Russian method of asymmetric warfare against ex-partners in the USSR

As you know, the Kremlin takes part in all ethnic conflicts on the territory of the former USSR. The scenario for Russian intervention is strikingly one: at first, the national minority raises the flag of separatism, exaggerating the nation’s right to self-determination. Then it is surprisingly easy and effective to arm itself, creating an army from scratch, and defeating the country from which the separatists left. Therefore, it was in Nagorno-Karabakh, then in South Ossetia and Abazia, then in Transnistria. Let us add two exactly the same situations in Lugansk and Donetsk. Crimea was taken from Russia with the use of a national minority map in Ukraine.

Does the universality of the method of separating the separatists in the post-Soviet space tell the leadership of a single command post operating in the building of the former KGB in Moscow? Turan asked this question Ksenia Kirillova.

The analyst replied:

-I think it is not quite right to talk about a “single command center” that manages all operations. Rather, it is correct to speak of a unified approach, a unified strategy of a “hybrid confrontation”, which Russia has clearly given preference to over the “classical” method of warfare in recent decades.

Most precisely, this approach was outlined in the so-called "Gerasimov Doctrine." In February 2013, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, published a report on the conduct of a hybrid, or asymmetric, war (the “Gerasimov Doctrine”), which Russia successfully tested during the occupation of Crimea and the conflict with Ukraine. Gerasimov believes that the rules of warfare have changed in our time, and the line between war and the world is blurring, and therefore, the role of non-military means of achieving political and strategic goals is growing. This new type of conflict relies heavily on the political, economic, informational, humanitarian and other non-military means used in coordination with the use of discontent and protest atmosphere among the population. All this is complemented by covert military means, including the spread of hostile information and the deployment of secret forces.

Playing on national and regional contradictions can pursue different goals: both destabilization itself and an attempt to bring Russian-controlled forces to power in order to exercise external control “remotely” through politicians loyal to Russia. Of all the territories, Russia officially annexed only Crimea, while in relation to others it prefers to maintain the illusion of their independence, while in fact controlling their puppet governments.

It is important to understand that the game of Russia on local contradictions and the support of separatist and extremist movements in individual states may pursue the goal of not establishing puppet governments, but destabilization. In particular, this may be in the following cases:

1. When Russia pursues such a policy in relation to Western countries. For example, Moscow actively supported the leader of the “Yes California” Movement for the withdrawal of California from the United States, Luis Marinelli, who did not hide his ties with Russia. No less close are Russia's ties with the Texas separatists. The “Russian footprint” was discovered in Catalonia, and so on. In this case, of course, the talk is not about creating new “DPR” or “LPR” controlled by Moscow in the United States or Spain, which is simply impossible, but in weakening the West. Such a weakening automatically means that Western countries occupied with their problems do not will be able to resist actively the growing influence of Russia in Central Europe and the post-Soviet space.

2. When the goal of destabilization is to exacerbate the contradictions that contribute to the split of existing alliances (NATO, the EU and others) or to increase Russia's influence in certain regions of the world as “the only force capable of resolving existing conflicts” (as, for example, Moscow positions itself in the Middle East while supporting different warring parties).

By the way, almost 5 years ago, in September 2015, Belarusian experts presented an analysis of Russia's new geostrategic, which noted the Kremlin’s plans to provoke instability in countries along its “strategic perimeter” (that is, the perimeter of Russian borders) as a tool to reduce influence and presence in these regions of other world and regional powers. Experts also noted that Russia would seek to escalate tensions in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the growth of conflict dynamics there, which could result in higher energy prices on world markets. Minsk analysts singled out undermining the Euro-Atlantic unity, the disintegration of the EU and NATO, as well as increasing tension between other world powers and regional states (primarily between the United States and China, as well as the United States and Iran) as a separate direction of the new geostrategic. Now, 5 years later, we see how accurately their forecast came true,” the analyst concluded.

Ksenia Kirillova - journalist and expert, specializes in analyzing trends in Russian society, the mechanism of action of Russian propaganda, “soft power” and foreign policy. Author of several hundred English-language articles, including research for think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, Stratfor, Jamestown Foundation, and The Integrity Initiative on Homeland Security Today US; and others. Multiple Radio Liberty Services Browser (RFE / RL). ” She has been living in the USA since April 2014, before that she lived in Yekaterinburg.