When it seems that it is impossible to further distort the image of Russia in the West, Western media prove the opposite. The Financial Times, once quite competent in its coverage of Russia, published a fascinating story about a non-existent military doctrine. They might as well have written about crop circles or the Priory of Sion.

We are talking about a dummy called the “Gerasimov Doctrine”, generated by an article in 2013. It contains the Chief of the General Staff Armed Forces Russian Federation Valery Gerasimov lists various modern methods warfare, which in a broad sense can be called hybrid warfare. At the same time, he discusses the operations of the West, not Russia, in particular, using the example of Libya, Syria and efforts related to the events of the “Arab Spring” aimed at “regime change.”

The term “hybrid war” does not appear in Gerasimov’s report. The closest concept to it is asymmetrical conflict, which is mentioned three times. Moreover, we should not forget that this expression first became known after the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia in 2008 and the Kremlin’s reaction to Mikheil Saakashvili’s gambit. At that moment, the post of Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces was held not by Gerasimov, but by Nikolai Makarov. So, if such a doctrine existed, it would have to bear his name.

Military maneuvers sometimes have a very strange effect on people. For example, the Zapad-2017 exercises currently being conducted by Russia and Belarus have frightened the countries of the Baltic region so much that they have transferred control of their airspace to America. The President of Ukraine suggested that these maneuvers were just a cover for an invasion of his country, and the Deputy Minister of Defense of Poland saw in them a pretext for the permanent deployment of the Russian military contingent participating in the exercises in Belarus.

From the Financial Times article we learned that Moscow is conducting “war games” and NATO is conducting “maneuvers,” and that many American and European officials believe Vladimir Putin has exactly 100,000 troops involved in the exercises. Obviously, for the love of impressive round numbers. However, according to the Kremlin, only 13 000 Human.

Imaginary threat

Like the World Cup, Exercise West takes place every four years, which means it is unlikely to come as a surprise to the rest of the world. But the very fact of their existence very well fuels the industry engaged in inflating the “Russian threat.” It is very significant that the American defense industry lobbyists from the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) even created a website with a countdown to the start of the maneuvers, in order to slightly help the business of their sponsors.

Another common horror story lately is the nonsense about the “Gerasimov Doctrine”, which is being promoted with all its might by lobbyist Molly McCue, who has suddenly become a “Russia expert” - apparently because her nonsense fits perfectly into the current rhetoric of the United States. However, the catch is that this grand strategy simply does not exist. No one in Russia has even heard of it, not a single source worthy of trust in the slightest degree confirms the fact of its existence.

Of course, there are Western “Russia experts” and “Kremlinologists” who speculate on this matter, but these scoundrels should not be taken seriously. After all, if soup was pouring from the sky in Moscow, they would be standing on the streets with forks. And hundreds of kilometers from the capital.

Now let’s dot the i’s: there is no “Gerasimov Doctrine”. This is a phenomenon of the same order as the Loch Ness Monster or the Curse of the Pharaohs. At the same time, adults talk about it with a smart look, often hiding behind fancy pseudo-scientific titles.

The Last of the Mohicans

A few years ago, the Financial Times was the only publication Western media, which is at least a little closer to understanding Russia. But then journalist Charles Clover was transferred to another position, and his successors clearly lacked the experience, competence and abilities of their predecessor. Ultimately, all this led to the Financial Times falling for this “Gerasimov Doctrine” nonsense last weekend. Seasoning it with pompous arguments about Russian-Belarusian exercises, the publication produced a phantasmagoria inflated to caricature proportions.

And indeed, as an expert from a funded American government"Radio Liberty" Mark Galeotti, "is essentially an hour-long article in the spirit of Molly McCue's nonsense, interspersed with a biography of Gerasimov taken from Wikipedia." And this, by the way, is putting it mildly.

The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, like no other Russian military man, attracts the attention of foreign military experts and the media. Not long ago, the Wall Street Journal named Gerasimov the most influential officer of his time in Russia. His works have been translated into English language and cause large-scale discussions. The general's statements and actions are closely monitored. It is Gerasimov who is today called the main ideologist in the West." hybrid war".

"Cardinal" Gerasimov

Gerasimov came into the focus of attention of foreign military analysts and the media not so much after his appointment as Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces in 2012, and later - in February 2013 - after the publication of his article “The Value of Science in Foresight” in the newspaper Military-Industrial Courier ".

After the events in Crimea and Donbass, this article became a hit in the West; it was repeatedly translated into English and parsed into quotes. Gerasimov began to be considered the main theorist of Russian actions in modern military conflicts, in Syria and Ukraine.

In 2016, the head of the US Marine Corps, General Robert Neller, admitted that he had re-read Gerasimov’s article three times and thought a lot about how the Russians plan to fight future wars.

In the article, the army general, by the way, did not so much formulate some new doctrine as analyze and criticize the actions of Western countries in changing political regimes in Libya and Syria, assessed the development of events during the Arab Spring and the possibilities of protection against such actions.

Gerasimov wrote: “In the 21st century, there is a tendency to erase the differences between the state of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared, but once they begin, they do not follow the pattern we are accustomed to. The role of non-military methods in achieving political and strategic goals has increased, which in some cases are more effective significantly surpassed the force of weapons. The emphasis of the methods of confrontation used is shifting towards the widespread use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian and other non-military measures, implemented with the use of the protest potential of the population."

In the article itself, by the way, the word “hybrid” is never mentioned; only three times there is a reference to “asymmetrical” forms of conflicts. First of all we're talking about about information pressure on the population and political elite participants in the confrontation. There is not even a mention of cyber activity, although today foreign media In connection with accusations that Russia interfered in the US elections, Gerasimov is, without a shadow of a doubt, credited with creating a theoretical basis for carrying out cyber attacks on the US and European countries.

In 2014, the head of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces was included in the sanctions lists of the European Union and Canada, in May 2017, Gerasimov was included in the expanded sanctions list of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, and in June of this year, Montenegro announced a ban on the general’s visiting the country.

In March, Gerasimov published another article - “The World on the Brink of War”, which actually discusses “hybrid war”, US actions in Syria and the Middle East, the cyber attack on Iran in 2015 and the significance social networks. But the general’s second work has not yet received such wide circulation and is not as mythologized abroad as the first.

© AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq

© AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq

How the shadow of “hybrid war” grew

“Hybrid war” cannot be called something new. In Russia, people began to think about “half-wars” a very long time ago. The theorist of this type of war was Colonel and Professor Evgeniy Eduardovich Messner (1891-1974), one of the largest representatives of military thought in Russia abroad. He comprehensively developed the theory and predicted the development of this type of war in his books: “Rebellion is the name of the third world war” and “Worldwide rebellion.”

Messner reasoned as follows: “In a future war, they will fight not on the line, but on the entire surface of the territories of both opponents, because political, social, and economic fronts will arise behind the armed front; they will fight not on a two-dimensional surface, as in the old days, not in three-dimensional space, as it was from the moment of birth military aviation, but in four dimensions, where the psyche of warring peoples is the fourth dimension."

Another significant ideologist was Georgy Samoilovich Isserson (1898-1976) - Soviet military leader, colonel, professor, one of the developers of the theory of deep operations. His works “The Evolution of Operational Art” and “Fundamentals of Deep Operations” are today of great interest both in Russia and in the West, where they are translated into English. Gerasimov, by the way, mentions Isserson in his works.

In the States, until 2010, the phrase “hybrid war” was practically not used - the American military did not see the meaning in it, because terms such as “irregular war” and “unconventional war” had long existed in their doctrines. But seven years have passed, and today this designation is deeply ingrained in the vocabulary of Western militaries when they talk about Russia.

In the United States in 2005, long before all of Gerasimov’s articles, American General James Mattis, now the head of the Pentagon, and Colonel Frank Hoffman published a landmark article “The Future of Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars,” in which they added to the military doctrine of the 90s General Charles Krulak about the three blocks of the war, the fourth block. Krulak's three blocks are the direct conduct of hostilities, peacekeeping operations to separate the warring parties, and the provision of humanitarian assistance. The fourth, new block of Mattis and Hoffman is psychological and information operations and work with the population.

© AP Photo/Matt Dunham

© AP Photo/Matt Dunham

In 2010, NATO's Bi-Strategic Command Capstone Concept officially defined "hybrid" threats as threats posed by an adversary capable of simultaneously adaptively using traditional and unconventional means to achieve your own goals. In 2012, the book “Hybrid Warfare: Fighting a Complex Opponent from Ancient Times to the Present Day,” which became famous in narrow circles, was published by historian Williamson Murray and Colonel Peter Mansur.

In May 2014, the US Army and Marine Corps adopted a very interesting document - new edition Field Manual 3-24 entitled "Uprisings and suppression of uprisings". The new version of the charter is focused on America’s indirect (indirect) participation in suppressing uprisings in a particular country, when American troops are not brought in en masse at all, but do all the work on the ground strong structure country receiving American aid. Descriptions of the insurrectionary movement, the prerequisites for its emergence, strategy and tactics of action are depicted in such detail that sometimes it is completely unclear where we are talking about preparing an uprising, and where about its suppression. That is, the chapters from the American Charter can be used by anyone - as a good general instruction for action and preparation for rebellion. According to media reports, NATO leadership is aware of the danger of hybrid warfare and is preparing a new concept that will allow it to respond more quickly to threats of a new nature.

It is not difficult to compare Gerasimov’s recent work with the work of ten years ago from American theorists and practitioners, including the current US Secretary of Defense. But it was Gerasimov who was declared the ideologist of the “hybrid war”.

However, there are sound thoughts from foreign colleagues as well. Michael Kofman, a political scientist at the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, writes: “In the West, this phrase now refers to any Russian action that frightens the speaker. The danger is that many military officials and politicians are convinced that a full-fledged Russian doctrine hybrid war is a reality. And believing this, they tend to see manifestations of hybrid types of confrontations everywhere - especially where they do not exist. After all, almost any Russian action - in the information, political or military field - can now be interpreted as hybrid. Meaningless phrases can be deadly weapons in the mouths of people in power."

The purpose of this article is not an in-depth analysis of events, but only a desire to draw the attention of readers to some issues and problems related to the information war and asymmetric actions that the Putin regime uses against the West.

The recent terrorist attacks in Brussels have clearly shown Europe that the European Union is in a state of war against terrorism represented by the Islamist Salafist ultra-radical organization called Daesh or the so-called. Islamic State (ISIS).

However, this has already been clearly demonstrated by the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015 and other similar threats.

It is time for European politicians and analysts to take off their rose-colored glasses and understand that the hybrid war of terrorists against Europe is being waged at all levels, including in the information space.

But in addition to Daesh, the Kremlin is also waging an information war against Europe and the States, doing it very skillfully and sometimes very veiledly. At the same time, many experts believe that the Kremlin war is more massive and aggressive. This was openly stated on March 26, 2016 by President V. Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov, noting that the Russian Federation is in a state of information war with the Anglo-Saxon media.

At its core, it is more subtle and thoughtful information campaign, or even several campaigns. They are not as clumsy and primitive as those of the Islamists and therefore are considered many times more dangerous. All this is just part of the global hybrid war - a war of a new type or generation that the Kremlin is waging.

Ukrainian politician and scientist Vladimir Gorbulin very accurately noted that “for the Russian Federation, the “hybrid” method of warfare has become dominant in long years, as evidenced by the latest article “Based on the experience of Syria” by General V. Gerasimov (the same one who at the beginning of 2013 publicly formulated the Russian understanding of modern conflicts in the format of “hybrid wars”)».

In his article “The Value of Science in Foresight” in issue 8 Military-industrial courier from February-March 2013, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, General Gerasimov, noted that « the distinctions between the strategic, operational and tactical levels, offensive and defensive actions are erased. The use of precision weapons is becoming widespread. Weapons based on new physical principles and robotic systems are being actively introduced into military affairs. Asymmetrical actions have become widespread, making it possible to neutralize the enemy’s superiority in armed struggle. These include the use of special operations forces and internal opposition to create a permanent front throughout the entire territory of the opposing state, as well as information impact, the forms and methods of which are constantly being improved.”

There is no doubt that the actions of Islamists and terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels in 2015-16. including playing into the hands of the Kremlin, as well as the activities of right-wing European organizations opposing migration to Europe.

To do this, let's try to find answers to a number of questions:

Firstly. What did Islamist terrorists want to achieve by detonating bombs at metro stations and at the airport of the EU capital and was it revenge for the arrest of Salah Abdeslam, the organizer of the attacks in Paris, who was arrested in Brussels on Friday?

Of course not.

An analysis of the events proves that the series of explosions has the hallmarks of a well-thought-out and planned operation to sow panic, chaos and cause anger and indignation among both the Belgians and the whole of Europe. Islamist radicals from Daesh wanted to sow chaos and show how vulnerable even Brussels is - the place where the European Commission, the European Parliament, the headquarters of NATO and many other important organizations are located. The main propaganda message of these terrible terrorist attacks was to demonstrate to Europeans their vulnerability anywhere and at any moment. Create the illusion that they are powerless to do anything against it.

The second, perhaps no less important, message is to sow distrust, or even better, fierce hatred towards refugees arriving from Europe, and ideally towards the entire Muslim part of the population of Europe. This will only strengthen and fuel the far-right radicals in their negative attitude towards immigrants, especially from the Middle East.

Thus, the series of Brussels bombings turned out to be beneficial not only to Daesh terrorists, but also to many right-wing politicians, whose popularity in Europe will only increase. In this case, it is logical to recall Putin’s memorized mantra: “But we told you, and we warned you about refugees!”

Another strong propaganda message of this cruel and inhumane psychological information operation is the destabilization of the entire security system in the EU, including the demonstration that the police and security authorities in Belgium are incompetent and cannot even protect their own citizens. Its obvious goal is to sow horror and fear among the Belgians in particular, and among Europeans in general.

You must not give in to this provocation under any circumstances.

They want to intimidate us, but this cannot be allowed, since it is precisely this fear that is the ultimate goal of terrorist actions.

Second important question– who benefited from the Brussels terrorist attack?

So, this is, of course, beneficial for the leaders and ideologists of Daesh. In addition to them, this may be beneficial to right-wing radicals like Marine Le Pen and some ultra-left groups in Europe - accomplices of the Putin regime.

But, most of all, this benefits precisely the regime of Vladimir Putin, who longs to see Europe and NATO disunited, weak, torn apart by internal conflicts and contradictions. Any destabilization of Europe and the West as a whole, no matter who provoked it, turns out to be in the hands of Moscow. This fits well within the framework of the concept of information and hybrid war that Moscow is waging in Ukraine, but also against everything Western world, and Belgium in particular.

Vladimir Gorbulin very correctly noted that “We can state that “hybrid war” as a form of Russia’s aggressive solution to its geopolitical tasks is not only not limited to Ukraine, but is developing in every possible way, and the forms of hybrid war themselves are becoming more sophisticated, spreading to new theaters of military operations. Thus, the peculiar prediction of Lithuanian President D. Grybauskaite, expressed in 2014, is coming true: “If a terrorist state that conducts open aggression against its neighbor is not stopped, it will spread to Europe and beyond.” And it really spread. In the most intricate forms."

The main goal of the Putin regime is to recreate the empire within the borders of the USSR and gain Europe into its sphere of influence. However, his plans are more ambitious than simply restoring the Soviet camp.

The Eurasian Union, infamously known as the “Russian World,” is just one of Putin’s many plans. In a number European countries Pro-Russian centers have already been created or are being created in order to influence the external and domestic policy these countries. To this end, plans are being launched to destabilize societies and political systems.

One of these early and bright examples is the Bronze Night in April 2007 in Tallinn, where pro-Russian activists participated in creating mass unrest. The Russian media immediately launched powerful and extremely aggressive information campaigns against Estonians and the Estonian state. And there are many such examples of information aggression on the part of Russian propaganda media against the Baltic countries, not to mention Ukraine, against which Russia is waging a long and massive information war.

But let's return to the Islamists.

Another important question. Why did Islamists begin to terrorize Europe and what was the root cause? Even 20 years ago, Paris and London were relatively safe cities, but everything has changed.

The answer lies on the political plane. For decades, Western countries, like the USSR (and now Russia), have played Middle Eastern and North African countries as pawns, affecting their political interests. There were cases of interference in their internal affairs. A well-known principle invented by the ancient Romans divide et impera(divide and conquer) does not always bring the expected sweet fruits; often these fruits are inedible and poisoned. It is clear that this did not cause any local residents no sympathy, much less love for these so-called. big players, one of which was Moscow.

Prominent examples are the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 or the invasion of Iraq, which greatly aggravated the situation in the Near and Middle East, destabilizing the already fragile and explosive region that it is. The interventions created the preconditions for the rapid growth of Islamism and radicalism, as a kind of reaction to strong external influence.

Let's take Afghanistan. The invasion of Soviet troops and the long war became one of the main reasons for the emergence of the Taliban movement. 37 years have passed, and there is still no peace and stability in Afghanistan. The region remained unbalanced in terms of its internal politics.

Or take Iraq. In 2003, Saddam Hussein was overthrown. On the one hand, he was a pragmatic man, and on the other, he was very cruel, ambitious and cold-blooded. He was executed. Everything seems to be correct. The criminal regime and the bad dictator were punished. After all, Saddam persecuted the Kurds, Shiites, etc. But this eastern despot kept Iraq from collapse for almost 24 years. He also kept Islamic radicals in check. However, after the fall of this regime, Iraq began to slowly and surely fall apart and slide into chaos. A protracted war began in the country, Islamists began to control part of the country, etc. The situation in the country was destabilized.

From latest events V. Putin’s Syrian adventure deserves close attention, which also did not lead to anything good. The Russian Federation has only added fuel to the Syrian fire civil war, and that's all. It seems that they were going to Syria under the auspices of the fight against Daesh and Islamism, but the Russian military was doing everything there, least of all bombing Daesh positions. Result: Daesh has not been defeated, nor have other Islamic radical groups, for example Jabhat al-Nusra. But President Assad's position has improved significantly. At the beginning of 2015, he was losing the war, and now, after Moscow’s intervention, his army went on the offensive.

Who emerged victorious from this war? - Putin himself. He has built a number of military bases for Russia and can use his force in Syria or the Middle East at any time. He created a coalition that supports Moscow - in addition to Syria, it also includes Iraq and Iran. Such is the Shiite tandem.

At the same time, we are seeing how some Western politicians praise the Kremlin for supposedly “solving” problems in Syria, which, by the way, have not been resolved. In parallel with this, Kremlin propaganda created a narrative about Putin as almost Saint George, who defeats the evil Serpent (Islamic radicals) and saves the world from a monstrous disaster.

As an expert on the issues correctly noted in his article information security group "Information Resistance" Vyacheslav Gusarov, “Publications began to form an opinion about the peacefulness and political pragmatism of the Russian leader. This “boiling” news was immediately attacked as traditional Russian media, as well as political scientists, experts, social network users and bloggers. At the same time, the formation of meanings occurred exclusively in the Kremlin channel - praise of “Russian power” and idealization of Putin in the absence of any criticism. After the “media makeover” Russian President was presented as a “world-class winner.”

And even if this “global winner” turns out to be a loser, Russian propaganda has already done its job. Today Putin is in the portrait frame of a winner. And this despite the fact that the Kremlin has not achieved its goals in Syria. It was a pure gamble.

By and large, Moscow has not done anything significant to destroy Daesh, quite the contrary. She pursued completely different goals, some of which were achieved, namely:

Firstly: coverage of the conflict in Donbass is relegated to the background; it is not often remembered in the Western media.

Secondly: a propaganda narrative was created about Putin as a strong and powerful leader of a strong power, a sort of savior of Western civilization from Islamism. In parallel, a narrative has been promoted about the weakness of the West and the United States, in particular about the inability to solve them conflict situation in the Middle East, where supposedly Islamists and terrorists do what they want. This narrative was primarily aimed at the Russian audience because In Russia, where the economy is increasingly collapsing, the Putin regime has nothing to offer Russians other than propaganda lies about Putin’s successes.

Third: Russia has further destabilized the Middle East region and increased the flow of refugees to the West and Turkey. The migration of millions of people from the East causes Turkey and the EU a number of serious problems, including financial, political, social, which can contribute to the split of society. In addition, a short but quite successful information campaign was carried out to discredit Ankara and the Turkish authorities. Kurdish fighters in Syria and eastern Turkey were used as actors. As a result, Turkey is stuck in a conflict with Kurdish radicals, who have historically been supported by Moscow since Soviet times.

But the paradox of the whole situation is that the Western audience has formed the opinion that Putin supposedly saved the West, pacified Syria, and supposedly now it is necessary to conduct a dialogue with him. He seems to be the winner, the main fighter against Islamism. This is confirmed by Kerry’s recent visit to Moscow. Although this is only an illusion that Russian ideologists managed to create.

Firstly: Do not forget that Putin and his team are trying to divide Europeans by sowing panic and fear in European society. With these goals in mind, pro-Russian forces in Europe are trying to create narratives about Putin as a strong leader who quickly solves all problems.

Secondly: It is necessary to carry out a set of technical security measures - tightening control and inspection at airports, metro stations, train stations, and in crowded places. In addition, the work of the police and other security organizations to identify terrorists should be strengthened, and arriving refugees should be checked more thoroughly.

Third: be prepared for information provocations from Moscow, which, on the one hand, “provide assistance to Europe”, and on the other, create provocative situations. We have already seen Moscow’s “help,” including the Kremlin’s “revenge” for Paris, when Russian fighters and bombers flew into Syria with bombs with the inscription “For Paris!” It was nothing more than a bluff. The bombs did not fall on Daesh positions, but on completely different objects that had nothing to do with IS at all. But what a great gesture! Revenge for Paris! It sounds nice, it is, but nothing more.

In the forests and fields of Belarus, Russian tanks, armored vehicles and soldiers form a battle formation oriented to the west. Warships are conducting combat maneuvers in the Baltic Sea. Planes with paratroopers are preparing to take off. Who is the enemy? The militant state of Veishnoria, in which Western-funded terrorists have entrenched themselves, seeking to destabilize Russia and penetrate its sphere of influence.

In fact, Veishnoria is a fictional country, and Russia is just conducting exercises on the eastern border of the European Union. However, nervous NATO leaders are already saying that such a show of force reflects the concept of “hybrid warfare” developed by General Valery Gerasimov, who heads the general staff of the Russian armed forces. This military doctrine, supposedly turned Russia into a more dangerous threat than at any time since the Cold War.

Context

Commander in Chief of Information War

Ukraine is at war with Russia for European values

Gerasimov Doctrine

Silent and rarely seen in public, Mr. Gerasimov is an exemplary general. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu once called him “a military man to the root of his hair.”

Mr Shoigu, a politician turned general, is believed to take advice from a former tanker on military matters. According to one review, “Shoigu perfectly imitates playing the guitar while Gerasimov plays it in the background.”

As the de facto head of the Russian armed forces, Mr. Gerasimov published his reflections on military science. “In the 21st century, there is a tendency to blur the distinction between the state of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared, and once they start, they do not follow the usual pattern,” he said in a 2,000-word article published in February 2013 in the weekly Russian newspaper"Military-industrial courier".

“Asymmetrical actions have become widespread... These include the use of special operations forces and internal opposition to create a permanent front throughout the entire territory of the opposing state, as well as information impact, the forms and methods of which are constantly being improved,” he argued.

This material was written on the basis of a report that Mr. Gerasimov made three months after his appointment as Chief of the General Staff. Its description of hybrid warfare, which includes “political, economic, informational, humanitarian and other non-military measures,” proved prophetic a year later. Russian soldiers in uniform without insignia appeared in Crimea and carried out an operation that led to the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula. This was preceded by demonstrations organized by Russian agents against the pro-Western government of Ukraine.

Western observers immediately began to perceive Mr. Gerasimov's article as a blueprint for future Russian hybrid attacks directed against the West. Proliferation of pro-Russian news media, financial support provided to anti-establishment European politicians, alleged activities of Russian hackers directed against Western political campaigns and elections - in all this they see manifestations of the so-called Gerasimov doctrine.

“Remote non-contact influence on the enemy is becoming the main way to achieve the goals of combat and operation,” Mr. Gerasimov noted in his article, which the head of the US Marine Corps, Robert Neller, in his own words, reread three times. “All this is complemented by covert military measures, including the implementation of information warfare measures and the actions of special operations forces.”

Mr. Gerasimov is married and has a son. The future general was born in 1955 into a working-class family in the city of Kazan, located on the banks of the Volga about 800 kilometers east of Moscow. There he graduated from the Higher Tank Command School.

Gerasimov quickly made a career in the tank forces of the Red Army. He served in different units Soviet Union, commanded the 58th Army in the North Caucasus, fought in Chechnya. For some time he was the chief of staff of the Far Eastern Military District, and then commanded the troops of the St. Petersburg and Moscow military districts, and then became deputy chief of the general staff. He was removed from this position after a confrontation with his superior, but returned five months later to replace him as head of the General Staff.

“I believe that all activities of the General Staff should be aimed at achieving one main goal“is maintaining the combat capability of the Armed Forces,” he told Vladimir Putin on the day of his appointment. However, many doubt the existence of the Gerasimov Doctrine as a comprehensive strategy.

“As far as I understand, [Mr.] Gerasimov was trying to explain how the West acts against Russia, not to tell how Russia should act,” says Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. — In the West, many are trying to present him as a strategist and visionary. However, in reality he is a military man in its purest form.”

Mr Gerasimov last week met with the chairman of NATO's Military Committee, Petr Pavel, to reassure him that the Zapad exercises were defensive in nature and did not pose a threat to other countries. However, both in Poland and the Baltic states, many are alarmed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and fear that the head of the Russian General Staff may take advantage of war games and plan a similar provocation.

“We must not copy other people’s experience and catch up with leading countries, but work ahead and be in leading positions ourselves,” he emphasized in his text in 2013.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

"Lately, Russia seems to be attacking the United States on completely different, mutually exclusive fronts. Russian bots supported Donald Trump during the election campaign, but now that he has taken the presidency, the pro-Kremlin media is portraying him as weak. Vladimir Putin is deporting American diplomats from Russia, limiting opportunities to improve relations with an administration he wanted to win As Congress pursues a tougher line against Russia, multiple headlines are declaring Putin's bet on Trump a failure,” writes Molly K. McCue, an expert on Trump. information war and political consultant to ex-President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili and former prime minister Moldova by Vladimir Filat, in an article for Politico.

"Are you confused? Only if you don't understand the Gerasimov Doctrine," the article says.

In February 2013, General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the Russian General Staff, published an article entitled “The Value of Science in Foresight,” the author recalls. "Gerasimov took tactics developed in the Soviet Union, mixed them with the strategic military vision of total war, and laid out a new theory of modern warfare - one that is more like hacking a hostile society than directly attacking it," McCue writes.

The approach to military action is guerrilla; they are being conducted on all fronts with the participation of a number of characters and using all kinds of tools - hackers, media, businessmen, leaks and fake news. “Thanks to the Internet and social media, all the operations that Soviet psychological operations teams could only dream of (throwing the internal affairs of states into chaos with information alone) are now possible,” says McCue.

The United States became their latest target. The Russians know that they cannot compete with us on equal terms economically, militarily, or technologically, argues McCue. “They do not seek to become stronger than us, but to weaken us to such an extent that we become equal,” the expert believes.

Russia may not have hacked American voting machines, but by selectively amplifying specific disinformation and falsehoods on social media and establishing de facto information alliances with specific organizations in the United States, it may have won a significant battle without most Americans realizing it was taking place. , the article says.

“This is the true power of the shadow war in the spirit of Gerasimov: it is difficult to mobilize resistance to an enemy that you cannot see, and you are not even sure that he is here,” the author believes. But this approach is not all-powerful. This tactic begins to fail if you shed light on how it works and what its purpose is, the expert notes.