Russian Unconventional Strategy

[kaur]

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]

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]

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]

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/...t-expert-3064/

[kaur]

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/alban...013/66-1-0-335

[OUTLAW 09]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.