s doctrine of new-generation war.
Update on Russian combat losses- another 1010 invaders killed yesterday, with a total fast approaching 150,000 dead. An Aljazeera report states the fully 30,000 of those deaths were Wagner “mercenaries,” with 90% of those casualties being released convicts.
Russian combat losses as of 18 February, 2023
And to end this post on a lighter note, comedic at this point, but also a disturbing in its clarity and applicability, I turn to the past. On the horizon: economic confusion, political instability, chaos, and no more Pizza Hut.
Ukraine Updates and Recommended Reading
5 February 2023
Update for today- mostly links to background and current reports, all of which I consider pertinent for developing a solid view of the war in Ukraine, of Russia’s capabilities, tactics, and probable courses of action, and an understanding of Russia’s overall threat against freedom and democracy worldwide.
There is hope in Belarus, where they are still not following Putin’s doctrine to the letter, and may well act to thwart his plans- from 29 January, 2023, from the RFERL website, “Amid Worries Over Russian Forces In Belarus, Former Security Officer Says Belarusian Conscripts Won’t Fight.”
From the RAND website, from March, 2017, see the testimony to the House Armed Services Committee: Understanding Russian “Hybrid Warfare” And What Can Be Done About It by Christopher S. Chivvis. This testimony, though it is from 2017 and as such its predictions and warnings have become history, is worth the time to read.
The testimony notes Russia’s goals in their hybrid war as creating division in and weakening NATO, subversion of pro-western and democratic governments, the creation of pretexts for war, and to justify the annexation of territory as a few of those goals. It covers briefly the development of Russia’s hybrid, non-military toolbox, growing out of the “traditional” espionage and subversion used by the USSR. It stresses the importance of countering Russia’s threats in the information realm- specifically in the media and news, on social media, and the internet in general, along with strengthening of governments’ cyber security and enhancing collection and sharing of intelligence among European, EU, and allied nations as key in the fight against the Russian threat.
Continuing in that realm, from the Army University Press website, September-October 2020, see “Russian New Generation Warfare Deterring and Winning the Tactical Fight” by James Derleth, PhD.
For a quick, two-page introduction to Russian Military Doctrine from August, 2020, see “Russian Armed Forces: Military Doctrine and Strategy” from the Congressional Research Service website. Key points of note include hybrid and new generation warfare, non-kinetic strategies such as the use of the information sphere (control of media, social media, information creation and delivery, etc.), Russia’s historical and continued emphasis on offensive doctrine and targeting of infrastructure, and lack of concern for mass casualties due to lack of training, morale, and poor command and control.
This RAND page, “Russia’s War in Ukraine: Insights from RAND” has pages of resources- background, testimony, and commentary. It covers strategies and positions of all the players, and has sections dedicated to capabilities, humanitarian concerns, diplomatic and political aspects of the war, and more.
More background, from the United Sates Army War College Press, June 2011, “The Russian Military and the Georgia War: Lessons and Implications” assesses Russia’s performance in Georgia and how it forced doctrinal changes in the Russian military.
Updates directly from Ukraine are available at the Ukrinform website.
For an update on the current situation on the ground in Ukraine, see the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War.
Finally, as always an update of Russian combat losses to date, totaling 131,290- an increase of 700 from the previous day. I read that a New York Times report puts the total number of dead and wounded Russian soldiers at about 200,000 so far. The number will only increase, with daily numbers increasing, until Russia comes to its senses, abandons the Tsar’s mania for conquest, and leaves all Ukrainian territory.
Russian combat losses as of 05 February, 2023
The people of Russia, if they want to be free from the tyranny they now suffer…
must arm themselves as best they can (rifles, revolvers, bombs, knives, knuckle-dusters, sticks, rags soaked in kerosene for starting fires, ropes or rope ladders, shovels for building barricades, pyroxylin cartridges, barbed wire, nails [against cavalry], etc., etc.)…. Select leaders or officers… work out signals… calls or whistles so that the comrades recognise one another in a crowd; previously arranged signals in the event of meetings at night, etc., etc…. Get weapons by attacking… a policemen, stray Cossacks… and seizing their arms… fight by getting on to the roofs or upper storeys of houses, etc., and showering stones or pouring boiling water on the troops, etc.
There is more, much more. Curious about the source? A bit of irony here- it is from Lenin’s Tasks of Revolutionary Army Contingents, written in 1905. I suppose it applies just as much today, to try and get out of this mess, as it did when Russians used the tactics to get themselves into it!
On to NATO:
Turkey on Finland and Sweden joining NATO, from the Telegram channel ….
The President of Turkey discussed with the leaders of Finland and Sweden their accession to NATO.
Erdogan demanded from Sweden to take action against organizations that Ankara considers terrorist, in particular regarding the PKK. And also to lift the embargo on the export of weapons imposed on Turkey due to the military operation against the Kurds.
Finnish President Niinistö called the conversation with Erdogan “open and direct”: “As NATO allies, Finland and Turkey will assume obligations to ensure each other’s security, and therefore our relations will become stronger. Finland condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. The close dialogue continues.”
Sounds better than last week when the “news” would have us believe that Turkey was set against their joining.
If you are so inclined, Brookings hosted an event with the ambassadors of Finland and Sweden to the US this week, which is available to watch online- Finland, Sweden, and the future of NATO. The event was very informative, reinforcing for me a lot of what I already understood about the capabilities of both countries. I would stress that both countries are highly prepared to join NATO. Their spending levels meet or exceed the NATO member country requirements. Their armaments, preparedness, and ability to integrate with NATO cannot to be questioned.
One reason for their defensive capabilities is that both countries have a security posture called “total defense.” This means that they are prepared on all levels to defend their countries- from maintaining a strong posture in order to deter any threats, to fighting in defense if necessary, to the creation of resistance movements if areas of the country are occupied. This posture is visible throughout all levels of society- the entire population, business, infrastructure- everyone and everything is a part of the nations’ defenses. Look to Ukraine’s current posture, and success, and you will see total defense in action. Point of note, the Baltic countries and Poland also practice a total defense posture.
Here is an article at Overtdefense.com from June, 2021 outlining Ukraine’s total defense policy, and explaining why it can be so effective.
For more on the current status of NATO in general, and its decline in defensive ability since the end of the Cold War, see the paper by Anthony W. Cordesman and Grace Hwang, The Ukraine War: Preparing for the Longer-term Outcome. It is another very informative piece, which stresses the need for immediate and massive upgrades in NATO as a whole if it is to be a capable force. My takeaway from it: the Ukraine war has given NATO the best reference point it is going to get in relation to accuracy in planning for future threats from Russia. The Ukraine war is a wake-up call for NATO to asses its capabilities and implement changes across the board, immediatley.
Finally, Putin continues to murder his own citizens:
Russian combat losses as of 24 May, 2022
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” The words of Winston Churchill, which need to be considered to fully understand the predicament the world is in today, the possible futures before us, and the requirements of western nations, emerging democracies, and authoritarian regimes alike. We have essentially two choices: to work towards equity, justice, democracy, freedom, and liberty. Or to work towards the opposite, the path of the pathological, authoritarian, megalomaniac “leading” Russia. Remember, there has never been a perfect political system, just as there has never been peace. Both are idealised parts of a long dreamt of world, that at best is what we strive for, work towards, never lose hope of attaining. At worst they are, and will remain, fantasies, illusions, and far-off dreams.
Another quote summarises the Russian state. From Foreign Affairs magazine May/June 2022 issue, in the article Putin Unbound by Daniel Treisman,
“Russia is a brutally repressive police state run by a small group of hard-liners who have imposed ever-harsher policies both at home and abroad.”
Governments are at work, militaries are at work, Finland and Sweden have made their decisions, but what can the rest of us do? The simplest thing that anyone can do is to donate to help Ukraine. See the links in the upper right of this post. Not everyone can do that, so next is to fight against disinformation and help spread the truth- pass on verified information to as many people as possible within your networks. This is not just a battle against disinformation being fought against Russia- it has just as many proponents worldwide, and within our own country. (What a sad state our democracy has fallen to!) Finally, contact your representatives and let them know we need to do more for Ukraine- more food, medicine, weapons, more sanctions against Russia, and more support for NATO and Europe.
In an article in the Wall Street Journal from last weekend, Putin Drives Finland Into NATO’s Arms, there is a quote by a 78-year-old amateur historian that stands out,
What Stalin forgot, and what Putin is forgetting now, is that if you fight for your own home, it makes the difference.
The reference here is to the Winter War of 1939-1940 where Finnish fighters did the same to Russian forces as Ukrainians are doing now- cutting them off, destroying their morale, destroying their forces, and eventually driving them out. The people of Finland were brave in 1939-1940, as they were last week in joining NATO. The people of Ukraine are brave. They are standing up for the world and they deserve our help.
The same article outlines the very prudent preparations that Finland has been making on their own over many, many years. These range from defense spending almost meeting NATO requirements, to upgrading and training with equipment that will integrate immediately with that used by NATO, to building a series of underground tunnels and shelters that will house up to 70% of the population, while stockpiling food, fuel and medicine. Finland sets an example for all other countries to follow.
Since this seems to be a post full of quotes, I will end with one more. “Budschego net“- Russian for “no future.” This I learned from Masha Gessen’s similarly titled book, The Future is History. It is a commonly held and expressed sentiment in the… former Soviet Union, or today’s Russia, and says it all.
If by some stretch of the imagination someone in Russia reads this post, know that the future has not been cancelled entirely. The future is up to you. Be brave like the people of Ukraine and stand up to your government. You may suffer, and you may die. But Russians will continue to die every day until they stand together against their own tyranny.
Russian combat losses as of 20 May 2022
Russia Will Not Invade Ukraine
16 March 2022
Then, it will not invade Poland or Moldova.
Next it will not invade Romania, Hungary, or Slovakia.
Nor will it invade Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia.
Never mind Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan.
This is not just about the sovereignty, freedom, and security of Ukraine- but surely we must start there. Nor is this about the sovereignty, freedom, and security of eastern Europe, or greater Europe. This is about the the fate of the world. Russia is not to be trusted and must be stopped.
Glory to Ukraine!
Dispelling One More of Putin’s Myths
6 March 2022
As we move forward during these dark days, with the Russian military openly and illegally killing the citizens of a peaceful, democratic, and sovereign nation, one myth used by the perpetrator of these criminal acts must be dispelled. Most people have heard, somewhere in Putin’s continued rhetoric, about NATO’s promise not to expand eastward. This is one of his key arguments for the invasion of Ukraine.
The short answer to Putin’s statement is that NATO never gave such a promise. There is no truth in Russia’s claim that sovereign countries such as Ukraine and Georgia are, by the agreement, not allowed to join NATO. As the text of the document reads, Russia agrees to
“respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security“.
Further, the fact that Putin has himself initiated war upon Ukraine seems to void many parts of the document, which assumed peace on both sides. The arguments against Putin’s claims are many; they have all been clearly laid out in the various links below.
As background, Putin is referencing the 1997 NATO Russia Founding Act (full text), one of a number of documents created to keep peace and stability in the region in the post-Soviet era. Russia agreed to and signed the act, along with others over the years which were equally important in maintaining peace, stability, and the sovereignty of nations in the region. Historically, the agreement began much earlier than 1997, with discussions on the reunification of Germany, Poland’s bid to join NATO, and even with the discussion of Russia becoming a NATO partner.
The summary of the act issued by the US State Department on 15 May, 1997 can be found in archived form here.
NATO refutation of Putin’s claims, posted on 27 January, 2022 can be found here.
A Guardian article from 12 January, 2022 clearly lays out and refutes the main claims, and gives background on the Act as well as other points of negotiation with various world leaders over the years.
DONATE TO HELP FEED UKRANIAN REFUGEES
Final word, if you are thinking about how you can help the people of Ukraine, donating to the World Central Kitchen is a safe and fast option which will show immediate results. They are feeding thousands of refugees at numerous borders crossings, as well as in the country of Ukraine. This link will take you directly to their donation page.
Brookings Event- Does Russia’s invasion of Ukraine mark the end of the post-Cold War era?
2 March 2022
The live event just ended, but the video is online and available to watch. It will be a well-spent hour of your time!
(Re-posted from another of my blogs- this post needed to be here as well, to support other posts about the Balkans.)
As a follow-up to my recent post on the Balkan wars of the 1990’s, I felt it was time to add more book reviews for those who might be interested in immersing themselves in the issues facing the Balkans and eastern Europe. With the future in mind, first on the list is a recent (fall, 2017) edition from the Brookings Institution titled Beyond NATO: A New Security Architecture for Eastern Europe (The Marshall Papers) by Michael E. O’Hanlon.
In summary, the book argues the case against NATO expansion and presents the alternative of a “negotiated agreement” between current NATO countries, the non-NATO and non-aligned states that would remain sovereign and neutral, and Russia. The catalyst for this new type of security agreement is Russia, and namely Russia’s fear of NATO and the west uncomfortably approaching, and eventually encroaching upon, its borders. The author does cause the reader to step outside the western view that our intervention in eastern Europe, most notably Bosnia, Kosovo, and Ukraine, even when labeled humanitarian, can be construed as threatening when viewed through Russian eyes.
The premise is that the new security architecture would act as a deterrent to Russian posturing and aggression and its plans for military growth, including nuclear weapons. It is believed that the coalition of neutral states, not overseen directly by NATO or the United States especially, will eventually allow Russia to cease their destabilisation efforts in the region, specifically in Ukraine and Georgia, and allow these and other states such as Armenia and Azerbaijan to develop towards normalcy after being able to turn away from a continuous defensive/offensive posture.
While theoretically possible, the concept relies on Russia’s acceptance of the new structure. Whether or not Russia accepts, and if so, their willingness and ability to remain faithful to the agreement, is a different story. There would be a built-in “range of responses” to different threats against the agreement participants, be that Russia or other nations. These responses could include anything from economic sanctions to expedited NATO membership for threatened agreement participants.
Street art in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, October, 2017. Note the artists use of a bullet hole for the left eye, obviously the starting point for the image.
Seasons in Hell: Understanding Bosnia’s War by Ed Vulliamy was published in 1994. At that time the siege of Sarajevo had ended, Serbia and its forces understood that the UN and NATO would actually take decisive action against them, and the concentration camps, mass murder, atrocities, and genocide of the war in Bosnia had been exposed to the world. Vulliamy’s book reports what was known at the time of publication and paints an ugly, demented picture of what was perpetrated on so many innocent people by the Yugoslav army/ the Serbian army, by “paramilitaries”, by criminals and thugs. But he also tells stories of hope, heroism, and bravery, of fighting against all odds, and of how so many of the people of Bosnia endured. Interspersing these stories in a book of this nature is absolutely necessary, lest the sickened reader cast the book aside. If you choose one book to help your understand the war in Bosnia, Vulliamy’s book will painfully, yet clearly meet that goal.
At Five AM 