Myth and Reality—A Net Assessment of Russia’s ‘Hybrid Warfare’ Strategy Since the Start of 2014

By: Roger McDermott

October 17, 2014 

Source Link

Myth and Reality—A Net Assessment of Russia’s ‘Hybrid Warfare’ Strategy Since the Start of 2014 (Part One)

(Source: gazeta.ru)

Russian commentators noted the significance of President Vladimir Putin’s mid-October decision to order troops back to their bases after several months of high readiness in proximity to the Russia-Ukraine border. Military forces in the area were placed on high alert in the run-up to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi in February 2014 and were maintained at such levels since. Although it may not signal the end of the crisis, and was most likely triggered by the agreement to hold a bilateral meeting between President Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart, Petro Poroshenko, in Milan, it presents an opportunity to reflect on Russia’s use of military power during the crisis since the start of the year (gazeta.ru, October 13).

Essential in such reflections on the success of Moscow’s policy to annex Crimea, destabilize eastern and southeastern Ukraine, and fundamentally challenge post-Cold War European security architecture is the concept and mythology which developed around the phrase “hybrid warfare.” At an early stage, following the sudden appearance of the “polite people”—denoting the Russian military deployment across the Crimean peninsula in late February and March 2014—this phrase came into Western parlance. In fact, “hybrid warfare” reflects two quite distinctive and misleading articles in the Russian media: one by Putin’s close advisor Vladislav Surkov (under a pseudonym) and the other, written one year earlier, allegedly by the chief of the General Staff (CGS), Army-General Valeriy Gerasimov. Surkov’s phrase, in a futuristic piece written in March 2014, used the term “non-linear” warfare, marking something new in Russian conventional operations. While the term also appeared in the thinking expressed under Gerasimov’s name in February 2013 (ruspioner.ru, March 12; Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 27, 2013).

Surkov’s phrase, following the surprise activities in Crimea, which marked Moscow’s annexation of the territory, was seized upon by commentators in search of a convenient hook to make sense of rapidly unfolding developments. Moreover, many pointed to the holy grail of “non-linear” warfare, preferring the term “hybrid warfare” while appealing to the Gerasimov article from February 2013 in Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer. Unfortunately, the search is somewhat misleading for a number of salient reasons: Gerasimov was only in the post for three months at that point. Second, he was not known for advanced thinking on future warfare developments. And finally, there is a long tradition established in the Soviet era of lower-ranking General Staff officers publishing under the name of the CGS. Consequently, those who rushed for easy interpretations of the Russian tactics used in Ukraine coined the phrase: “Gerasimov doctrine,” as one explainer. However, many of the features of the Russian operations in Crimea, for instance, were put in place by Gerasimov’s predecessor Nikolai Makarov (Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 27, 2013).

The Russian Federation’s aggression toward Ukraine swung between unconventional and conventional warfare. Russia absorbed Crimea and subsequently carried out operations to promote “rebel forces” in Ukraine in what appeared as a war for “Novorossiya” (“New Russia”—a historical name for lands occupying mainly southeastern Ukraine), with ever increasing gains on the ground for the pro-Russia elements within Ukraine’s east. Russian actions ranged from the use of “polite people” or a new special forces mix in Crimea, to a threat of full-scale invasion by combined-arms units in the Donbas region—and included high-profile “humanitarian convoys” used to great effect (see EDM, September 2). The actual use of Russian troops within Ukraine amounted to a relatively small force, compared to the high-readiness combined-arms units closer to the border. These operations themselves ranged from conventional through to special forces operations, combined with an ongoing information campaign aimed at destabilization Ukraine and combatting the West’s narrative of the conflict (see EDM, July 8).

Russian and Western commentators quickly lost sight of how the Crimea operation was handled and precisely why it was so effective. They overlooked the actual force mix that was utilized in conjunction with the Kremlin’s mixture of hard and soft power to slice off part of the territory of a neighboring state and apply continued pressure on the government in Kyiv. Slogans about “polite people” and references to “non-linear war” masked the actual nature of executing such operations. By April 2014, Russia’s political-military elite were so buoyed by the confidence of this experiment in harnessing hard and soft power that they were poking fun at leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) who were condemning Russian actions in Ukraine. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu dismissed the West’s search for Russian military involvement in eastern Ukraine as like looking for “a black cat in a dark room,” while offering admiration for Russian special forces, by acknowledging that such black cats are “smart, polite and brave” (see EDM, April 23).

Blurring Russian military theory, doctrine, capabilities and force development with the opinions of Moscow media in a full blown information campaign became a matrix for explaining the on-the-ground activities of Russian units. But this explanation eclipsed many of the real themes present in the original “Gerasimov” article. These are worth noting in order to reach a proper understanding of the use of unconventional tactics to good effect in Crimea and later in destabilizing eastern and southeastern Ukraine (EDM, June 17; EDM, June 12).

The problem is that the Gerasimov article does not entirely fit Russian operations in Ukraine. Its context, with references to Russian thinking on future warfare as well as efforts to bolster military science and the domestic defense industry, are vital clues in the reading of the piece. A dominant theme in this discourse, reinforced by the need to stress continuity with the previous CGS, is the interest in both network-centric and non-linear warfare—themes present in the Armed Forces reform launched in 2008 and the subsequent military modernization to 2020. Moreover, these ideas and concepts were not developed in a vacuum; they were and are responses to and interpretations of military developments within NATO and elsewhere (Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 27, 2013).

After outlining the complex nature of modern warfare and its blurring of war and peace, framed by references to conflicts around the world, the author outlined the nature of how wars have shifted toward some new form; these features were then delineated. This includes the “initiation of military operations” by line units in peacetime; “highly maneuverable non-contact operations” by inter-branch line units; destroying “critically important infrastructure” in a short time; “simultaneous effects” on line units and enemy facilities at depth; warfare in all “physical environments and the information space;” asymmetric and indirect operations; and the command and control of forces and assets “in a unified information space.” This did not represent a fully worked out hybrid warfare doctrine, and the operation in Crimea and later actions within the country do not entirely fit (Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 27, 2013).

Myth and Reality—A Net Assessment of Russia’s ‘Hybrid Warfare’ Strategy Since the Start of 2014 (Part Two)

Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, and Moscow’s mixture of threating full-scale invasion of Ukraine’s east combined with promoting separatism, analysts seized on an earlier article written by General Valeriy Gerasimov as offering a conceptual framework for those actions. Collectively, journalists quickly settled on describing this strategy by using the phrase “hybrid warfare,” though the original use in Gerasimov’s article was actually “non-linear” warfare (see Part One of this article in EDM, October 17; also see EDM, September 17).

Gerasimov’s March 2014 piece ended with a call to reinvigorate Russian military science in order to modernize the military to fight 21st-century conflicts. He cited the great Soviet military theorist Alexander Svechin, stressing that war is “extremely difficult to predict,” and that each conflict has its own line of strategic behavior requiring a particular logic and “not the application of a pattern.” The point was not lost on the country’s foremost military theorist, Army-General Makhmut Gareev, the president of the Academy of Military Sciences. In an article in May 2014, Gareev called for the lessons learned from the success of the Crimean operation to be examined and acted upon by Moscow (see EDM, May 6; Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 27, 2013).

However, by May 2014, those lessons were difficult to distinguish as the application of hard and soft power that dislodged Crimea from Ukraine had been submerged in several concurrent narratives: ranging from the versions in the Russian and Ukrainian media, to Western interpretations. The search for the specifics of Russian non-linear warfare, consistent with existing military science, would therefore demand a defragmentation of these contradictory narratives. The actual force mix used in Crimea, which appeared to rehearse the use of forces assigned to an evolving rapid reaction force, also contained an element of interest to other Russian military theorists. This seemed to mark a transition in the use of special forces (spetsnaz) to a more clearly defined combat- rather than reconnaissance-based role (RIA Novosti, May 16).

By September 2014, Colonel-General Anatoly Zaitsev assessed the implications of the Crimea operation in terms of the role of commandos in both offensive and defensive modes, arguing that a modern army must be able to fight without a front line. Zaitsev’s thinking, in other words, follows the same dynamics as earlier discussions of Russian views on future warfare. The “generations of wars” theme recurs, with the ultimate focus placed on “network-centric” and “non-contact” combat. Zaitsev notes that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) intelligence missed everything concerning the Crimea operation, primarily due to Russian forces observing strict radio silence; Russia also made skilful use of the base in Sevastopol and military transport shipping from the Black Sea Fleet to redeploy personnel and equipment. Zaitsev then highlights the “sudden appearance of formidable, armed ‘polite people’ without insignia, where it was necessary to prevent an armed intervention” from local units (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, September 3).

For Zaitsev, one of the “lessons learned” from the Crimea operation was related to the use of Russian commando units to seal off key infrastructure as forces spread across the peninsula. Zaitsev states:

In particular, the concealed concentration and operational deployment of troops, not to mention the advance of any kind of major reserve, have become practically unrealizable. Under those conditions it is unrealistic to establish a major troop grouping such as at the level of a reinforced division on axes for delivery of the main and diversionary attacks. Taking a broader look at the actions of blocking subunits, their similarity to tactics of medium-size and small commando teams (we will call them partisan teams) will become obvious. Their ultimate mission clearly is to destroy critically important enemy facilities and disorganize or destroy [the enemy’s] troop support systems (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, September 3).

These actual successes, critical in avoiding the Ukrainian forces opening fire on Russian troops, were no accident but the work of highly specialised GRU (military intelligence) Spetsnaz forces following strict orders. According to Zaitsev, this has implications for the future protection of critical infrastructure on Russian territory, including the protection of nuclear facilities (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, September 3). Part of the mystery surrounding the lack of response from Ukrainian forces in Crimea during the operation lies precisely in this area. Russian commando units sealed off local bases, cut communications, and operated under strict orders to avoid opening fire or, if needed, to fire above the heads of enemy forces. The Russian forces were also ordered to allow Ukrainian personnel to contact their families and offered preferential defection terms for Ukrainian troops switching to join the Russian Armed Forces—including the same terms and conditions but without taking the oath of allegiance (Author’s interviews, May 2014).

Thus, for the author of the March 2014 Gerasimov article (whether or not it was actually General Staff head Valeriy Gerasimov) or specialists such as General Zaitsev, the internal military discussion is about developing tactics and methods that reflect the fact that the very means and methods of modern warfare have fundamentally changed. This includes a Russian understanding of using “weapons of new physical principles” or technological advances that occur during armed conflict where one side gains battlefield superiority over the other by exploiting a more effective means to direct firepower. In this military theory, the discussion is about generations of warfare and moving to non-contact or network-centric methods. The Russian military has neither a developed nor agreed-upon doctrinal version of these concepts, let alone a fully worked out “non-linear” approach. Svechin’s dictum about war not being about the “application of a pattern” holds true for Russian military theory today. The point is that non-linear doctrine and its tactics are in a state of experimentation and evolution—hence, Moscow is unlikely to repeat precisely the same approach or pattern when non-linear warfare is used next (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, September 3; see EDM, May 6; Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 27, 2013).

These issues are important for NATO planners as they consider how to boost security in the Alliance’s East and deal with any Russian actions below the threshold of Article Five. This will also come into play as the force structure of the new “spearhead” takes shape—which is aimed at strengthening security in Central Eastern Europe and the Baltic States by consolidating the NATO Reaction Force and building it upon a rotational basing structure. NATO military planners require 18 months to two years to plan and develop new exercise scenarios, meaning that Moscow will see no more than token tinkering with the “spearhead” force until 2016. Meanwhile, however, NATO decision makers risk planning responses to a nebulous target, since Russia’s “non-linear” warfare methods—in embryonic use in Ukraine since the beginning of 2014—will likely witness further refinement.