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 piece 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. In it, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the 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 so frightened the countries of the Baltic region that they 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 lobbyists for the American defense industry from the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) even created a website with countdown before the start of maneuvers in order to slightly help the business of their sponsors.
Another common one in Lately horror story - nonsense about the “Gerasimov Doctrine”, which is being promoted with all her might by lobbyist Molly McCue, who suddenly became an “expert on Russia” - apparently because her nonsense fits perfectly into the current rhetoric of the United States. The catch, however, 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 Mark Galeotti, an expert at the American government-funded Radio Liberty, noted, “this 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.
Now, together with #Marco (and not only) we will deal with all the points of the Gerasimov doctrine.
Serg Marco
Wrong war!
(phrase from one of the ZSU officers)
Tension in society has been tearing nerves and dividing people for three years now. different groups political preferences. Some take this for granted, humorously using phrases like “don’t rock the boat” and “otherwise Putin will attack.” And someone is seriously convinced that the hand of Russia and its special operations is visible in this tension. Especially considering that some of the politicians and activists involved in creating tension are somehow connected with it.
Among those who believe the Kremlin's hand is involved in the current tension is Molly K. McCue, an expert in information warfare and strategic communications. By a strange coincidence, she was an adviser to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili from 2009 to 2013, and also former prime minister Moldova Vlad Filat in 2014-15. And now her analytics concern the actions of one of her former clients.
Below is a translation of a fragment of the article, which you can read in its entirety.
Lately, it seems that Russia is attacking the United States from all possible angles, which sometimes contradict each other. Russian bots improved Donald Trump's results during the election campaign, but at the same time, the Kremlin media makes him look like a weakling. Vladimir Putin is expelling American diplomats from Russia, limiting options for establishing the warm relationship with the administration that he himself sought to establish. The US Congress is strengthening its tough stance on Russia, with many headlines screaming that Putin's bet on Trump has lost...
Confusing?
Only if you do not understand the essence of Gerasimov's doctrine.
Gerasimov combined Soviet tactics with the strategic military idea of total war and outlined a new theory of modern warfare—one that was more like hacking into an enemy's society than a direct attack. He wrote: “The very rules of war have changed. The role of non-military means of achieving political and strategic goals has increased, in many cases its effectiveness significantly exceeds even the force of weapons. […] All this is complemented by hidden military measures.”
Many people find this article a useful explanation modern strategy Russia, a vision of total war in which politics and military confrontation are on the same spectrum of activity from both a philosophical and practical point of view. This approach is partisan. It is used on all fronts, involving various actors and tools, such as hackers, the media, businessmen, information leaks and, of course, fake news, in addition to conventional and asymmetric warfare. Thanks to the Internet and social media, operations that Soviet psychological warfare experts could only dream of are now possible. It is possible to turn the internal affairs of entire countries upside down with information alone.
The Gerasimov Doctrine provides the basis for these new tools. According to it, non-military tactics are not auxiliary means following the use of force, but an expedient method of victory. They are, in fact, the real war. Chaos is the Kremlin's strategy. Gerasimov writes that the goal is to achieve an atmosphere of constant anxiety and conflict in a hostile country.
Does it work? Former Russian satellites Georgia, Estonia and Lithuania have sounded the alarm in recent years about Russia's attempts to influence them. domestic policy and security issues. At the same time, the Obama administration underestimated the possibility of a new cold war. However, in all three countries Parties with Russian financial ties are now in power and softly advocating a more open approach to Moscow.
In Ukraine, Russia has used the Gerasimov Doctrine for several recent years. During the 2014 protests, the Kremlin supported extremists on both sides of the confrontation - pro-Russian forces and Ukrainian ultranationalists, fueling a conflict that Russia used as an excuse to annex Crimea and start a war in eastern Ukraine. Add an information war and a murky environment in which everyone questions the motives of their neighbor and almost no one wants to be a hero - this is precisely the environment in which it is easier for the Kremlin to exercise control. This is the Gerasimov doctrine in action.
The USA is the last target. The police state of Russia considers America its main enemy. Russia knows that it cannot compete with us economically, militarily, or technologically. Therefore, it creates new battlefields. She doesn't want to become stronger than us; she wants to weaken us until we sink to her level. Russia may not have hacked the American election system, but the selective amplification of targeted disinformation and disinformation in in social networks(sometimes using hacked materials), as well as the creation of information alliances with certain groups in the United States, likely won an important battle that most Americans were not even aware of.
The US electoral system is the heart of the most powerful democracy in the world. And now, thanks to Russia's actions, we have a national debate about its legitimacy. We are at war with ourselves, and the enemy has not fired a single shot. “Information warfare opens up broad asymmetric opportunities to reduce the enemy’s combat potential,” writes Gerasimov. (He also writes about using "internal opposition to create a constantly active front throughout the territory of a hostile state").
Not all observers who follow Russia agree with the importance of the Gerasimov Doctrine. Some believe this is simply a clearer articulation of what Russia has always done. Or that Putin has been inflated to the proportions of the almighty Scarecrow. Or that the competition between different oligarchic factions in the Kremlin indicates the absence of a central strategic goal for all their activities. However, there is no doubt that Russian intervention is systematic and multi-layered. This structure is a serious challenge for us, since we do not always recognize its implementation in practice. Like any guerrilla doctrine, it involves the accumulation of decentralized resources, which makes it difficult to find and monitor its manifestations. And strategically, its goals differ from those we are used to. The Kremlin does not choose the winner; it weakens the enemy and creates an environment in which everyone except the Kremlin loses.
And this is precisely the true power of Gerasimov-style shadow warfare - it is very difficult to resist an enemy that you cannot see and whose existence you are not sure of. But this is not a flawless approach - the shadowy intrigues on which the Gerasimov doctrine is based make it extremely vulnerable. Her tactics stop working as soon as you show how the mechanism works and what its goals are. This requires leadership and a clear understanding of the threat. Which we saw clearly in France when the government warned voters about Russian information operations ahead of the presidential election. Alas, America still has no idea how to defend against the threat, let alone retaliate.
What can we learn from this analysis?
The Gerasimov doctrine exists. And the internal struggle in Ukraine bears all the signs of its implementation with the help of politicians, corrupt media and external information influence. At some point, a certain pool was formed that creates tension, and it has supporters who sincerely believe in the correctness of their actions. And all that is needed today is to increase tension so that the number of these supporters approaches some critical mass, sufficient to create controlled chaos within the country.
Molly also speaks directly about the Kremlin’s sponsorship of both pro-Russian organizations and nationalists. And I think that she has something to base these conclusions on. This means that a person pretending to be a patriot and fighting internal occupation may well have some kind of account in a Swiss bank, in which funds are accumulated for a comfortable old age. Did you know that the child of the most famous nationalist Kokhanivsky studies abroad at an expensive university? What apartment does he live in? You would be very surprised to know how much money comes from the opportunity to be a Ukrainian nationalist who is able to make and sell a mess, while waving the Ukrainian flag. It also directly points to the method of warfare according to the Gerasimov doctrine in the form of creating an “internal opposition.” What we saw recently, when a number of politicians, including pro-Russian ones, gathered under the wing of Saakashvili, trying to unite their electorates to achieve a critical mass - despite all previous differences, which reached the point of mutual accusations of working for the Kremlin. What suddenly made ideological enemies unite? There are too many coincidences with the Gerasimov doctrine.
Be that as it may, we must understand: “we are being played.” Someone is a pawn in this game - and not out of ignorance, but for ideological reasons. He has grown hatred for the current ruling coalition, which does not suit the Kremlin, and they are ready to play against it, without looking back at what kind of individuals stand next to them and behind them. Well, individual “patriots” are lining their pockets well as a result of these actions.
The worst thing is that the US will not be able to help us understand this problem. The author speaks about this directly. This means that Ukraine can only rely on itself in the fight against this threat. And this threat is becoming more significant from year to year. And the final result has already been predicted by Molly - another Dodon at the helm of Ukraine. It’s not hard to imagine how Russia will then break away from a country that has fought against it for several years.
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 are translated into English 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 warfare,” US actions in Syria and the Middle East, the cyber attack on Iran in 2015, and the importance of 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 deployed en masse at all, and all the work on the ground is done by the security forces of the country receiving American assistance. 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's time for European politicians and analysts to remove pink 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 for many 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 gaining mass character. 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 into the framework of the concept of information and hybrid war that Moscow is waging in Ukraine, but also against the entire 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 foreign and domestic policies of 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.
Among the 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 Vyacheslav Gusarov, an information security expert from the Information Resistance group, correctly noted in his article, “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 their inability to resolve the conflict situation in the Middle East, where Islamists and terrorists allegedly 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. Confirmation of this is 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 spreading 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 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.
Lately, Russia has been attacking the United States since different positions, often contradicting each other. Russian bots supported Trump's presidential campaign, but when he became president, pro-Kremlin media began to portray him weak ruler. Vladimir Putin is expelling American diplomats from Russia, limiting his ability to improve relations with the very administration he wanted to see leading the United States. Congress is demanding a tougher stance on Russia, and newspapers are announcing that Putin's bet on Trump has failed. Confused? You simply do not understand Gerasimov's doctrine.
In February 2013, General Valery Gerasimov—the chief of the Russian General Staff, roughly equivalent to the American position of head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—published a 2,000-word article in the Russian trade newspaper Voyenno-Industrial Kurier entitled “The Value of Science is in Anticipation.” . Gerasimov took tactics developed in the Soviet Union, mixed them with strategic military ideas about total war, and formulated a new theory of modern warfare, which involved not a direct attack on the enemy, but a “hacking” of his society. “The “rules of war” themselves have changed significantly. The role of non-military methods in achieving political and strategic goals has increased, which in some cases have significantly surpassed the power of weapons in their effectiveness... All this is complemented by military measures of a hidden nature,” he wrote.
This article is considered by many to be the clearest expression of modern Russian strategy, based on the idea of total war and placing politics and war on the same plane - both from a philosophical and a technical point of view. This approach involves guerrilla warfare waged on all fronts using a wide range of allies and tools - hackers, media, businesses, leaks and, yes, fake news - as well as conventional and asymmetric military methods. Thanks to the Internet and social networks, operations that Soviet psychological warfare experts could only dream of have become possible. Now you can turn everything upside down in the enemy’s country solely with the help of information. Gerasimov's doctrine provides a theoretical basis for the use of these new tools and proclaims non-military tactics not as an auxiliary element to forceful methods, but as the preferred path to victory. In fact, she declares this very thing to be the real war. The Kremlin seeks to create chaos - no wonder Gerasimov emphasizes the importance of destabilizing an enemy state and plunging it into constant conflict.
Does this strategy work? While the Obama administration downplayed the threat of a new Cold War, Georgia, Estonia and Lithuania - former captive countries - sounded the alarm about Russian attempts influence their internal politics and undermine their security. Now, in all three countries, parties with strong financial ties to Moscow are in power, quietly pushing for greater openness to the Russians.
In Ukraine, Russia has been applying the Gerasimov Doctrine for several years. During the 2014 protests, the Kremlin supported extremists on both sides - pro-Russian forces and Ukrainian ultranationalists - fueling a conflict it later used as a pretext to seize Crimea and start a war in eastern Ukraine. Adding to this a hefty dose of information warfare, he got a confusion in which no one can be sure of anyone and in which there are no clear heroes - which allows Moscow to control the situation. This is exactly what the Gerasimov Doctrine looks like in action.
Its next target was the United States. The Russian police state considers America its main enemy. The Russians understand that they cannot compete with us on equal terms, either economically, technologically, or in the military sphere.
So they create new battlefields. They are not trying to become stronger than us, but they want to weaken us so that we are on the same level with them.
Russia may not have hacked American voting machines. However, it selectively and deliberately spread false and distorted information on social media, sometimes using materials obtained through hackers, and formed de facto information alliances with certain groups in the United States. As a result, she apparently managed to win an important battle without most Americans even noticing. The American electoral system is the heart of the most powerful democracy in the world, and now, thanks to Russian actions, we argue with each other and question its legitimacy. In fact, we are at war with ourselves, despite the fact that the enemy has not dealt a single physical blow to us. “Information warfare opens up wide asymmetrical opportunities to reduce the enemy’s combat potential,” Gerasimov wrote (he also pointed to the possibility of using “internal opposition to create a permanent front throughout the entire territory of the opposing state”).
Not all Russia experts consider the Gerasimov Doctrine to be an important phenomenon. Some call it simply a new, clearly articulated version of what the Russians have been doing for a long time. Some believe that Putin's importance has been greatly inflated and that he should not be considered or seen as omnipotent fairytale monster. Some emphasize that due to the struggle between oligarchic factions in the Kremlin, Russian actions lack a single strategic goal. However, Russia undoubtedly systematically interferes in the affairs of other countries on different levels simultaneously. Her methods baffle us because we don't always understand how they work in practice. After all, like any guerrilla strategy, they involve resource savings and decentralization, which makes them difficult to identify and track. In addition, from a strategic point of view, Russia's tasks look unusual for us. The Kremlin does not rely on the victory of one force or another - it weakens the enemy and creates an environment in which everyone loses except itself.
This is the main thing strong point shadow war in the style of Gerasimov. It is very difficult to resist an enemy that you cannot see and whose existence you are not even completely sure of. However, this approach is still far from ideal. The Gerasimov doctrine is based on covert manipulation, which makes it extremely vulnerable. It is starting to crumble, it is worth shedding light on how it works and what goals it sets for itself. This requires leadership qualities and a clear vision of the threat - an example of which was France, whose government faced presidential elections managed to rally and warn voters about Russian information operations. But America remains in the dark for now. She not only does not go on the offensive, but does not even defend herself.
Molly McCue - specialist information wars, advises governments and political parties on questions foreign policy and strategic communication. In 2009-2013, she advised the government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, and in 2014-2015, she advised former Prime Minister of Moldova Vlad Filat.
