PDA

View Full Version : Russian Unconventional Strategy



Bill Moore
06-09-2014, 02:46 AM
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140603/DEFREG04/306030028/Arab-Leaders-Briefed-New-Russia-Doctrine

Arab Leaders Briefed on New Russia Doctrine


The doctrine holds that the US and its allies are engineering revolutions and uprisings in key areas around the world to destabilize governments and replace existing regimes in order to establish control and exploit natural resources. Furthermore, the doctrine treats the US as a dangerous nation that seeks to dismantle the Russian statehood.

The best propaganda has a grain to truth to it, and we probably do have some activist diplomats encouraging uprisings in some locations. Is it part of a grand strategy by the U.S.? Maybe, but I have my doubts. Nonetheless if Russian theorists believe this it may explain their behavior.


“The Russians are interpreting US interference in countries like Ukraine and across the Middle East like Egypt, Syria, North Africa and even Venezuela as operations to take their natural wealth and convert their population towards a western leaning oversight,” he said.

“The Russians, by announcing this new doctrine in such clear terms, are announcing their intent to counter this activity [of destabilizing governments by popular uprising] by conducting additional research and analysis, ultimately coming out with counter policies,” he said.

Later in the article they talk about countering our strategy with networks and information.


“The failure of the West to impose a leadership after these operations is causing chaos and that is what we are seeing today across a number of different countries around the world,” Shoygu told the audience.

If we or anyone is fomenting these uprisings I agree with the above comment.

Dayuhan
06-09-2014, 10:57 AM
Nonetheless if Russian theorists believe this it may explain their behavior.

I doubt very much that they believe it, but I'm sure they see it as a marketable narrative. It may well be a marketable narrative, especially when they are preaching to the reflexively anti-American choir. Outside of that choir, perhaps less marketable.

JMA
06-09-2014, 11:31 AM
This is pot-kettle-black stuff... which I would consider an insult to the intelligence if I were an Arab.

However, he is correct in this respect:


“The failure of the West to impose a leadership after these operations is causing chaos and that is what we are seeing today across a number of different countries around the world,” Shoygu told the audience.

Dayuhan
06-09-2014, 12:20 PM
This is pot-kettle-black stuff... which I would consider an insult to the intelligence if I were an Arab.

However, he is correct in this respect:


“The failure of the West to impose a leadership after these operations is causing chaos and that is what we are seeing today across a number of different countries around the world,” Shoygu told the audience.



He's absolutely incorrect in that respect, on two grounds:

First, none of the cases cited are in any way American "operations".

Second, the idea that the US has the capacity or the responsibility to "impose a leadership" in any other country, or that any such effort would serve the interests of the US or the country in question, is really pretty absurd, an absurdity compounded by the certainty that any American attempt to "impose a leadership" in any of these countries would be greeted by the Russians with an absolute howl of protest.

The whole statement looks to be propaganda, and is unlikely to convince anyone who isn't already reflexively anti-American.

OUTLAW 09
06-09-2014, 04:27 PM
I doubt very much that they believe it, but I'm sure they see it as a marketable narrative. It may well be a marketable narrative, especially when they are preaching to the reflexively anti-American choir. Outside of that choir, perhaps less marketable.

Dayuhan---I would have agreed with you had this sentence been said and the Ukrainian events not occurred.

But there is something going on and I have come to the conclusion that they truly do believe what they are writing and saying publicly.

Take the 4 plus 2 agreements that were signed after the reunification of Germany that in fact state that NATO will not place any nuclear weapons into the new eastern countries if they join NATO nor will they build and base large contingents of troops in those countries.

Something that by the way slowed down NATO decision making about the Ukraine as they actually debated for days what and how the treaties defined long term troop contingents.

Thus the sending of "rotational troop contingents conducting exercises".

There has been building a drum beat in the Russian media ie Interfax, TAS and RIA about NATO's shifting of troops and beefing up of AF assets in the eastern flank of NATO "potentially" forcing Russia to "adjust" it's defense posture towards the eastern flank. But the term used was "permanent" troop contingents.

Today a sudden shift and the Russia media is now stating "permanent" long term bases is also being defined by them to mean "rotational" troop for exercises". Again an example of how Russia claims the right to interpret any treaty anyway they want to.

Back on the Ukraine thread side I mentioned that Stalin once at a CP meeting in the 30s stated---treaties are treaties---and when and if necessary we can define them how we want to---his thinking has never died.

See how the Russian are attempting to control NATO actions and decisions.

So comments made about US actions that Bill points out are actually being believed inside Russia.

I would not be as worried by these comments as I am about their New Generation Warfare which is a pure UW strategy and it has been successfully carried out in eastern Ukraine.

OUTLAW 09
06-09-2014, 07:15 PM
This was from an editorial on The Moscow times that is intriguing referencing current Russian activities.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russia-is-burdened-by-the-weight-of-empire/501783.html

"Without exception, every empire of the past — from the Roman to the Soviet, from the Spanish to the British — collapsed for the same reason: the inability to bear what might be called "the burden of empire." Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is now moving along its own neo-imperial path, and the rapidly mounting burden of that course carries serious risks for the country's future."

The question arises is in fact the current new generation warfare based on a UW strategy---actually designed to support this "neo-imperial path".

If so then all comments, actions, policy statements made by say Putin and or from the Russian Foreign Ministry is then in "support" of this neo-imperial path Russia is taking.

Part of this neo-imperialism approach is the constant drum beat that NATO is moving closer to the direct borders of Russia and it is that reason that Russia annexed the Crimea. If they view themselves as being on a neo-imperialistic path then the argument of "spheres of influence" makes sense from their perspective thus the next argument NATO is to close makes also sense to them.

This clashes though with the European view that the arguments about boundaries and spheres of influence were "settled" after 1990 and 1994 thus the no further need for a "block mentality" thus the European draw down of military expenditures and a slow down on NATO planning for any major future issues.

In an editorial article today in the Voice of Russia the same theme is mentioned and if one reads down about half way through there is a single sentence that is highly interesting---the reason the militia in the east-south Ukraine are actually fighting is to keep NATO out of the Ukraine and to keep the Ukraine from being turned into a desert from shale gas drilling which from the geo testing seems to be quite large.

No mention of "protecting the ethnic proRussian population" as the reasons for the "separatist militias" anywhere in the article. This view was recently reinforced in an interview with a proRussian separatist commander who claimed he was fighting the US for the Russians.

http://voiceofrussia.com/editorschoice/

kaur
06-09-2014, 07:51 PM
Are Color Revolutions a New Form of War?
By Alexander Golts Jun. 02 2014



The most recent example occurred at the Moscow Conference on International Security, at which members of Russia's General Staff announced the appearance of a new form of warfare.

When the conference agenda was initially set, the plan was to focus on regional security, with an emphasis on the problems that would inevitably arise when international coalition forces withdrew from Afghanistan. Prior to the Ukrainian crisis, the most pressing problem was the need for Russia and the West to work together to ensure at least a degree of stability in Central Asia.

However, the Kremlin clearly issued orders that radically changed the focus of the forum. In his opening address before the conference, President Vladimir Putin emphasized that so-called "color revolutions," are now the main threat to peace.

...

After all, if "color revolutions" are really a new form of aggression, the General Staff must urgently develop a strategy for combating it. In this sense, Russia's annexation of Crimea and the actions of separatists in Ukraine's east and south can be seen as a sort of "color counter-revolution."

What is more, that approach paves the way for using military forces to combat internal threats because the Kremlin is convinced that the West is constantly looking for a way to organize a "color revolution" in Russia.

This sets up a chain of faulty conclusions in which Moscow interprets any protest against the authorities as an attempt to stage a color revolution — an act that is now defined as an act of aggression against the state. And by this logic, the government can mobilize not only the police and internal security forces to crack down on political protestors, but also the Army.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/are-color-revolutions-a-new-form-of-war/501353.html

OUTLAW 09
06-09-2014, 08:38 PM
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/are-color-revolutions-a-new-form-of-war/501353.html

kaur---if one looks at the legal changes that have occurred inside Russia since the Maidan I would agree that the Maidan is and was interpreted to be a "perceived" threat to Russia since they have had no color or Spring revolts.

Prior to these changes Putin made comments at a Russian Security Council meeting that Russia needed to analyze why the Maidan occurred and take counter measures---then came the legal changes.

My thoughts concerning the neo-imperialism drive that Russia finds itself in ---is this a true imperialistic drive to increase the size of Russia or is it being driven by neo economic imperialism---with the Crimea a massive gas/oil reserves for years to come, under central and eastern Ukraine massive shale gas reserves and the use of their coal for liquefaction for additional fuel reserves. The massive grain production is also needed by Russia to fulfill the food requirements for Russia itself since they have missed their own grain targets over the last few years.

The Ukraine as well is the main military goods producer for the Russian military and without the Ukraine their reformation 2020 plans are null and void.

Today armed separatists attempted to raid a military production plant that makes some great ECM and RCEID equipment under the guise of taking seven sets of the Mandate ECM system to Russia. This occurred after the Russian Defense Minister complained last week about the Ukraine is not delivering Russian ordered/paid military equipment. ECM equipment is high on the Russian Army agenda.

http://inforesist.org/d-tymchuk-terrorists-attacked-a-donetsk-plant-and-try-to-take-out-the-military-equipment/?lang=en

Dayuhan
06-10-2014, 02:21 AM
I have no doubt that the Russians see these "color" and "spring" revolutions as threats, both because their preferred autocrats are among those being threatened and because they set an uncomfortable precedent for their own population.

I expect that at least at the leadership level they know quite well that the US is not creating these revolutions, though of course the US will try to exploit them, just as the Russians will try to exploit any revolution against an autocrat allied with the US.

Of course the Russians will blame any revolution against one of "their bastards" on US-sponsored subversion, just as the US once blamed any revolution against "our bastards" on Soviet subversion. That doesn't mean they believe the propaganda, it's just a convenient and sometimes even effective propaganda angle.

OUTLAW 09
06-10-2014, 06:14 AM
I have no doubt that the Russians see these "color" and "spring" revolutions as threats, both because their preferred autocrats are among those being threatened and because they set an uncomfortable precedent for their own population.

I expect that at least at the leadership level they know quite well that the US is not creating these revolutions, though of course the US will try to exploit them, just as the Russians will try to exploit any revolution against an autocrat allied with the US.

Of course the Russians will blame any revolution against one of "their bastards" on US-sponsored subversion, just as the US once blamed any revolution against "our bastards" on Soviet subversion. That doesn't mean they believe the propaganda, it's just a convenient and sometimes even effective propaganda angle.

Dayuhan---the outer messaging matches the internal messaging---it is designed to drive their foreign policy for a global end user but it is specifically designed to "radicalize" their own internal population which in the case of the Crimea worked massively well based on Putin's numbers.

The external messaging is designed to reinforce the idea that Russia is back as an international player and the world is no longer unipolar.

Russia wants to be a super power after feeling that they were relegated to a regional power after 1995.

Bill Moore
06-10-2014, 07:28 AM
Whether you believe the accusation that the U.S. promotes these uprisings or not isn't the most important point. It is a fact that some actors in the U.S. definitely promote these uprisings, but they don't appear to be associated with the U.S. government. Regardless, what I think we need to focus on is this:


“The Russians, by announcing this new doctrine in such clear terms, are announcing their intent to counter this activity [of destabilizing governments by popular uprising] by conducting additional research and analysis, ultimately coming out with counter policies,” he said.

What are the implications of this? Are we going to see a new type of confrontation between the U.S. and the USSR (oops I mean Russia), where Russia is engages states and the US engages populaces? Obviously the Russians desire to limit and even turn back the scale of U.S. influence globally, as does China. Will they form a coalition? Should the U.S. defense strategy change based on this?

kaur
06-10-2014, 07:53 AM
I have not noticed that anyone has mentioned that this is already Russia's second attempt to fight "revolutions". Last time they used non-violent methods.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ceelbas/workshops/Jeanne_Wilson_paper.pdf

This time Russians answered with arms, which must be new level. Was this because of Arab spring or Bolotnaya square meetings?

OUTLAW 09
06-10-2014, 11:25 AM
Whether you believe the accusation that the U.S. promotes these uprisings or not isn't the most important point. It is a fact that some actors in the U.S. definitely promote these uprisings, but they don't appear to be associated with the U.S. government. Regardless, what I think we need to focus on is this:



What are the implications of this? Are we going to see a new type of confrontation between the U.S. and the USSR (oops I mean Russia), where Russia is engages states and the US engages populaces? Obviously the Russians desire to limit and even turn back the scale of U.S. influence globally, as does China. Will they form a coalition? Should the U.S. defense strategy change based on this?

Bill---some interesting questions that require so thought before answering.

Here is another take by a Russian editorial that came out today concerning the stoppage of the South Stream pipeline which was critical in the eyes of the Russians for a number of reasons---when one reads through it is becomes almost a list of accusations against the US from the last 40 or so years.

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_06_10/Russian-gas-NWO-and-US-energy-mafia-5346/

One thing I have learned when dealing with Russians---they wear their emotions on their sleeves for all to see so what is released as a "political editorial" does in fact reflect the ruling elites thinking.

And if one then looks at the recently released UW strategy and their 2010 nuclear strategy notice how the doctrine now matches the rhetoric both regionally and globally.

Russia feels now capable of a full court press against the US/NATO/EU---politically, militarily, and economically---the question becomes have they through their own rhetoric and the missteps by the West in pushing back "mis-lead" themselves on their actual abilities.

Will provide answers to the questions later after thinking it through.

Dayuhan
06-10-2014, 11:32 AM
Whether you believe the accusation that the U.S. promotes these uprisings or not isn't the most important point. It is a fact that some actors in the U.S. definitely promote these uprisings, but they don't appear to be associated with the U.S. government.

I think there needs to be a distinction between "promotes" and "causes". Certainly in some cases the US Government has encouraged revolutions, as have independent players within the US, but no amount of encouragement is going to conjure up a revolution where the conditions to support one do not exist. In other cases the revolutions have been entirely spontaneous with little effort or knowledge on the US side. After all the talk of how the Arab Spring caught US intel agencies napping it's a bit ironic to hear that those same agencies allegedly caused the revolutions.

I don't think there's been a single "color" or "spring" revolution that could be reasonably claimed to have been caused by external intervention. I think that on the decision making level the Russians are well aware of that, though there is always the risk of falling for one's own propaganda.


Are we going to see a new type of confrontation between the U.S. and the USSR (oops I mean Russia), where Russia is engages states and the US engages populaces?

That's ironic in some ways... during the Cold War the US often found itself supporting autocrats and claiming that rebellion against those autocrats was caused by Soviet subversion. Now the roles seem to be reversed. I guess it's always easier to blame an ally's troubles on foreign subversion than to concede that your ally is an A-hole.


Obviously the Russians desire to limit and even turn back the scale of U.S. influence globally, as does China. Will they form a coalition? Should the U.S. defense strategy change based on this?

Russia and China cooperate, but it seems well short of a coalition, and they will go their own way as they see fit. Just for one example, Russia's relationship with China does not stop the Russians from selling fairly advanced weapons systems to Vietnam, which is not exactly on friendly terms with China. It's actually interesting that the Chinese have so little to say about those sales.

Despite the cooperation, there remain areas of serious strategic competition between Russia and China, notably in Central Asia.

Not sure the Russia/China relationship requires a change in US strategy, but it would certainly be wise for the US to be prepared for potential changes and evolutions in that relationship. Any number of things could happen and I don't think anyone can really predict how it will turn.

OUTLAW 09
06-10-2014, 12:41 PM
Bill---to answer the following questions---these two paragraphs are to the point and go a little further than your questions.

"Still, this will be a different cold war than the last one. For all its tough rhetoric, the Soviet Union of the Brezhnev era was a tired, conservative power. Putin's Russia is different. It is bursting with negative energy, hatred of the outside world and enthusiasm for confrontation.

It's a throwback not so much to the cold war diplomacy of missile treaties and international alliances, as to the Soviet Union's revolutionary birth, when the new Bolshevik government in Moscow actively undermined its enemies in the West."

The comments are actually very to the point.

1. After the poor performance of the Russian Army in 2008 in Georgia there was a massive investment into the Russian military as a whole and today through their 2020 plans they are far better trained, equipped with new weapon systems that are superior to ours in many ways, have a professional fulltime standing expeditionary army backed by a draftee army.
1a. They have become far more aggressive towards US military units in neutral zones---far more aggressive than under the Cold War days.
2. They developed their new UW strategy for this force.-and it is clear and concise.
3. They have completely modernized their nuclear forces and will add two heavy ballistic missiles in 2016 to the inventory and have violated the standing INF. US has an aging fore that is in need of modernization but Congress has shown an unwillingness to fund.
4. They have a new 2010 nuclear use doctrine to support this force-and it is clear and concise.
5. The have over the last 20 years used natural gas/oil as an economic force/weapon and built the pipeline delivery systems to support this economic weapons system. they are trying to get the EU to recognize their form of state run economics vs the EU free competition.
6. They are now expanding their naval forces and acquiring berthing rights around the world.
7. They are now flying into areas they never flew in during even the Cold War days and in a more aggressive manner.
8. These Russian steps are actually being matched by the same type of military/political/economic moves by the Chinese who are especially focused on Africa.
9. Both Russia and the Chinese are actively reinterpreting older treaties and agreements and are actually now simply declaring them null and void if it fits their interests something neither would have done 10 years ago---an interesting question would be why now? I think they both view the US as a waning power that has not backed up a single red line they have placed in the last 20 years

Yes the Russians are approaching the rest of the world from a state to state perspective and the US from a population perspective---but does the rule of law and good governance outweigh cheap gas and the perspective on investing in Russian and Chinese economic development opportunities for economically less powerful but influential countries in say the ME or in the Far East. Or does Russian and Chinese investment in say Africa and the ME appear to be more attractive than western investments---yes it does.

In some aspects while the rule of law and good governance resonate with populations in the end it still is all about economic development, employment, and personal security ---so yes the Maidan echoes those demands--but when implementing say the IMF and EU economic restructuring in exchange for billions of USDs those same populations will suffer and suffer badly until they adjust so in the end does the Russian/Chinese state economic systems appear more attractive to a state or the population or actually to both?

I would argue they do especially in the ME and Africa.

I would also argue that since both the Russians and Chinese view especially the US in the same light and with the same distrust they will in effect be nudged by world politics to work together which is why the initial gas deal between them is so important---it is about image/politics, and not about economics.

I would though take it a step further and say Russia is also interested in neutralizing both the EU/NATO for different reasons that are not the same as with the US.


What are the implications of this? Are we going to see a new type of confrontation between the U.S. and the USSR (oops I mean Russia), where Russia is engages states and the US engages populaces? Obviously the Russians desire to limit and even turn back the scale of U.S. influence globally, as does China. Will they form a coalition? Should the U.S. defense strategy change based on this?[/QUOTE]

davidbfpo
06-10-2014, 01:40 PM
A short FT article, the full edition is behind a registration "wall", that appears on a NATO website and starts with:
In more than a dozen interviews, planners, security officials and members of the intelligence community have spoken of Moscow with universal, if grudging, praise.

Tactically, they say, Russia has waged a dexterous and comprehensive campaign, and has been one step ahead at every turn. The Kremlin's operations on the ground have been "masterly", said one.

Rightly the author ends with:
With that in mind, it is ironic that for all of its accusations against Russia, it is Nato that is looking like it is stuck in the Iron Curtain era, as it tries to fly more planes, exercise more troops and sail more ships ever closer to Russia.

Link:http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/masterly-russian-operations-in-ukraine-leave-nato-one-step-behind#.U5YtF1s4skM.twitter

kaur
06-10-2014, 02:14 PM
davidbfpo used word "masterly". I'd like to ask if this Crimea operation was easy to accomplish in military terms or was it hard? If you have located there your Black Sea Fleet since late 18th century. You had troops, GRU, military CI (KGB/FSB) present all the time. You knew a lot about Ukrainian officers, lot of them retired from Soviet fleet and joined Ukrainian. Crimea was favourite place to go retirement among Soviet officers, which means that best cadre (with Soviet nostalgia) was present. This means at least that you have quite nice overview what was going on there. Those smart and active young military pensioners are still capable to play the game. Then you bring in suitcases with cash to right people (like that Aksjonov guy, who got 4% votes with his party during last elections in Crimea), support with small group of special forces, bring in some thousand to close possible bridgeheads etc, etc, etc. Could it be "masterly" operation to occupy Guantanamo?

OUTLAW 09
06-10-2014, 04:19 PM
Bill M---based on your questions that is something that is often overlooked in all of this.

We will be voting for a new President in 2016, Putin will easily get reelected and he is then in power until 2024.

So what would a US Russian strategy look like under this WH and would it then be carried forward in a solid fashion or would Putin rightly assume it would not be and he could then force the US into a new strategy to his liking.

Secondly ---any US strategy on Russia must be multifaceted as the current Russian foreign policy is developed and implemented by playing the four legs of a stool approach.

There are four key players in the Russian FP game that we somehow tend to ignore; 1) Russian military and their industrial complexes, 2) the Russian security services, 3) the oligarchs, and 4) Russian criminal gangs ie Russian mafia.

Layered over this is then the Russian Orthodox church.

Russian foreign policy and doctrine can be modified in any way using any combination of these players---we the US have our own players but we cannot seem to develop the adaptiveness that Putin has been showing in recent months.

Bill Moore
06-10-2014, 04:51 PM
Bill M---based on your questions that is something that is often overlooked in all of this.

We will be voting for a new President in 2016, Putin will easily get reelected and he is then in power until 2024.

So what would a US Russian strategy look like under this WH and would it then be carried forward in a solid fashion or would Putin rightly assume it would not be and he could then force the US into a new strategy to his liking.

Secondly ---any US strategy on Russia must be multifaceted as the current Russian foreign policy is developed and implemented by playing the four legs of a stool approach.

There are four key players in the Russian FP game that we somehow tend to ignore; 1) Russian military and their industrial complexes, 2) the Russian security services, 3) the oligarchs, and 4) Russian criminal gangs ie Russian mafia.

Layered over this is then the Russian Orthodox church.

Russian foreign policy and doctrine can be modified in any way using any combination of these players---we the US have our own players but we cannot seem to develop the adaptiveness that Putin has been showing in recent months.

New administrations in the White House generally result in strategy changes, if not the ends, then the ways and means.

Who are the major players (official and unofficial) in U.S. foreign policy? Federal government, State governments, Industry (to include the defense industry), NGOs, media, etc. All have an impact. The difference perhaps is unlike the Russians we're possibly not as synched in leveraging all these different players to achieve strategic ends. We do use them all and each has incredible capability and influence, so if we first understand what the Russians are doing and why, determine if any of these "really" threatens our national interests, if it does then get serious about addressing it.

The ability to execute these operations on countries that border their nation is impressive, but not overly impressive. We have been astrategic for the past 10 years, so we're impressed with a nation that can actually think strategically (at least in the area of military and paramilitary arts). We have the capability to execute a global strategy globally, they don't, but we won't, etc., so their is some self-imposed strategic asymmetry here.

OUTLAW 09
06-10-2014, 05:18 PM
New administrations in the White House generally result in strategy changes, if not the ends, then the ways and means.

Who are the major players (official and unofficial) in U.S. foreign policy? Federal government, State governments, Industry (to include the defense industry), NGOs, media, etc. All have an impact. The difference perhaps is unlike the Russians we're possibly not as synched in leveraging all these different players to achieve strategic ends. We do use them all and each has incredible capability and influence, so if we first understand what the Russians are doing and why, determine if any of these "really" threatens our national interests, if it does then get serious about addressing it.

The ability to execute these operations on countries that border their nation is impressive, but not overly impressive. We have been astrategic for the past 10 years, so we're impressed with a nation that can actually think strategically (at least in the area of military and paramilitary arts). We have the capability to execute a global strategy globally, they don't, but we won't, etc., so their is some self-imposed strategic asymmetry here.

Bill---would argue and some might not agree---right now the Russians are in fact implementing a global strategy the problem is we are not use to the game after about a 25 year hiatus of playing global games.

They have had time to sit down and to rethink their collapse and they apparently learned from it and focused on a rebuild of the military and military projection powers, they definitely have played a great economic game using gas/pipelines and oil, and politically are now playing the UW card against NATO and attempting to split the EU from the US which they have in effect achieved to a degree.

Back to the players---it makes Russian FP simplistic in nature when having to deal with five players especially if all the players are onboard ideology wise ie neo imperialism or neo economic imperialism cloaked under the guise of ethnic nationalism. We on the other hand in the last 25 years seem to have forgotten the old ideology war games ---we are so wrapped up in our own internal political right/left/tea party games for especially the last ten years we have simply "missed" what the rest of the world is thinking/doing.

You are right the core question is Russian a national threat?---if one looks at the willingness recently to fly a SU29 30 meters in front of a RC135 and flash weapons then I would say they are already a national threat especially since that flashing had to be approved by the central flight controller of the SU, if they are scooping up all our "former" allies and are sponsoring new friends in the ME and Africa then they are a threat, if in fact they have modernized and added to their nuclear abilities and voided a portion of the INF then they are a threat, if they have power projection abilities equal to us then they are a threat, they now openly question and or void existing treaties anyway they feel like interpreting -then they are a threat. If one looks at the claimed joint efforts by the US/Russian in Syria, Iran, Palestine, NK --where has the Russian significantly contributed to a direct resolution of any of those problem areas--no that I can see.

We could though take the high ground and via "soft power" look the other way stating they are not a threat but then what does the long term look like especially if Putin controls until 2024?

A lot of this is IMO---- has an underlying not spoken about driver-economic survival of Russia at least in their eyes.

This was taken from a new Russian SWJ article that goes to the point I am making about the threat.

"Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria." The author quotes one reference but I had seen references to this in several Interfax press releases over the last four weeks and had wondered about it---nothing-nothing was mentioned in the US media and this is a threat as it impacts a really long term ME ally which has had strained ties with us the last several years by our all over the map foreign policy regarding Syria, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood support.

This newly released editorial today (below) in the Voice of Russian reflects a hardening in rhetoric I have not seen since 1989 especially if one really reads the reunification treaties 4 plus 2 and the Founding Act between NATO/Russia---they are virtually demanding the West accept their definition of those treaties, but then notice they ignored the Ukrainian treaty which they themselves signed. It should be noted that the 4 plus 2 treaties stipulate no nuclear weapons and no large scale permanent troops bases---not rotational exercise troops contingents.

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_06_10/Holding-NATO-military-drills-so-close-to-Russia-is-incredibly-provocative-hostile-act-expert-3064/

kaur
06-10-2014, 05:38 PM
Sorry for link in Russian, but 1 pic tells more than 1000 words :) One Russian officer wrote short overview about exercise " Steadfast Jazz 2013". First pic is how Russians think about NATO attack in European theatre of war. If you perceive situation this way, look at the map, then how you think about Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?

http://factmil.com/publ/strana/albanija/komandno_shtabnoe_uchenie_ovs_nato_steadfast_jazz_ 2013_2013/66-1-0-335

OUTLAW 09
06-10-2014, 05:49 PM
kaur---this slide really goes to the heart of the Russian argument that they need "spheres of influence" and a "border buffer zone" with NATO thus the indirect suggestion of taking back the Crimea, Ukraine and the Baltics to provide for that buffer.

It also justifies to their population the increased defense spending and the need to be vigilant against the spread of the Color/Spring revolts as NATO/US will use those to destabilize Russia---see how the rhetoric now fits and makes sense to an average Russian?

http://factmil.com/_pu/3/12000853.jpg

OUTLAW 09
06-10-2014, 07:33 PM
Bill---when I talk about the ability of the Russian foreign policy to interact with criminal elements to reach a stated end state--this is something we do not have in our foreign policy decisions.

This is an example of just how strong the Russian mafia is and thus a strong actor that can be injected into a declared end state ie say the Ukraine.

"When you’re planning to rob the Russian cyber mob, you’d better make sure that you have the element of surprise, that you can make a clean getaway, and that you understand how your target is going to respond. Today’s column features an interview with two security experts who helped plan and execute last week’s global, collaborative effort to hijack the Gameover Zeus botnet, an extremely resilient and sophisticated crime machine that helped an elite group of thieves steal more than $100 million from banks, businesses and consumers worldwide."

Dayuhan
06-11-2014, 12:28 AM
They have had time to sit down and to rethink their collapse and they apparently learned from it and focused on a rebuild of the military and military projection powers, they definitely have played a great economic game using gas/pipelines and oil, and politically are now playing the UW card against NATO and attempting to split the EU from the US which they have in effect achieved to a degree.

I don't see how they've "split the EU from the US"... if anything the Ukraine events have brought the EU and US closer.


We on the other hand in the last 25 years seem to have forgotten the old ideology war games ---we are so wrapped up in our own internal political right/left/tea party games for especially the last ten years we have simply "missed" what the rest of the world is thinking/doing.

The distractions have been multiple, and the "right/left/tea party games" are less a problem than the economic crisis and the burden of legacy wars. Still, I don't see any evidence to suggest disconnection from "what the rest of the world is thinking". As always, the "rest of the world" is thinking all kinds of different things, all of which have to be managed on a case to case basis.


You are right the core question is Russian a national threat?---if one looks at the willingness recently to fly a SU29 30 meters in front of a RC135 and flash weapons then I would say they are already a national threat especially since that flashing had to be approved by the central flight controller of the SU

How does that constitute a threat?


if they are scooping up all our "former" allies and are sponsoring new friends in the ME and Africa

Who exactly have they "scooped up", and who have they sponsored?


We could though take the high ground and via "soft power" look the other way stating they are not a threat but then what does the long term look like especially if Putin controls until 2024?

Or we could go all hysterical and exaggerate the threat all out of proportion.

Or we could stay calm and assess the threat realistically.

In specific, real-world terms, what are we afraid of? What do we think the Russians are going to do that we don't want them to do?


"Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria." The author quotes one reference but I had seen references to this in several Interfax press releases over the last four weeks and had wondered about it---nothing-nothing was mentioned in the US media and this is a threat as it impacts a really long term ME ally which has had strained ties with us the last several years by our all over the map foreign policy regarding Syria, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood support.

So what's the supposed deal, and what's it meant to accomplish? Claims like that need a reference.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 10:32 AM
I don't see how they've "split the EU from the US"... if anything the Ukraine events have brought the EU and US closer.



The distractions have been multiple, and the "right/left/tea party games" are less a problem than the economic crisis and the burden of legacy wars. Still, I don't see any evidence to suggest disconnection from "what the rest of the world is thinking". As always, the "rest of the world" is thinking all kinds of different things, all of which have to be managed on a case to case basis.



How does that constitute a threat?



Who exactly have they "scooped up", and who have they sponsored?



Or we could go all hysterical and exaggerate the threat all out of proportion.

Or we could stay calm and assess the threat realistically.

In specific, real-world terms, what are we afraid of? What do we think the Russians are going to do that we don't want them to do?



So what's the supposed deal, and what's it meant to accomplish? Claims like that need a reference.

Dayuhan---here is a short reply to your comments---flashing onboard weapons array to an in neutral waters flying RJ135 is even in say the height of the Cold War "absolutely abnorm"---even today Russian pilots are still centrally controlled meaning before he made his move it was approved from higher---thus a serious violation of "neutral waters norms" even from Cold War "norms" thus a threat to the aircraft and crew---which I am sure was immediately passed to the National Command Authority during a security briefing.

Secondly, and this goes to the questions Bill raises---what are the Russians thinking/doing and are they a "perceived or direct threat to the US".

Example: how many times here in SWJ comments have you seen written "well NATO did in fact push membership right up to the Russian borders and yes Russia has a right to feel threatened by these moves"---recognize the comments--you see them all the time from various American political pundits and left leaning writers.

Russia has been drum beating this idea to death--we are in violation of agreements about how far NATO can go with recruiting new members ie Baltics, Georgia, Moldavia etc.
REALITY: Gorbartschow and Bush senior did have a small side bar conversation during those talks ---there Bush did casually mention to Gorbi when Gorbi asked about NATO intentions that NATO would not push eastwards---this was during the 4 plus 2 treaty discussions on German reunification conducted in Berlin. The side bar THOUGH continue with the following comment---we will need to further discuss this---it was never then followed up on by either side nor ever written up and agreed to as a side treaty such as was the plus 2 agreements.

Gorbartschow admitted in a recent Russian TV interview in the last few days that this was a big failure on his part and it has led to the Ukrainian problem. Interesting comment if one asks me.

BUT just how did Russia get the conversation written into a treaty that they are now constantly complaining about we "violated"---good question is it not? There is a propaganda theory that says if one repeats something often enough then the general population starts to believe it is true---is that at work here with this drum beat?

Next: Russian has been constantly throwing in the face of the US/NATO/EU that the Ukrainians were not holding to the Feb 21 agreements worked out by France, Germany, Poland FMs--NOW here is the kicker Russia only sent a Human Rights Observer to those meeting and both he and the Russian government "refused" to sign them BUT now these agreements somehow has the power of a "treaty"---JUST how did that happen?
Next: The Swiss Chairman of the OCSE visited Putin recently to discuss with him a proposed roadmap for deescalating the Ukrainian issue---REMEMBER this was a discuss only visit and he had no legal binding commitment from the rest of the OCSE---then there is still the drum beat by Russia even today that the Ukrainians are in violation of the OCSE agreements---REALITY---is was a discussion JUST how did it become a "treaty" in the eyes of Putin to be throw against the West as an example of how aggressive the West is against Russia.
Next: The Russians did sign the 1994 Memorandum to Recognize the Sovereignty of the Ukraine in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons--REALITY---Russia openly recently stated that they do not feel bound by that Memo.
Next: In the 4 plus 2 German Reunification treaties it clearly states that NATO will out create long term large scale military bases in the eastern part of Germany or the new eastern NATO members nor will they station nuclear weapons in eastern German and the Baltics. Notice the mention of eastern Germany. REALITY: For the last week or two there has been a Russian media drumbeat that NATO has violated those treaties by conducting military exercises using rotational troops and stationing additional aircraft in Poland and the Baltics.
AGAIN claiming NATO somehow violated treaties but no where in those treaties is it defined that military exercises cannot be held in those countries. And NOW Russia "feels" physically "threatened" by those exercises. WHAT are the Russians reading that the West cannot seem to understand when the treaties written in English?
Next: The current Russian signed INF treaty states that the development and deployment of mobile launched nuclear cruise missiles over a certain distance is a violation---Russia is in direct violation of this treaty and the US has refrained from bringing this to the attention of the world because they think they need Russia assistance in Syria, Iran, and NK---but notice the Iranian talks are breaking down with absolutely no assistance from Russia, the Syrian issue is just as dead with no assistance from Russia and NK is still threatening a nuclear test which even concerns the Chinese--again no Russian assistance. And in Iraq the Russians are merrily pumping oil/gas and developing new fields.

And you find none of this is a "perceived threat or direct threat to the US"?

Dayuhan
06-11-2014, 12:41 PM
And you find none of this is a "perceived threat or direct threat to the US"?

Direct, no. Potential, possibly. Perceived, depends on who's doing the perceiving.

What exactly are you afraid that the Russians are going to do?

Still waiting for some specifics on how exactly the Russians have "scooped up all our former allies", who they have sponsored in the Middle East and Africa, and what this alleged deal with Saudi Arabia is.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 02:27 PM
Direct, no. Potential, possibly. Perceived, depends on who's doing the perceiving.

What exactly are you afraid that the Russians are going to do?

Still waiting for some specifics on how exactly the Russians have "scooped up all our former allies", who they have sponsored in the Middle East and Africa, and what this alleged deal with Saudi Arabia is.

Dayuhan---here is a partial answer which goes along way in supporting what I am saying.

By the way today via Interfax one of the most influential advisors to Putin called for a "no fly zone" which would be implemented by Russia over eastern Ukraine. Now check what the Phase Five is of the new Russian UW strategy called "New Generation Warfare". It also mentions using a "no fly zone" again assumed to be implemented one sided by Russia.

Are these enough current examples to get you to look at ongoing political events, actors and their actions in another light?

The reference to the private Saudi and Russian oil conversations is also pointed to. DID you by any chance see anything mentioned about this in any of the western media?--I did not.

After years of looking to the West for their defense contracts, Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are showing a willingness to diversify economic alliances.

Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.11 This is based on the Saudis understanding of Russia’s interest in Eastern Mediterranean oil and gas resources. This move would change the strategic landscape by threatening the world’s fragile economic recovery, and would negatively affect the United States, as its influence in the region would continue to decline.

It appears even the Egyptians are sensing a resurgence of Russian presence in the Middle East, especially after the U.S. decided to curtail aid in the wake of the military ouster of elected President Mohammed Morsi. The Kremlin viewed the strained relationship between the U.S. and Egypt as an opportunity to forge new ties with old friends. Although, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Badr Abdelk Atty, tried to play down a meeting between the governments by providing a conciliatory and well-crafted statement: “this will not come at the expense of the relationship with the United States.”

Reference the KSA comment:
11. S. Energy Information Administration, This Week in Petroleum, May 25, 2011

Russia is doing investment and arms deals now with Egypt, is providing a constant stream of weapons and oil shipments via Iran into Syria, and is talking with Algeria as well on arms deals and talking with Saudia Arabia about common gas investments.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 02:37 PM
Dayuhan---here are the eight phases of the new Russian UW strategy doctrine and then ask yourself---there is no perceived threat to the US and or US global interests especially when the new Chinese military doctrine "Three Stages of Warfare" mirror a similar tone and theme.

Now look at the phases and ask yourself---how many and which ones have seen being implemented in the Ukraine and Crimea? Then ask which ones can be used in the Baltics, Moldavia and Georgia?

The phases of new-generation war can be schematized as (Tchekinov & Bogdanov,
2013, pp. 15-22):
First Phase: non-military asymmetric warfare (encompassing information, moral, psychological, ideological, diplomatic, and economic measures as part of a plan to establish a favorable political, economic, and military setup).
Second Phase: special operations to mislead political and military leaders by coordinated measures carried out by diplomatic channels, media, and top government and military agencies y leaking false data, orders, directives, and instructions.
Third Phase: intimidation, deceiving, and bribing government and military officers, with the objective of making them abandon their service duties.
Fourth Phase: destabilizing propaganda to increase discontent among the population, boosted by the arrival of Russian bands of militants, escalating subversion.
Fifth Phase: establishment of no-fly zones over the country to be attacked, imposition of blockades, and extensive use of private military companies in close cooperation with armed opposition units.
Sixth Phase: commencement of military action, immediately preceded by large-scale reconnaissance and subversive missions. All types, forms, methods, and forces, including special operations forces, space, radio, radio engineering, electronic, diplomatic, and secret service intelligence, and industrial espionage.
Seventh Phase: combination of targeted information operation, electronic warfare operation, aerospace operation, continuous airforce harassment, combined with the use of high precision weapons launched from various platforms (long-range artillery, and weapons based on new physical principles, including microwaves, radiation, non-lethal biological weapons).
Eighth Phase: roll over the remaining points of resistance and destroy surviving enemy units by special operations conducted by reconnaissance units to spot which enemy units have survived and transmit their coordinates to the attacker's missile and artillery units; fire barrages to annihilate the defender's resisting army units by effective advanced weapons; airdrop
operations to surround points of resistance; and territory mopping-up operations by
ground troops.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 02:44 PM
Dayuhan---this was written recently about the new Russian UW strategy which is being practiced by Russia in the Crimea and Ukraine.

See if it does not indicate a underlying long term strategic threat to the US:

In other words, the Russians have placed the idea of influence at the very center of their operational planning and used all possible levers to achieve this: skillful internal communications; deception operations; psychological operations and well-constructed external communications. Crucially, they have demonstrated an innate understanding of the three key target audiences and their probably behavior: the Russian speaking majority in Crimea; the
Ukrainian government; the international community, specifically NATO and the EU. Armed with this information they knew what to do, when and what the outcomes were likely to be,demonstrating that that the ancient Soviet art of reflexive control is alive and well in the Kremlin.

This is very relevant to understanding its strategic significance, since it is the operationalization of a new form of warfare that cannot be characterized as a military campaign in the classic sense of the term.

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 07:28 PM
Dayuhan--this goes to what I have been saying--is the double standard that Russia uses in their UW strategy a perceived threat against the US if it is directed in support to their political war with the Ukraine.

Example of double standards and not called such by the West.

Today from RIA concerning "humanitarian" assistance.
MOSCOW, June 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia is sending humanitarian aid to eastern Ukraine in cooperation with the independence supporters, as the Kiev authorities are not collaborating with Moscow in that field, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday.

“We are trying to send humanitarian aid to those who did not leave the military zone, and late May we have sent a special request to the Ukrainian authorities to get the permission to deliver such aid,” Lavrov said.

Today this from the Ukrainian media:
This from the Ukrainian side concerning the same Russian "humanitarian" assistance---notice what items the Russian government is sending the citizens of Donbas---evidently not emergency food , blankets, or water---as they were not mentioned by the Russian FM.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov admitted that Russia is assisting separatists in the Donbas. He stated this at a meeting with the OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier.

Lavrov said that Russia supplies “humanitarian aid” with the assistance of militants. Diplomat Lavrov did not specify what type of “humanitarian aid” it is.

But the warlord of terrorists I .Girkin (Strelok) published the plain truth (or rather, almost all). Here is what he wrote in the social media: “Humanitarian aid from Russia has finally reached Slovyansk yesterday. Our special thanks for bulletproof helmets (see photo, green, brand new, gleaming) of a high degree of protection. This is exactly what our guys are missing when they crawl in the trenches under a sniper fire.”

According to the Ukrainian State Border Agency only last week there were several breakthroughs of mechanized armed terrorist groups from the Russian Federation. Army trucks, armored vehicles, weapons and ammunition were part of the equipment that got through.

So again is the game Russia is playing under their new UW strategy published in 2013 a perceived threat to US global interests-IMO yes it is

OUTLAW 09
06-11-2014, 07:47 PM
Dayuhan---again another example of a Russian military decision that in effect is a threat against US interests as well as NATO interests since you asked for examples. Again this decision is being driven by their new military doctrine.

IMO I would see this as a challenge/threat to both NATO and the US.

This is referencing the French sale of there Mistral helicopter carriers to the Russians.

"Meanwhile, current Russian statements indicate that the military apparently has changed its mind about where to deploy its new Mistral-class vessels.

Originally they were to be based at Vladivostok for deployment with Russia's Pacific Fleet. Now, however, the Navy evidently wants to deploy the first two ships in the Black Sea where they could threaten every littoral state in the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, and the Caucasus. The potential deployment of the latter two ships in the Baltic Sea has also quite reasonably aroused intense protests from Poland and the Baltic States, all of whom readily remember their many long years spent under Moscow's control.

In this context it becomes clear that from Moscow's standpoint it is winning or at least incurring acceptable costs. Meanwhile the West's behavior merely confirms the official Russian diagnosis that the West is weak, corrupt, divided, and irresolute."

Dayuhan
06-12-2014, 02:26 AM
This gets annoying. In one post you write:


This was taken from a new Russian SWJ article that goes to the point I am making about the threat.

"Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria." The author quotes one reference but I had seen references to this in several Interfax press releases over the last four weeks and had wondered about it---nothing-nothing was mentioned in the US media and this is a threat as it impacts a really long term ME ally which has had strained ties with us the last several years by our all over the map foreign policy regarding Syria, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood support.

In another:


Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.11 This is based on the Saudis understanding of Russia’s interest in Eastern Mediterranean oil and gas resources. This move would change the strategic landscape by threatening the world’s fragile economic recovery, and would negatively affect the United States, as its influence in the region would continue to decline.

Then we look here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

And what do we see:


Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.

If you're going to cut and paste from public sources, please cite them.

This stuff is not new, and it's in no way secret. This article was from August 2013, pre-Ukraine, almost a year ago. The "deal" was anything but "secret": it was immediately and widely reported and saw a lot of discussion back in the day. The deal never went through: the Russians did not back away from Assad, the Saudis never went through with the arms buy that was going to be part of the deal. It's old news and non-news.

Even if the deal had gone through, despite the rather hysterical headline the parties involved were never going to "control the global oil market". Much of what the Saudis "offered" was not in their power to assure. The article you quoted but didn't cite makes that clear:


Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas (LNG). “The Qataris are not going to obey Saudi orders,” he said.

The claim that control over Eastern Med gas was offered is also specious: the Saudis allegedly offered not to compete with the Russians in that area, but there is absolutely nothing the Saudis could do to prevent American, European, or Chinese companies from getting involved.

This is a better article covering the same issues:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-syria-crisis-saudi-russia-idUSBRE9760OQ20130807

In short, you've pasted material directly from an old article, without a citation. You've misrepresented it as new, and distorted the contents to support a contention of threat. That to me is an insult to the forum and everyone on it, and I personally hope it isn't repeated.

What actually is fairly recent news is that the Russians have signed a long term deal to supply gas to China, starting with 38 billion BCM/year four years down the line and eventually rising to 130 BCM/year. That of course was predictable: Putin is concerned about future sanctions and about Europe finally looking for other sources. I'm sure he'd rather start the deal sooner, but it will take years to build the pipeline infrastructure. That's not a huge issue of course, because it will also take years for the Europeans to reroute their infrastructure away from Russian gas. These things don't happen overnight.

Before anyone cites this as an example of a budding Sino-Russian alliance, note the prices to be paid. Brother Han knew Putin needed another market, put the screws on, and got himself an exceptional deal, closer to North American prices than Asian prices on gas that doesn't have to pass the straits of Hormuz and/or Malacca.

Given that, it's pretty clear that the Russians are not putting any great faith in a long-failed deal to protect their dominance of the European gas market.

Ulenspiegel
06-12-2014, 01:49 PM
Dayuhan---again another example of a Russian military decision that in effect is a threat against US interests as well as NATO interests since you asked for examples. Again this decision is being driven by their new military doctrine.

IMO I would see this as a challenge/threat to both NATO and the US.

This is referencing the French sale of there Mistral helicopter carriers to the Russians.

"Meanwhile, current Russian statements indicate that the military apparently has changed its mind about where to deploy its new Mistral-class vessels.

Originally they were to be based at Vladivostok for deployment with Russia's Pacific Fleet. Now, however, the Navy evidently wants to deploy the first two ships in the Black Sea where they could threaten every littoral state in the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, and the Caucasus. The potential deployment of the latter two ships in the Baltic Sea has also quite reasonably aroused intense protests from Poland and the Baltic States, all of whom readily remember their many long years spent under Moscow's control.

In this context it becomes clear that from Moscow's standpoint it is winning or at least incurring acceptable costs. Meanwhile the West's behavior merely confirms the official Russian diagnosis that the West is weak, corrupt, divided, and irresolute."

Sorry, if Russia pose not only in your OPINION a strategic thread to Europe, you should be able to explain in a coherent way, copy paste does not count, how Russia could pull of a successful startegy when it has a waker miltary, a waker economy and a political model that is highly unattractive for most us poor souls in Europe.

At the moment I only see some tactical stunts but not a coherent strategy, and it is for me as German interesting that you sell me this as thread. :-)

kaur
06-12-2014, 03:33 PM
Ulenspiegel, you should tell Ukrainians and Georgians that they are just victims of some tactical stunts and there is no reason to worry :) If you see no problem telling them this, then I'd like to hear your definition of "tactical stunt".

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 07:16 PM
Sorry, if Russia pose not only in your OPINION a strategic thread to Europe, you should be able to explain in a coherent way, copy paste does not count, how Russia could pull of a successful startegy when it has a waker miltary, a waker economy and a political model that is highly unattractive for most us poor souls in Europe.

At the moment I only see some tactical stunts but not a coherent strategy, and it is for me as German interesting that you sell me this as thread. :-)

Are you actually sure you want to maintain the statement that Russia has a "weaker" military ---are you sure you want to maintain your statement that Russia has a "weaker" economy when all the German companies apply pressure to Merkel to not cut into their Russian profits and their Russian investments with further sanctions.

If you think the German Army is equal to the current newly modernized Russian Army then you need to Google a little bit better. Then Google the following---new Russian nuclear doctrine 2010---then try to state Russia is "weak".

If you think Russian is conducting "stunts" then why did three T72s cross today from Russian into eastern Ukraine when Putin told the Germans and Europeans he was "securing" the Russia/Ukrainian border.

So Putin was telling the entire EU/NATO the "truth" that the Russian Ukrainian border was "secure".

If you want to understand the current Russian strategy then Google "New Russian Generation Warfare".

If you cannot find it then I can paste it for you---read the strategy and then tell me there is no coherent strategy and that is indeed a thread.

It was written by a Latvian military researcher---tell him that there is no strategy.

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 07:31 PM
Direct, no. Potential, possibly. Perceived, depends on who's doing the perceiving.

What exactly are you afraid that the Russians are going to do?

Still waiting for some specifics on how exactly the Russians have "scooped up all our former allies", who they have sponsored in the Middle East and Africa, and what this alleged deal with Saudi Arabia is.

Dayuhan--three T72s and a number of other armored vehicles "crossed" today into eastern Ukraine through a Russian border that Putin officially stated he had instructed the FSB and Federal Border Security Service to close the border. They crossed at a known official Russian border crossing point.

So is this a perceived or actual threat.

So did Putin actually tell the US/EU the truth that the border was secure and he is not supporting separatists are was he basically lying.

so if lying on this ---are you willing to then trust him when he says something else.

This is the fourth time Putin has "officially" misstated himself.

International Relations is usually built on a set of standards between countries so now we have one country that is simply stating a "truth" which later turns out to be a blatant lie.

So a perceived threat or actual threat? so how does one then build long term relationship when lies are the dominant basis of the relationship.

Have you really read both the 2010 new Russian nuclear doctrine and their 2013 UW strategy called the New Generation Warfare?

Please read both and then tell me how you view and interpret both documents and please refrain from making comments until you read them an answer my question ---perceived threat or actual threat on the two doctrines which are the core basis now for all Russian foreign policy decisions?

By the way I noticed you failed to respond to the Saudi article concerning their private deal offer to the Russians---perceived or actual threat to the US?

OUTLAW 09
06-12-2014, 07:48 PM
Dayuhan---Russian has completely modernized over the last seven years their nuclear force, and will add two new heavy ballistic missile's to the inventory by 2016 and have violated the INF they signed by developing and deploying a mobile nuclear capable cruise missile.

Now reread their new nuclear doctrine from 2010 and now read how much it will take for the US to modernize their aging nuclear force.

Congressional auditors say official estimates are ignoring key expenses for the U.S. nuclear force, such as costs of overhauling missiles and aircraft. The Defense and Energy departments indicated that they planned to spend roughly $263.8 billion on the atomic arsenal over the coming decade, but their projections omitted significant items while obscuring “assumptions and limitations,” according to a Tuesday report by the Government Accountability Office

There is talk that Congress is unwilling to spend that much---so one side is completely rearmed nuclear wise, the other side not---and we are dealing with a leader in power until 2024 who has a track record of lying---so who do you trust to fulfill any signed treaties.

Perceived or actual threat?

Dayuhan
06-13-2014, 01:01 AM
Dayuhan--three T72s and a number of other armored vehicles "crossed" today into eastern Ukraine through a Russian border that Putin officially stated he had instructed the FSB and Federal Border Security Service to close the border. They crossed at a known official Russian border crossing point.

So is this a perceived or actual threat.

It's a threat to the Ukraine. The US is not the Ukraine.


So did Putin actually tell the US/EU the truth that the border was secure and he is not supporting separatists are was he basically lying.

so if lying on this ---are you willing to then trust him when he says something else.

Of course he's lying, and of course we shouldn't trust him. Nothing new there; did anyone ever trust him?


Have you really read both the 2010 new Russian nuclear doctrine and their 2013 UW strategy called the New Generation Warfare?

Please read both and then tell me how you view and interpret both documents and please refrain from making comments until you read them an answer my question ---perceived threat or actual threat on the two doctrines which are the core basis now for all Russian foreign policy decisions?

I think you cherry pick these documents and distort them to justify an elevated perception of threat. I would use the term "potential threat", rather than perceived or actual.

Russia spending more than the US on their nuclear arsenal is not necessarily a huge deal: like much of their military, the nuclear side has suffered from neglect for a long time, and they've a lot of expensive catching up to do just to keep it functional. MAD remains firmly in place and remains a considerable deterrent to nuclear use.


By the way I noticed you failed to respond to the Saudi article concerning their private deal offer to the Russians---perceived or actual threat to the US?

You mean the points where you copy/past quotes from articles nearly a year old, fail to cite the source articles, misrepresent the supposed deal as "new", with the inevitable breathless and unsupported references to miscellaneous Interfax press releases?

Please see post #32 above. It's old news and non-news. That offer was made last August, and it was simply an attempt to bribe the Russians into dumping Assad. It failed; the Russians didn't bite. So what? Where's the threat?

Bill Moore
06-13-2014, 04:16 AM
D ayuhan

Using your logic the Nazis were only a threat to Poland, and the Japanese were only a threat to China. Russian aggression unchallenged in the Ukraine threatens our interests globally in subtle and not so subtle ways by changing international norms. Others are watching to see how they can employ their military and paramilitary in creative ways outside accepted inter ational norms.

kaur
06-13-2014, 10:23 AM
To continue Bill's thought. Following pic is from French general A. Beuafre's book "Strategy of Action" (1967), where he tried to explain Hitler's activity before II WW. Today we can draw similar scheme about Russia's activity in and around Ukraine with list of actors with different interests - USA, NATO, EU, different memberstates etc. Would be interesting reading :)

OUTLAW 09
06-13-2014, 03:13 PM
To continue Bill's thought. Following pic is from French general A. Beuafre's book "Strategy of Action" (1967), where he tried to explain Hitler's activity before II WW. Today we can draw similar scheme about Russia's activity in and around Ukraine with list of actors with different interests - USA, NATO, EU, different memberstates etc. Would be interesting reading :)

kaur---you amaze me at times.

Here is a thought that builds on Bill's comment.

Has anyone here commented on the two Secret protocols signed by Stalin and Hitler that were part and parcel of the 1939 Soviet/German Friendship Pact.

It is interesting that many of the countries in the former Soviet Union "were given to Stalin by Hitler" in return for territories Germany wanted. And one wonders why they are so "sensitive" to current Russian activities-even 69 years later I would certainly be nervous to say the lest as history has a way of repeating itself.

AmericanPride
06-13-2014, 09:55 PM
I think you cherry pick these documents and distort them to justify an elevated perception of threat.

One consistent pattern in 'analyzing' the 'threat' from Russia is to simultaneously elevate the threat posed to the United States and to diminish the abilities of Russia to resist U.S. capabilities and strategies. In one post, we hear about the great danger faced by the United States by Russia, and then in the next, how if the Obama administration would only lift the proverbial finger, the Russian campaign would immediately collapse.

The truth is that the military strength of Russia does not come close to that of the United States - and even less so the combined strength of NATO. The difference is that Russia's national security establishment is more disciplined in identifying its political goals and executing plans to implement them. Compare the political outcomes of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with Russia's Georgia and Ukraine interventions - which state came closer to accomplishing its political objectives? How many people believed Washington's IO about democracy in Iraq versus Moscow's IO about Crimean desire for unification with Russia? Moscow has been smarter than Washington in recent history in its use of force, and this success aggravates those in Washington to no end.


Russian aggression unchallenged in the Ukraine threatens our interests globally in subtle and not so subtle ways by changing international norms.

By default, challengers to the status quo will seek to change international norms. Since power is relative, we have to ask if American power is declining or if Russian power is growing (or both). The Russians are clearly discontent with their lot in the international system, so it's not surprising that Moscow exploits opportunities to advance its position. The problem, then, is not the change in the status quo in itself, but Russia's discontent with the status quo. Why is Moscow discontent and what incentives can Washington offer to purchase its cooperation? If Moscow cannot be coerced into compliance, then negotiation is the only viable alternative. What do the Russians want and does Washington have the ability and/or willingness to give it to them?

Dayuhan
06-14-2014, 12:13 AM
Using your logic the Nazis were only a threat to Poland, and the Japanese were only a threat to China.

Apples and oranges, really, or more like apples and baseballs. Despite the round of Putin-worship we're seeing lately, Russia's success in the Ukraine is less about Putin's genius or some uniquely devious scheme for "New Generation Warfare" than about circumstances unique to the Ukraine. The Ukraine was beyond low-hanging fruit; it was fruit on the ground. The revolution had left the country effectively ungoverned; the armed forces were of varied loyalty and barely functional. Russia had a military base in the Ukraine and could tap into a large and disaffected ethnic Russian population with an active perception of threat. Crimea effectively dropped into Putin's lap, all he had to do was reach out and take it. I suspect that he really doesn't want Donetsk; if he did he'd have taken it already.

Will these enabling circumstances be repeated elsewhere? Probably not, unless a pro-Western revolution breaks out in Belarus (not very likely any time soon). Russia's aggression in the Ukraine was as much an act of opportunism as anything else: Putin didn't create that opportunity, he just took advantage of it. It's not likely that he will be given or can create that opportunity elsewhere. That's very much unlike the aggressors of WW2, who created their own opportunities and were able to repeat them.


Russian aggression unchallenged in the Ukraine threatens our interests globally in subtle and not so subtle ways by changing international norms. Others are watching to see how they can employ their military and paramilitary in creative ways outside accepted international norms.

Those "international norms" have been ignored forever by anyone with the opportunity and the incentive. We generally don't notice, because it's so often us that's doing the ignoring.

SWJ Blog
08-06-2015, 10:43 AM
Putin’s Gordian Knot: The Changing Face of Russian Intervention (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/putin%E2%80%99s-gordian-knot-the-changing-face-of-russian-intervention)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/putin%E2%80%99s-gordian-knot-the-changing-face-of-russian-intervention) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
09-17-2015, 12:56 PM
Grading Gerasimov: Evaluating Russian NonlinearWar Through Modern Chinese Doctrine (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/grading-gerasimov-evaluating-russian-nonlinearwar-through-modern-chinese-doctrine)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/grading-gerasimov-evaluating-russian-nonlinearwar-through-modern-chinese-doctrine) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
10-10-2015, 05:40 PM
Despite Early Signs of Russian Buildup in Syria, U.S. Seemed to be Caught Flat-footed (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/despite-early-signs-of-russian-buildup-in-syria-us-seemed-to-be-caught-flat-footed)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/despite-early-signs-of-russian-buildup-in-syria-us-seemed-to-be-caught-flat-footed) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
10-15-2015, 10:22 AM
Russian Military Uses Syria as Proving Ground, and West Takes Notice (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/russian-military-uses-syria-as-proving-ground-and-west-takes-notice)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/russian-military-uses-syria-as-proving-ground-and-west-takes-notice) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
01-24-2016, 07:37 PM
A "broad brush" commentary by John Schindler, after the murder of Alexander Litvenenko in London ten years ago. Elsewhere on SWC we have a few posts on the apparently "new" Russian use of unconventional warfare (UW), information operations and of course those "little green men". So "wetwork" fits SWC's TOR, even if rather uncomfortable.

The full title and sub-title being:
The Return of Wetwork: KGB Goons Radiated a Former Associate in London; Putin's Kremlin employs assassination abroad as state policy in a manner not seen in Moscow since Stalinhttps://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/alexander-litvinenko-inquiry-opens.jpg?quality=80&w=635&h=383

Schindler concludes:
We should hope that the deaths of Mikhail Lesin and other Russian exiles who got on the wrong side of Vladimir Putin won’t linger in mystery for decades like Walter Krivitsky’s. That the Kremlin murdered Alexander Litvinenko seems certain, while a Russian role in assassinations of several others in the West looks increasingly likely. All that can be said with full confidence at this point is that if Western governments don’t take a hard line with Mr. Putin about his regime’s wetwork, demanding that it cease, Russian secret agents will continue their killing spree in our countries.Link:http://observer.com/2016/01/the-return-of-wetwork-kgb-goons-radiated-a-former-associate-in-london/

From London a rather wide comment on modern Russia, the headline being:
Litvinenko’s murder shows why Putin’s Russia will never prosperLink:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/litvinenko-murder-putin-russia?

The following two passages appeared yesterday on the Russian intelligence activities.

An interesting account of this Russian FSB defector's death; the sub-title says:
This week, the inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko will deliver its findings. The former Russian spy was poisoned with a cup of tea in a London hotel. Working with Scotland Yard detectives, as he lay dying, he traced the lethal substance to a former comrade in the Russian secret service Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...P=share_btn_tw (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/alexander-litvinenko-the-man-who-solved-his-own-murder?CMP=share_btn_tw)

The murder was in October 2006 and only this week did an official inquiry come to an end. This BBC link has more:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35378626

davidbfpo
03-19-2016, 11:08 PM
This mysterious death has popped up before, but just spotted John Schindler's column. He starts with:
The story has all the makings of a sleek Hollywood spy thriller. A defector from the Kremlin, a man close to the top echelons of power in Russia. A man who knew too much. And who lived the global jet-set lifestyle. Fear, international intrigue and rumors of stolen fortunes end in a fashionable hotel—with a brutal death.Link:http://observer.com/2016/03/another-defector-dead-in-washington/

AmericanPride
03-20-2016, 05:14 PM
"Return" implies it left at one point. But assassination and murder has always been a tool of Russian statecraft. Linked is an interesting book I read last year about some of that history:

http://www.amazon.com/KGBs-Poison-Factory-Lenin-Litvinenko/dp/0760337535


In late November 2006 the whole world was shaken by a ruthless assassination in London of former lieutenant colonel of the FSB (the Russian security service and a successor to the KGB) and British citizen Alexander Litvinenko. This has been the most notorious crime in the past 30 years committed by Russian intelligence on foreign soil. Former Russian military intelligence officer and international expert in special operations Boris Volodarsky shows how the Russian poisoning operations started with Lenin and his Cheka, the predecessor of the KGB with intelligence operatives creating poisons and delivery methods as well as planning and carrying out poisoning operations all over the world in order to eliminate the enemies of the Kremlin.

SWJ Blog
07-10-2016, 07:28 AM
Myatezh Voina: The Russian Grandfather of Western Hybrid Warfare (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/myatezh-voina-the-russian-grandfather-of-western-hybrid-warfare)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/myatezh-voina-the-russian-grandfather-of-western-hybrid-warfare) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
08-03-2016, 10:25 AM
Thread re-opened after a post elsewhere (which should follow this) and five SWJ Blog entries merged here too. Thread title changed to reflect unconventional theme.

There are a number of threads which feature the 'Little Green Men', notably their use in the Crimea takeover. Plus the following 2016 threads which feature unconventional warfare:

1) Op Liza failed info op in Germany:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=23567

2) Russia and the European Far Right:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=20641

3) "Little Green Football Fans" in France:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=24084

davidbfpo
08-03-2016, 10:31 AM
Hat tip to Outlaw09 on the Ukraine War thread for linking an unclassified edition of the 'U.S. Army Special Operations Command Primer on Russian Unconventional Warfare in Ukraine 2013-2014', I don't think has appeared on SWJ before:https://info.publicintelligence.net/USASOC-LittleGreenMen.pdf

davidbfpo
11-22-2016, 10:52 PM
Thanks to a lurker an update on a longstanding Soviet and successor states practices towards those living elsewhere.

From the website:
A new Foreign Policy Centre publication 'No shelter: the harassment of activists abroad by intelligence services from the former Soviet Union' examines the experiences of activists and other people who have had to leave their former Soviet country of origin due to the risk of persecution at home, but who are unable to escape the pressures of their country's security services. It looks at both the legal and illegal means used by the security services to put pressure on exiles from Interpol Red Notices and formal extradition procedures, to surveillance, harassment, physical attacks, kidnapping and assassination. Though the publication looks at the issue across the post-Soviet region there will be a particular focus on the activities of the security services from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and on both Turkey and Russia as places where exiles are most at risk. No Shelter examines regional security service cooperation and collusion in putting pressure on activists, alongside the influence of Western activities that have helped exacerbate the situation.Link:http://fpc.org.uk/publications/noshelter

Red Rat
12-02-2016, 10:57 PM
A new report that I spotted today will be of interest to those on this thread:

"Hybrid War or Gibridnaya Voina? Getting Russia’s non-linear military challenge right"

The executive summary states:


The West is at war. It is not a war of the old sort, fought with the thunder of guns, but a new sort, fought with the rustle of money, the shrill mantras of propagandists, and the stealthy whispers of spies.

This is often described as ‘hybrid war,’ a blend of the military and the political, but in fact there are two separate issues, two separate kinds of non-linear war, which have become unhelpfully intertwined. The first is the way—as the Russians have been quick to spot—that modern technologies and modern societies mean that a shooting war will likely be preceded by and maybe even almost, but not quite, replaced by a phase of political destabilization. The second, though, is the political war that Moscow is waging against the West, in the hope not of preparing the ground for an invasion, but rather of dividing, demoralizing and distracting it enough that it cannot resist as the Kremlin asserts its claims to being a ‘great power’ and in the process a sphere of influence over most of the post-Soviet states of Eurasia.

The two overlap heavily, and maybe they could usefully be regarded as the two sides of a wider form of ‘non-linear war.’ The instruments which make up ‘political war’ are also crucial to the earlier phases of ‘hybrid war.’ Nonetheless, while a comprehensive analysis of the full arsenal and objectives of Moscow’s ‘political war’ against the West are beyond the scope of this report, a study of ‘hybrid war’ as the Kremlin sees it is essential to explore the nature of the potential threat not just to the West but other countries. In addition, it is central to understanding the way war is changing in the modern age, and what we can do in order to deter, defend and, if need be, defeat any ‘hybrid’ challenge.

To this end, his report initially considers the way Russian operations in Crimea and south-eastern Ukraine led to the rise of concerns about ‘hybrid war’ and the belief that it represents something substantively new before questioning many of these assumptions by considering Russian thinking on the matter. To Moscow, it is the West which led the way in pioneering political-military operations focusing on destabilizing hostile regimes, and it has taken its cues from its sometimes-acute, sometimes-deeply-mistaken perceptions about our thinking.

What has emerged, if not wholly new, is certainly a distinctive war of war, one that is rooted, as discussed in the second part of the report, in response to five particular challenges or conditions with which Moscow must contend, from the mismatch between assets and ambitions, to the deinstitutionalization of Putin’s state. Part three then looks at the particular assets the Russians can deploy in their pursuit of ‘hybrid’ operations short of all-out warfare, from the special forces and thuggish gangster auxiliaries who seized Crimea in 2014 to spies, propagandists and spinmasters.

The point of trying to understand this threat is to respond to it, and the final part presents a series of observations and re-commendations for Western policy. The aim must be deterrence if possible, but such is the nature of this diffuse and undeclared form of war that this will often be by denial—developing ‘hybrid defenses’—and the right mix of forces ready for a conflict that could as easily be fought in cyberspace or the courts as on the battlefield.

Nor is this simply a threat that will subside as and when Putin’s regime implodes or subsides, however inevitable this undoubtedly is. There are other revisionist powers in the world and likely to emerge. ‘Hybrid war’ is a convenient and catchy term, even if of questionable scholarly rigor, but if anything it simply reflects the way conflict is evolving, and the sooner the West adapts to the Russian challenge, the better it will also be positioned to face the one coming next after that.

The full report can be found at the excellent blog: In Moscow's Shadows (https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/)