Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Syt]

German FAZ has an article about Putin's new "blueprint" for conflict, based on the Gerasimov's 2013 speech, and a maneuver "Zapad" that took place the same year.

http://www.interpretermag.com/putins-actions-in-ukraine-following-script-by-russian-general-staff-a-year-ago/

About the speech:

Putin's Actions in Ukraine Following Script by Russian General Staff a Year Ago

Staunton, June 18 – The strategy and tactics Vladimir Putin has been employing in Ukraine represent an amazingly precise implementation of ideas outlined and published by General Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the Russian General Staff more than a year ago, another indication that the Kremlin leader has not been acting extemporaneously in response to events.

That link is all the more important because it suggests that both the political and military leaderships of the Russian Federation have agreed upon this strategy, something that makes it more rather than less likely that the Kremlin will apply it elsewhere in the coming months and years.

At the end of January 2013, Gerasimov spoke the annual general meeting of the Russian Academy of Military Science on "The Role of the General Staff in the Organization of the Defense of the Country in Correspondence with the New Statute about the General Staff Confirmed by the President of the Russian Federation."

The full text of his remarks was published by the Academy and is available here [link is dead].

Presented in the form of a discussion of the lessons of recent conflicts in the Middle East, Gerasimov's speech in fact outlines his view about the emergence of a new kind of war in the 21st century, one in which the distinctions between war and peace and between uniformed personnel and covert operatives are continuously diminishing.

This combination, especially at a time when "wars are not declared but simply begin," Gerasimov told his audience, is very different than what most military thinkers traditionally have focused on but has the potential to transform "a completely well-off and stable country ... into an arena of the most intense armed conflict in a matter of months or even days."

In these new conflicts, "the very 'rules of war' have been fundamentally changed. The role of non-military means to achieve political and strategic goals has grown," and "in a number of cases," this combination has proved to be "significantly more effective" in comparison with what could have been achieved by military means alone.

In these wars of a new type, Gerasimov says, are "mixed together" a broad range of "political, economic, information, humanitarian and other measures," all of which are supplemented by covert and thus deniable military measures plus offers of peace-keeping assistance as a means to strategic ends.

"New information technologies," the general continues, permit a significant reduction in the spatial, temporal, and information gap between the forces and organs of administration." And they also mean that "frontal clashes of major military formations ... are gradually receding into the past."

All this also means, Gerasimov says, that the customary "distinctions between strategic, operational and tactical levels and between offensive and defensive operations are being wiped out." That is something that Russian military theorists and planners must take into ever greater account.

"Asymmetric methods" also have the capacity to "level the playing field" against an opponent who may enjoy local superiority. Such methods include but are not limited to the use of special operations forces and the recruitment and mobilization of opposition groups on the territory of one's opponent to make his entire country "a front" in the conflict.

The United States, Gerasimov says, has shown the way in this kind of new war beginning with Desert Storm in 1991, but the Russian general suggests that Russian military theorists and planners can draw on the record of partisan warfare during World War II, the use of irregular forces during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and more recent operations in the North Caucasus.

It does not require any leap of faith to see how what Vladimir Putin has been doing in Ukraine reflects exactly Gerasimov's set of assumptions about how best to conduct such wars of a new type.

About the maneuver:

http://www.worldreview.info/content/war-games-threaten-rock-russia-and-eu-relations

War games threaten to rock Russia and EU relations

NATO MILITARY forces are preparing to conduct Steadfast Jazz - large-scale manoeuvres in the Baltic region designed, in part, to counter growing concerns of Russia's military westward encroachment.

However, Russia's Zapad-13 military exercise held with Belarus in September 2013, has already generated apprehension among the Baltic nations. The former-Soviet states see Russia's Zapad war games with land, air and sea equipment and missile strikes, as demonstrating an anti-West agenda and not, as Moscow described it, as an anti-terrorism exercise.

The Zapad manouevres were held close to the borders of former Soviet states Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The three Baltic Nato states claim Russia was practising armed invasion of their territories.

These war games come at a time when the European Union is set to forge alliances with several of Russia's neighbours – those with whom Moscow wants to embrace into its own Eurasian Union.

Zapad-2013 formed part of the normal annual rotation between the four Russian military commands.

Nato was informed in advance that some 22,500 troops would be involved. The games were testing new systems of command and control and practicing joint operations against a backdrop of terrorists that had invaded Belarus and retreated into urban areas.

But outside observers were disturbed to record that together with the Zapad-2013 war games, a whole range of other drills had been conducted, from the Arctic in the north to Voronezh in south-western Russia, close to the border with Ukraine.

They had involved all aspects of the Russian armed forces, ranging from army, navy and air forces, to Spetsnaz special forces, Interior Ministry Troops and engineering forces.

The drills had featured SU-25 (Frogfoot) and SU-30 (Flanker) strike aircraft, as well as heavy Mi-24 (Hind) helicopter gunships. And they had involved firing of ship-to-shore missiles from units of the Baltic Fleet, in support of an amphibious landing.

Some estimates suggest that a total of 70,000 troops were involved, including 20,000 paramilitary Interior Ministry troops. Analysts concluded it was difficult to see the link to simply defeating terrorists.

The exercise also featured live firing of the Iskander SS-26 theatre ballistic missile, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. With a reach of 400 kilometres, the Iskander has formed an important part in the standoff between Russia and Nato over US plans to deploy missile defence in Europe.

Russia's military presence in the Baltic region has been increased to 100,000 troops, from only 16,000 in 2009. Russia is opening an airforce base in Belarus, close to the borders of Poland and Lithuania. It will be the first Russian military base in Europe since 1991 and will be home to SU-27 (Flanker) fighter jets.

It is also significant that in conjunction with the Zapad-2013 war games, all components of the Russian nuclear triad – submarines, strategic bombers and land-based rocket forces – were placed on alert.

The message from the Kremlin is that Russia is back as a military power. And a raised military posture towards the West emphasises that Nato is seen as the main enemy.

Nato's exercise, Steadfast Jazz, will be held on the territories of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland on November 2-9, 2013.

Some 6,000 military personnel from 20 allied and partner nations will be involved, and the scenario is to repel military aggression against member states. It will be the first time since 1993 that the alliance conducts drills according to Article 5, calling for collective defence. There can be little doubt that Nato's message is that it stands ready to repel a Russian invasion.

The official motivation for the exercise is to drill and certify Nato's Response Force (NRF). It includes 13,000 personnel that are ready to respond within five days In 2014, the NRF will be under command by Nato Joint Force Command in the Netherlands.

Russia, has condemned the 'Cold War' spirit of the upcoming Nato exercise. Moscow will be particularly enraged that Ukraine will send an amphibious company to fight alongside Nato.

Russia's strategic behaviour is both clear and consistent, aiming to return Russia to a position of global influence and respect. By holding up Nato as an enemy, the Kremlin seeks to rally the nation around its leadership and to rationalise spending massive sums on rearmament.

By projecting military force, it supports its project of Eurasian integration, intimidating countries like Ukraine which have voiced interest in joining - not with Russia - but with the European Union.

FAZ says that officially Zapad was declared as repelling an attack of insurgents (Lithuanians uprising against the government and reinforced from abroad to "protect their countrymen") against Belarus. Could it be that the insurgents were the "good guys" in this case?

[Admiral Yi]

Haven't read the last six or so pages.

According to David Gergen the US accounts for 75% of NATO spending.

If he meant of the countries that are in NATO, the US accounts for 75% of aggregate defense spending, it's pretty unremarkable.  But if he meant of the military assets that are earmarked for NATO, the US pays for 75% of them, that's not good.

[KRonn]

But what would trigger a Russian attack? According to Piontkovsky's scenario, it could be something as simple as a plebiscite: the Estonian city of Narva, overwhelmingly ethnically Russian and adjacent to Russia, deciding to hold a referendum on joining the Motherland. To help them "freely express their will" at the polls, Russia could send in a brigade of "little green men armed to the teeth," much like it did in Crimea in March. Estonia would thereupon invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter -- "an armed attack against one or more [NATO members] ... shall be considered an attack against them all" -- and demand that the alliance defend it. Speaking in the Estonian capital of Tallinn on the eve of NATO's summit in Wales, this is just what Obama promised. "The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London," he said.
Suddenly, the most terrifying nightmare becomes reality: NATO faces war with Russia. 

Yep, what will NATO actually do? Getting these nations into the alliance is all well and good, until the shooting starts. I'd be all for NATO reacting to help Estonia but will NATO decide it's not worth a possible larger war between Russia and NATO for one city or small region?

[Tamas]

But what would trigger a Russian attack? According to Piontkovsky's scenario, it could be something as simple as a plebiscite: the Estonian city of Narva, overwhelmingly ethnically Russian and adjacent to Russia, deciding to hold a referendum on joining the Motherland. To help them "freely express their will" at the polls, Russia could send in a brigade of "little green men armed to the teeth," much like it did in Crimea in March. Estonia would thereupon invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter -- "an armed attack against one or more [NATO members] ... shall be considered an attack against them all" -- and demand that the alliance defend it. Speaking in the Estonian capital of Tallinn on the eve of NATO's summit in Wales, this is just what Obama promised. "The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London," he said.
Suddenly, the most terrifying nightmare becomes reality: NATO faces war with Russia. 

Yep, what will NATO actually do? Getting these nations into the alliance is all well and good, until the shooting starts. I'd be all for NATO reacting to help Estonia but will NATO decide it's not worth a possible larger war between Russia and NATO for one city or small region?

They might decide it, but it will be the end of NATO as we know it. Countries like Romania, who has a history of swift (and very skilful) cloak-changes for example would probably realise the alliance would do even less for them, and suck up to Russia. Hungary is already sucking up to Russia so they would be happy to jump camp after such an excuse.

And I think the Russian study is right that it is fairly easy to ruin relatively stable countries this way: a determined NATO response against Narva would surely defeat the "separatists" and I don't think Russia would press the matter that much seeing a strong NATO response, but it would involve stuff like city fighting and artillery shelling in Estonia, with NATO inflicting civilian casualties in a fight against what Russian (and European radical) propaganda will label as dissatisfied EU citizens.

That's why I am afraid they will try it: they cannot really lose.

[derspiess]

Channel 4 news correspondent in the Ukraine visited the recently recaptured Luhansk airport, from which Ukranian forces had been shelling the city. She said it was the worst damaged place she'd seen in E.Ukraine, indeed one of the most devastated places she'd ever seen. Went on to say, there was no way just the rebels could have done that amount of damage, said the Russians must have been responsible.

Looking at the torn, twisted and flattened airport buildings, I would be surprised if the Russians hadn't used thermobaric weapons on the Ukrainian positions.

Yeah, they brought the house on that one.  Here's the video for anyone else who wants to see it: http://blogs.channel4.com/lindsey-hilsum-on-international-affairs/shards-rubble-luhansk-airport/4419

[Syt]

The problem is, if they held a referendum in such a city that has even the slightest appearance of legitimacy, there'd be a lot of people in the West clamoring for NATO to stay out and "respect the will of the people."

[KRonn]

The problem is, if they held a referendum in such a city that has even the slightest appearance of legitimacy, there'd be a lot of people in the West clamoring for NATO to stay out and "respect the will of the people."

That may be the out, or solid reasoning and a bit of a face saving for NATO, but if it's seen more clearly that Russia is meddling as they did in Ukraine then I would hope NATO nations have the stomach to support an ally against Russia, especially since it would show the alliance is a paper tiger. Alliances can become quite tangled though, often leading to unforseen circumstances. This is what I had in mind in some of my earlier posts about how Putin could try and get away with meddling in the Baltic states.

[Tamas]

The problem is, if they held a referendum in such a city that has even the slightest appearance of legitimacy, there'd be a lot of people in the West clamoring for NATO to stay out and "respect the will of the people."

That may be the out, or solid reasoning and a bit of a face saving for NATO, but if it's seen more clearly that Russia is meddling as they did in Ukraine then I would hope NATO nations have the stomach to support an ally against Russia, especially since it would show the alliance is a paper tiger. Alliances can become quite tangled though, often leading to unforseen circumstances. This is what I had in mind in some of my earlier posts about how Putin could try and get away with meddling in the Baltic states.

Oh boy, an internationally accepted referendum on a city's/region's change of countries. That is a BIG can of worms.

[CountDeMoney]

Could've have been Winnipeg Jets, those fly below Nashville.

You assholes, that was a great gag.

[Martinus]

Apparently, there was an article in recent Foreign Policy about Putin nuking Warsaw. Or at least that's how the Polish media are reporting that. Any traction to the story? 

[The Minsky Moment]

Oh boy, an internationally accepted referendum on a city's/region's change of countries. That is a BIG can of worms.

One would think that at that point, the PRC would finally wake up and see what hugely problematic precedents their new Russian allies are creating for them.

[The Minsky Moment]

Could've have been Winnipeg Jets, those fly below Nashville.

You assholes, that was a great gag.

hokey

[Syt]

Apparently, there was an article in recent Foreign Policy about Putin nuking Warsaw. Or at least that's how the Polish media are reporting that. Any traction to the story? 

I have one from 2009: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11775.msg777123.html#msg777123

[Tamas]

Oh boy, an internationally accepted referendum on a city's/region's change of countries. That is a BIG can of worms.

One would think that at that point, the PRC would finally wake up and see what hugely problematic precedents their new Russian allies are creating for them.

I had the gazillion border disputes in Eastern Europe in mind mostly.

[DGuller]

Oh boy, an internationally accepted referendum on a city's/region's change of countries. That is a BIG can of worms.

One would think that at that point, the PRC would finally wake up and see what hugely problematic precedents their new Russian allies are creating for them.

I hope they would wake up and finally notice all the cruel oppression Chinese immigrants in Siberia are subjected to.