Hybrid War: Perception or Reality?

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
CAST published an interesting article, dealing with the term "hybrid war". This term is frequently used to describe Russian intervention in Ukraine, and according to some western officials this represents a new type of threat to NATO. What are your opinions? Do you think this is the case?

[quote="CAST']Nothing 'Hybrid' About Russia's War in Ukraine

Russia's actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine over the past year gave rise in the West to a widespread theory about some kind of "hybrid war," an innovative form of military intervention that Moscow created specifically for this crisis. However, upon closer inspection, the term hybrid war is more a propaganda tool than hard fact and any attempt to fully define it strips the idea of any novelty.

One Western attempt at defining the term states that hybrid war is a combination of overt and covert military actions, provocations and diversions in conjunction with denial of involvement, significantly complicating any full-scale response to those actions.

A more extensive definition of hybrid war appears in the editor's introduction to "The Military Balance 2015" published by The International Institute for Strategic Studies. It describes hybrid war as "the use of military and non-military tools in an integrated campaign designed to achieve surprise, seize the initiative and gain psychological as well as physical advantages utilizing diplomatic means; sophisticated and rapid information, electronic and cyber operations; covert and occasionally overt military and intelligence action; and economic pressure."

It also points out that during the Crimean operations in February-March 2014 "Russian forces demonstrated integrated use of rapid deployment, electronic warfare, information operations (IO), locally based naval infantry, airborne assault and special-forces capabilities, as well as wider use of cyberspace and strategic communications. The latter was used to shape a multifaceted and overall effective information campaign targeted as much at domestic as foreign audiences."

In eastern Ukraine, Moscow demonstrated the ability to quickly create "pressure groups" composed of "elements of the local population" but that are managed and supported from outside, and that such a tactic can be used to defend ethnic minorities.

In this regard, the document stated that NATO considers hybrid warfare a serious challenge because it takes place in a "gray zone" of the alliance's obligations and could lead to a split between its members.

It is not difficult to see that these definitions of hybrid war, and especially the characterization of Russia's actions in 2014 as such, are out of touch with reality. For example, it is unclear which special "information" and "cyber operations" — much less which "wider use of cyber space and strategic communications" Moscow employed during its operations in Crimea. No information has come to light concerning "cyber operations" in Crimea — and what need was there for them considering the archaic condition of the Ukrainian armed forces?

Russia conducted only a sluggish propaganda campaign in support of the Crimea operation, for both foreign and domestic audiences. In fact, Moscow did not so much broadcast its actions in Crimea or the reason behind them as keep silent on the subject, concealing its end game.

As a result, the annexation of the peninsula came as a surprise to many. The de facto justification for those actions also seemed like an afterthought. The annexation of Crimea enjoyed wide popular support in Russia without much propaganda because most Russians already believed that Crimea is Russian land. On the other hand, Russian forces occupying Crimea apparently waged an active propaganda campaign aimed at the besieged Ukrainian soldiers there, proposing that they switch allegiance to the Russian side.

That effort was successful. Only about 20 percent of those Ukrainian soldiers decided to retain their allegiance and evacuate Crimea, while the other 80 percent either joined the Russian army or deserted.

At the same time, this success was due more to the fact that most of the military personnel on Crimea were residents of the peninsula and had no desire to leave than to any particular merits of the propaganda employed.

The actions attributed to so-called hybrid warfare are fairly standard to any "low intensity" armed conflict of recent decades, if not centuries. It is difficult to imagine any country using military force without providing informational support, using methods of "secret warfare," attempting to erode enemy forces, exploiting internal ethnic, social, economic, political or other divisions in the enemy camp, and without the use of retaliatory economic sanctions. These have been the fundamentals of war since antiquity.

The widely accepted definition of a hybrid war as using a combination of overt and covert actions, including the deployment in Crimea of "polite men in green" ignores the unique nature of that military operation. In Crimea, Russia relied on the nearly total support of the local population and the resultant complete isolation of the Ukrainian forces there.

It was this fact that made it possible for soldiers in unmarked uniforms to remain in place as long as necessary. However, that is also specific to the situation in Crimea. Such polite men in green would not last long if they showed up in, say, Poland or the American Midwest. In that case, simply concealing their origins would not help them.

In fact, there is a long history of soldiers concealing their identities and using unmarked uniforms for limited military actions and special operations, just as there are historical precedents for claiming that regular army soldiers are actually local "volunteers."

In essence, history shows that any external military intervention by a foreign army into another country's civil war has inevitably involved similar practices. Neither is this the first time that a government has used both regular army and rebel forces together. Such practices are standard when deploying military resources under specific conditions. Recall that one of the main tasks of the U.S. Special Forces is the organization and support of "friendly" rebel and guerrilla movements.

With this in mind, the current Ukrainian conflict bears less resemblance to Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 — where, by the way, German irredentist militia were active — and more to the United States' Mexican War of 1846-48 that led to the accession of Texas and a number of other Mexican states to the U.S., and also to the Italian Risorgimento that unified Italy in the mid-19th century.

In both cases, the reason for an irredentist war is evident, as well as the fact that the "mother country" could not openly intercede militarily on behalf of the irredentists. That is why they used the widest possible array of methods to support the irredentist cause — by supporting and replenishing their fighting formations, sending large numbers of real and alleged volunteers, as well as camouflaged units of their armed forces, and by staging limited interventions.

Thus, the novelty of this so-called hybrid war begins to fade upon a closer look at history. Russia's hybrid war is simply a modern application of an age-old set of military and political practices.

It is the presence of forces friendly to the outside power that makes it possible to employ methods that have now become known as "hybrid." In applying the term hybrid war to the conflict in Ukraine, modern observers use politically biased wording to overstate the importance of external factors in the conflict and to downplay the significance of internal factors.

That attempt to downplay the significance of internal factors in the Ukrainian conflict goes over very well in the West, and explains why it persists in suggesting that Russia's hybrid war is something new.[/quote]

The author is Ruslan Pukhov.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Goknub

Active Member
I would say that is broadly accurate and also broadly understood in Western circles. Russia's actions in Crimea were about retaining the port as Ukraine sided with the West. This was simple key terrain occupation but with enough cover to keep things from getting hot. For all the bluster I think the US was happy to play this game and claim "hybrid warfare" as the excuse for not stepping in. The simple reality is that Russia was prepared to fight for the Crimean peninsula, the Yanks weren't.

The term "hybrid warfare" is more to explain to the public the nature of the current threat. It is different to the threat posed by the Soviet Union or the Islamic radicals so needs it's own term.
Much in the same way that "blitzkrieg" has been used to describe German tactics in WW2.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I do not really agree with the author's take on the situation in the Crimean being more like what occurred during & after the Mexican-American War in 1848, than the German takeover of the Sudetenland in 1938.

The trigger of the Mexican-American War was the annexation of Texas in 1846, which had been an independent nation since 1836, whether or not Mexico recognized that independence.

What further sets the two situations apart, is that while the Republic of Texas for the most part wanted to become part of the US on gaining de facto independence, the US political landscape was such that the US gov't did not want Texas to become part of the US, because Texas was a large, slave-holding region which would upset the delicate balance of power between "free" and "slave-holding" states and territories in the US.

Going further still, the ethnic German population in the Sudetenland had been there for some time, and had actually been part of a German state prior to the breakup and associated changes in various national borders of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The annexation of the Sudetenland was a German gov't "reclaiming" what had once been theirs, and there was German agents operating in the region to help that come about.

In Texas, as well as some of the other Departments and territories which became part of the US following the end of the Mexican-American War, there were Americans who moved into those areas to settle, and the areas themselves were AFAIK fairly sparsely settled. A case in point, the US states of Arizona and New Mexico did not actually become states until 1912, well after portions of land were taken by the US. IMO one of the other significant differences was the degree to which the US gov't and/or US officials were involved, or in this case, really not involved.

With the Sudetenland, Germany wanted to have the land, resources, industry and people back in German control, and arranged situations to bring that about, with some effort put into making it look like the ethnic Germans in the area wanted that. In the case of Texas, while the new citizens of the Republic of Texas largely wanted to become US citizens (in some case, regain US citizenship) the US gov't did not want that due to the problems that would potentially cause elsewhere in the US.

One of the other big areas of difference between the Mexican-American War and Russian actions in the Crimea (and in Georgia) is that the US offered full citizenship to residents of the areas which came under US control, after the US had gained control of them by treaty. OTOH Russia provided full citizenship before/during the dispute over control. Given that the treaty ending the war between the US and Mexico was signed after the US had already seized the capital of Mexico, and effectively controlled much of the country, yet the treaty did not have the US keep all those areas already under US control...
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Todjaeger, I think from a political and historic standpoint you're correct. However, it is my impression that the brunt of Pukhov's argument is a military one. These two paragraphs, at the end, I think are the most concise ones.

Thus, the novelty of this so-called hybrid war begins to fade upon a closer look at history. Russia's hybrid war is simply a modern application of an age-old set of military and political practices.
That attempt to downplay the significance of internal factors in the Ukrainian conflict goes over very well in the West, and explains why it persists in suggesting that Russia's hybrid war is something new.
I think that his historic comparison is not that accurate.

That having been said, Russia did not offer citizenship to the population of rebel territories in the east. And in the case of Crimea, Russian citizenship and passports were handed out after annexation. Just like the US did with Texas. As for seizing the capital, I don't think there is any doubt that Russia could have (militarily) occupied most if not all of Ukraine in March 2014, and then proceeded to separate Crimea, and grant special status to the Lugansk and Donbass provinces. They chose not to do so for political reasons. The world today simply isn't the same.

What do you think? From a military standpoint, do you think hybrid war brings anything genuinely new to the table?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
That having been said, Russia did not offer citizenship to the population of rebel territories in the east. And in the case of Crimea, Russian citizenship and passports were handed out after annexation. Just like the US did with Texas. As for seizing the capital, I don't think there is any doubt that Russia could have (militarily) occupied most if not all of Ukraine in March 2014, and then proceeded to separate Crimea, and grant special status to the Lugansk and Donbass provinces. They chose not to do so for political reasons. The world today simply isn't the same.

What do you think? From a military standpoint, do you think hybrid war brings anything genuinely new to the table?
I would need to go back and re-read a number of sources to compare when the offer of Russian citizenship was made vs. when it was announced, as well as what else was said, and how. From memory though, just prior to the Georgian conflict, Russia announced that residents of the two breakaway regions would be/were Russian citizens and that Russian armed forces would protect Russian citizens. In effect, justifying the Russian intervention.

As for Russia not invading/occupying Kiev, and/or a greater portion of the Ukraine, I honestly do not think the decision was a political one. Rather, I think Russia assessed just what/how much could be taken, and more importantly held, by "rebel" forces, as well as how much could be taken/held before Western nations intervened (overtly or covertly).

One needs to remember that while Russia has made great strides in system-level warfare since the Georgian Conflict, it is still a fair distance short of what NATO and/or the US is able to do. In short, Russia would not be able to face off against the US/NATO in a conventional conflict and survive for very long, and the Russian leadership knows it. This has in turn triggered a policy of nuclear weapons release in the event of armed conflict with the US/NATO, since the ability of the US to disrupt hostile C3 capabilities is reasonably well known. Unless Russia were to launch a nuclear strike early in a conflict, Russia might very well lose the ability to launch what should be a strike of last resort.

The hybrid portion I will need to get into later, since I am overdue for sleep.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
I would need to go back and re-read a number of sources to compare when the offer of Russian citizenship was made vs. when it was announced, as well as what else was said, and how. From memory though, just prior to the Georgian conflict, Russia announced that residents of the two breakaway regions would be/were Russian citizens and that Russian armed forces would protect Russian citizens. In effect, justifying the Russian intervention.
You're conflating. Nobody was using "hybrid war" to refer to the Georgian War. And remember, they were Russian citizenship due to the proximity of the Russian border, and the ease of post-Soviet travel in the 90's. They had Russian citizenship because their border with Georgia was effectively closed, and their countries (or "countries" depending on your viewpoint) were shit-holes (are shit-holes). So if you want a new car, or construction materials, or to send your kid to college, the only realistic option was Russia. This also tended to create a situation where the locals associated all the good things with Russia, while Georgia was "the enemy". In other words, it wasn't a question of mass distributing passports to justify intervention.

As for Russia not invading/occupying Kiev, and/or a greater portion of the Ukraine, I honestly do not think the decision was a political one. Rather, I think Russia assessed just what/how much could be taken, and more importantly held, by "rebel" forces, as well as how much could be taken/held before Western nations intervened (overtly or covertly).
You think there would have been an open western intervention, if Russian tanks rolled into Kiev? Maybe.

One needs to remember that while Russia has made great strides in system-level warfare since the Georgian Conflict, it is still a fair distance short of what NATO and/or the US is able to do.
Oh quite a large distance. Especially since they don't have the budget or size.

In short, Russia would not be able to face off against the US/NATO in a conventional conflict and survive for very long, and the Russian leadership knows it. This has in turn triggered a policy of nuclear weapons release in the event of armed conflict with the US/NATO, since the ability of the US to disrupt hostile C3 capabilities is reasonably well known. Unless Russia were to launch a nuclear strike early in a conflict, Russia might very well lose the ability to launch what should be a strike of last resort.
You think the US could realistically prevent Russia from launching a nuclear strike? You think the US could prevent Russian upper leadership from being able to reach any strategic or tactical nuclear asset? That would require quite the capabilities.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
You think the US could realistically prevent Russia from launching a nuclear strike? You think the US could prevent Russian upper leadership from being able to reach any strategic or tactical nuclear asset? That would require quite the capabilities.
Parts are getting a bit OT, and due to time constraints I will need different times to respond to different points.

I terms of the US being capable of impacting Russian C3/C4ISR capabilities via conventional means sufficiently to prevent a Russian nuclear response to a dissolution of State, then my answer would be, given sufficient time, yes.

Hence the original part (and IIRC part of present Russian doctrine) where Russia would need to initiate such a response early in a conventional conflict. Not necessarily in the first few hours, or perhaps even days, but certainly in the first few weeks. Otherwise the US/NATO would have had ample time to target and destroy the various command centres and communications links. The actual nuclear-armed forces might still be operational, but may not know when or where to deploy their weaponry.
 

Ocean1Curse

Member
Excuse my interruption into this important debate. I would like to come at this hybrid war from a different dimension. Coming at this from an economic analyst dimension. You two Feanor and Tod need your own podcast so you can beam this talk out to a wider audience than just the 11 viewings now. Others who talk about this new Cold War sound like bankers swallowing glass while giving speeches to U.S senate committees.

There is three countries that exist outside U.S Hegemony, China, Russia, Iran. The U.S has this foreign policy that I would call the Martin Gail betting system of foreign policy. With each failure they double down. There's only 3 countries left to double down on, China, Russia, Iran. The question is, is the U.S going to be able to perpetually double down on these 3 countries with fiat currency and war mongering. The answer for me is no. Every one is signing up to the BRICKs including Germany. The U.S world reserve dollar has lost its hot streak, lost its dominance and everything is now heading east. And there facing the unbeatable foe. I'll elaborate.

People often say Chinese, Iranian and Russian Leadership are completely irrational. It's not irrational if you focus in on oil and gas. Russia's Gas Prom provides 100% of gas to countries like Finland. 50-60% of all the gas to Germany. 20-22% of all gas to the U.K. So John McCain is going to impose all these sanctions on Russia. Sanctions will have the effect of turning all the Gas off and freeze every one to death. Brings a whole new meaning to the saying a cold Russian winter.

Gas Prom is not something you can tangle with unless you have huge backing. Look at who's backing NATO. The U.S who say there going to go from zero to a multi hundred billion dollar business in fraking. Which we now know with the redundancies of 100,000 fraking jobs is a complete fraud. So the proponents against Russia are writing checks there mouths will never be able to cash.

This is what it all brakes down to. Iran is a huge player in gas. China's a huge player in that there a huge buyer of natural resources. What has Russia, China and Iran been doing to prepare for this new stand off. They have been buying gold. It's not going to be a hot war like guns tanks and solders.

It's a currency Cold War. We're people are trying to destabilise each other's markets. Whether it's the natural resource market, FOREX or gold market. In that scenario China Russia with the gold they have will come out on top. That's just my view of analysing markets. I'm not taking an ideological position. I'm saying that's how the markets crumble.

The U.S special envoy to Ukraine was caught speaking ill about Ukraine in an attempt to manikinies Ukraine. The people didn't change. There still largely the same. This is Martin Gail system of betting. Look it up online. If you go to the roulette wheel you spin red, it comes up black. You double down and double down the idea is eventually it hits red. The U.S does this all the time. In Somalia, Lybia, the Americas and the response is to double down. Now the U.S. Is going to try to double down on Russia. I'm sorry it's not going to work.

Now you look at Ukraine's Gold holdings. The moment the IMF got involved Ukraine's gold holdings went to zero. Outwardly this puts huge pressure on Ukrainian citizens to find new markets to trade with.

The annexation of Crimea by Russia can be said to be an act of stupidity by the U.S because under self determination Crimean's effectively said where going to have a referendum and get the hell out of this kerfuffle. Then Russia says you speak Russian. Every ones got a passport. Do you need to go aggressively into Ukraine under such circumstances. No. Putin is just sitting back watching these corporate cronies make mistakes after mistakes.

This is playing right into Putins favour reflected in his popularity. Putin has been trying to curtail these oligarchs for years. Putins saying great I'v been trying to do this for years. The Russian people hate these oligarchs. It's genius. Putin is playing chess and the oligarchs are playing checkers.

It's paper. It's all fiat. There's no hot war. It's not going to be a bang bang shoot em up. It's going to be an attempt to destabilise the stock market, the rubble. We are oil poor. How are our leadership going to be able to explain rising fuel costs. Because they have picked a fight unnecessarily with Russia.
 

bdique

Member
What do you think? From a military standpoint, do you think hybrid war brings anything genuinely new to the table?
Singaporean war planners may not have used the exact terms, but the development of the Total Defence concept since the 1980s was to precisely prevent hybrid warfare from developing through the exploiting of any potential tiny cracks in Singaporean society. In the words of DefMin Ng Eng Hen,

What is "hybrid warfare"? I think Singaporeans can understand it easily because it is the exact antagonist of "Total Defence" which we started some decades ago. Hybrid warfare is an orchestrated campaign to fracture the solidarity of the target nation through undermining its defences in civil, economic, social, psychological and military spheres.

MINDEF - Resources - Speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Defence, at Committee of Supply Debate 2015 (05 Mar 15)
Even if the exact phrase may not have been used, the general essence of what hybrid warfare is captured. Also, a quick check on Google scholar shows that the term 'hybrid warfare' has already been used since 2002, possibly earlier (I can't find any other documents earlier than that). It talks about how hybrid warfare might arise, be conducted and how to counter hybrid warfare.

http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/5865/02Jun_Nemeth.pdf?sequence=1

I suspect to the general public, it might be their first time hearing the terms 'hybrid warfare', but I'm confident within the military circles of most professional militaries, this is nothing new.
 

Goknub

Active Member
As for Russia not invading/occupying Kiev, and/or a greater portion of the Ukraine, I honestly do not think the decision was a political one. Rather, I think Russia assessed just what/how much could be taken, and more importantly held, by "rebel" forces, as well as how much could be taken/held before Western nations intervened (overtly or covertly).
I would disagree with that, I believe it was almost entirely political that Russia went as far as it did. Russia does not want to be seen as one of the "bad guys", the efforts they put into the 2014 Winter Olympics demonstrate this. Their goal was to prevent a future "Western" Ukraine from booting them from the Sevastopol naval base or sharing berth space with NATO. I believe their goal was, and still is, to achieve this without a long term stand-off with the West. An open invasion of Ukraine to Kiev would be the worst possible move in this scenario.

----------------------

Singaporean war planners may not have used the exact terms, but the development of the Total Defence concept since the 1980s was to precisely prevent hybrid warfare from developing through the exploiting of any potential tiny cracks in Singaporean society. In the words of DefMin Ng Eng Hen,

I suspect to the general public, it might be their first time hearing the terms 'hybrid warfare', but I'm confident within the military circles of most professional militaries, this is nothing new.
Conducting "hybrid warfare" could be seen as the standard way of war for the West for some time now. It just hasn't been something we have had to face ourselves so hasn't had a specific name.

The biggest issue for the West isn't so much the actions of Russia in Ukraine itself but what that could mean for the security of the West if the Russians or Chinese were to utilise their expat populations. It's the same reason the German and Japanese populations were interned in camps during World War 1 and 2 in many Western nations.
 

Ocean1Curse

Member
Ahem.

Every one in this blames each other for heightening emotions in all this. David Cameron late last year eluded to in parliament weaponised financial instruments of war and ended there. We must applaud central bankers like Russia's Elvira and the U.S Janet Yellen who look like librarians but are viscous Eagles and bears.

They suck in short sellers then they jump interest rates a little and crush these mom and pop investors.

What Putin has done is given his central bank head Elvira the tools to go into the FOREX market and battle Janet Yellen by reclassifying how to put different reserves on balance sheets. How to approach accounting in slightly different ways. So Putin has weaponised the folks in Moscow's central bank and its game on.

Gaining dominance in the global FOREX market. There's your hybrid. The $5 trillion a day FOREX market is made up of 60% euro and USD then every one else. With now 2% Russian share in this trade. Trade surplus, huge financial and mineral reserves Russia can withstands shocks the euro and U.S can not. Muscling there way up the means of production.

Not just military planners, labour groups, politicians are all having huge problems keeping pace with the rhetoric of globalisation. When we have hundreds of factories spread across the world reproducing what other factories produce. When things get a little hot in one part of the global economy you can just shift production to the peripheries. It's difficult to explain in old rhetoric. Similar but not.

Militaries are fuelled by an energy source, language and transport. Diesel, radio waves and the automobile. Those societies that could bring these discoveries together efficiently won. Now with increasing fashion what drives society and there militarises is renewable energies, the Internet of things and drones defined as censors connected to the Internet of things. We know the predator drone and with increasing fashion driverless cars and anything else that inputs data into the Internet. Today there is some 5-30 billion connections to the Internet. By 2050 it's projected 5 trillion connections will be made. Measuring everything.

There are now apps available, not specifically. But written codes any one has access to for free. That controls there individual network of the Internet of things and is comparable to state and corporate power. At what point does this new individual require military intervention if not to protect the old world grip on things.

Observe your hybrid warfare that maintains the financial viability of the motion pictures association who expeditiously sends in swat to arrest Kim Dotcom in his home in New Zealand for a crime there is no law in a place America has zero jurisdiction.

When once it costed $1000 just to copy one bible. You can now reproduce a sound byte billions of times at a fraction of the costs of previous production techniques on the Internet. Controlling these new means of production is not possible with in the physical realm. Oligarchs thought they could create a premium economy by sticking up pay walls. But when the free side is so abundant the oligarchs business models crumble. So oligarchs have had to resort to more drastic measures of control. But they will fail.

Moving along from the hunter gatherer. Braking the shackles of feudalism. This isn't just hybrid. It is a new human experience. A new human being.

The ruler says to the Pirates why do you molest the seas.

The pirate: you sir molest the world.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I would disagree with that, I believe it was almost entirely political that Russia went as far as it did. Russia does not want to be seen as one of the "bad guys", the efforts they put into the 2014 Winter Olympics demonstrate this. Their goal was to prevent a future "Western" Ukraine from booting them from the Sevastopol naval base or sharing berth space with NATO. I believe their goal was, and still is, to achieve this without a long term stand-off with the West. An open invasion of Ukraine to Kiev would be the worst possible move in this scenario..
In that case, why not stop with Crimean? Sending Russian army soldiers to fight in E. Ukraine, backing the rebels with artillery firing across the border, etc. are incompatible with what you say.

The Winter Olympics don't show anything of the kind.That was a prestige project, to impress with Russia's abilities, not an attempt to win friends. They were entirely compatible with Putin being happy to be seen as 'one of the bad guys'. I think he probably doesn't give a dame whether foreigners like him (or Russia) or not, as long as they're afraid. He thinks fear is respect.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
In that case, why not stop with Crimean? Sending Russian army soldiers to fight in E. Ukraine, backing the rebels with artillery firing across the border, etc. are incompatible with what you say.

The Winter Olympics don't show anything of the kind.That was a prestige project, to impress with Russia's abilities, not an attempt to win friends. They were entirely compatible with Putin being happy to be seen as 'one of the bad guys'. I think he probably doesn't give a dame whether foreigners like him (or Russia) or not, as long as they're afraid. He thinks fear is respect.
Honestly I think it's even deeper then that. It's not that he sees fear as respect, it's that he believes that western elites fundamentally don't care. That they, underneath it all, neither fear nor respect Russia in any genuine manner. I think he sees post-Cold War politics as a return of the great game, with the elites of nations having more in common with each other then with their own underclasses.
 

Goknub

Active Member
I believe the reason for not stopping with Crimea was that Putin essentially didn't see much choice. His pledge to protect Russians everywhere was largely an ethno-nationalistic fig-leaf to justify the occupation of Sevastopol. I see it as a cold and calculated play for key terrain which would be more in Putin's style. It had the added bonus of getting the West to take Russia seriously again.

"It's best to be loved, but if not, it's better to be feared than to be mocked."

It would have been better that the people of Donetsk remained under Ukrainian control. The larger the Russian population the better the chance of regaining Ukraine as a buffer state. With Crimea gone and now the Donetsk region that will be much harder.

Unfortunately that didn't happen. The Donetsk is a region of rust belt ex-Soviet towns and cities of little value compared to Sevastopol but if Putin had not backed them he would have appeared a liar and a coward which could end in disaster for him.

I think he made the best of a bad situation and kept the rebels supplied just enough to survive. I believe all the bluster, snap exercises and announcements of pipe-dream weapon projects are simply playing for time until the situation can calm down and the sanctions can come off.

That's my reading of the situation. He can't be seen to back down but can't push any harder either.

The rest that you say about him I also believe is accurate but my post is already long enough.
 

bdique

Member
I believe the reason for not stopping with Crimea was that Putin essentially didn't see much choice. His pledge to protect Russians everywhere was largely an ethno-nationalistic fig-leaf to justify the occupation of Sevastopol. I see it as a cold and calculated play for key terrain which would be more in Putin's style. It had the added bonus of getting the West to take Russia seriously again.

"It's best to be loved, but if not, it's better to be feared than to be mocked."

It would have been better that the people of Donetsk remained under Ukrainian control. The larger the Russian population the better the chance of regaining Ukraine as a buffer state. With Crimea gone and now the Donetsk region that will be much harder.

Unfortunately that didn't happen. The Donetsk is a region of rust belt ex-Soviet towns and cities of little value compared to Sevastopol but if Putin had not backed them he would have appeared a liar and a coward which could end in disaster for him.

I think he made the best of a bad situation and kept the rebels supplied just enough to survive. I believe all the bluster, snap exercises and announcements of pipe-dream weapon projects are simply playing for time until the situation can calm down and the sanctions can come off.

That's my reading of the situation. He can't be seen to back down but can't push any harder either.

The rest that you say about him I also believe is accurate but my post is already long enough.
Your post reminded me of something. Setting Crimea aside, and simply looking at the Donetsk region, the seeds for 'fracturing a society' were pretty much sown when:

1. Ethnically, there was a sizable population who identified themselves are being more Russian than Ukrainian. Granted, this conclusion was derived post-hoc, AFTER Russian meddling in the Donetsk...but if this fact didn't exist, I don't think Putin would have any reason to cast his gaze in that area in the first place. After all, hybrid war does hinge on employing sympathetic locals to further your cause.

2. Donetsk was economically less developed than other parts of Ukraine. Yet another 'societal fracture point', if I can call it that. I personally feel that income inequality is something all governments should work towards addressing, not just to keep the populace happy, but to give your population one less reason to invite
little green men' from an unfriendly neighbouring country over.

3. Technology as an enabler of hybrid war - I'm talking less about giving armed men better signals equipment or weaponry. I'm talking about using technology as a means to propagate propaganda, to skew international perspectives and slow down a concerted international response as people try to figure out what's really going on. Bring in the paid trolls! For every piece of truthful reporting, 100 garbage articles are produced...I think we can all see where this is going...heck, even online forums like these are not spared from their long reach. :\

Individually, each problem may not be that severe, when you place these things together...the sum of parts...

Perhaps, the scary bit about Putin is that for Donetsk, he and his war planners rightly identified the weak spots, rightly assessed the opportunities for exploitation, and dived in for the kill.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Your post reminded me of something. Setting Crimea aside, and simply looking at the Donetsk region, the seeds for 'fracturing a society' were pretty much sown when:

1. Ethnically, there was a sizable population who identified themselves are being more Russian than Ukrainian. Granted, this conclusion was derived post-hoc, AFTER Russian meddling in the Donetsk...but if this fact didn't exist, I don't think Putin would have any reason to cast his gaze in that area in the first place. After all, hybrid war does hinge on employing sympathetic locals to further your cause.
What the actual f*ck? This conclusion wasn't post-hoc... they were Russian ethnics all along. Look at census data from the Russian Empire.

2. Donetsk was economically less developed than other parts of Ukraine. Yet another 'societal fracture point', if I can call it that. I personally feel that income inequality is something all governments should work towards addressing, not just to keep the populace happy, but to give your population one less reason to invite
little green men' from an unfriendly neighbouring country over.
Less developed then what? It was a seat of industry and commerce. Granted all of Ukraine was screwed in the long run, because Yanukovich didn't sign the Customs Union agreement, and Ukraine was slowly being pushed out of the newly created market, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an important economic asset to Ukraine. It was certainly less developed then Kiev, the rest of Ukraine?

3. Technology as an enabler of hybrid war - I'm talking less about giving armed men better signals equipment or weaponry. I'm talking about using technology as a means to propagate propaganda, to skew international perspectives and slow down a concerted international response as people try to figure out what's really going on. Bring in the paid trolls! For every piece of truthful reporting, 100 garbage articles are produced...I think we can all see where this is going...heck, even online forums like these are not spared from their long reach. :\
And the west is far better at media manipulation and control over information then anything Russia can attempt. The Russian government has a captive domestic audience, whom they manipulate relatively easily, but when it comes to the rest of world, they are terrible at waging the media war.

Just as a side note, reaching internet forums is easy.

Individually, each problem may not be that severe, when you place these things together...the sum of parts...

Perhaps, the scary bit about Putin is that for Donetsk, he and his war planners rightly identified the weak spots, rightly assessed the opportunities for exploitation, and dived in for the kill.
I don't think they did any of that. I think events unfolded and they reacted. Inadequately as the outcome shows.
 

bdique

Member
Gah. Phrased my words really badly. Thats what you get trying to comment just before a flight.

Re: Russian ethinics. My point is that if there were no Russian ethinics there, then there will not be the turmoil today. The fact that there are Russian ethnics provides further support that there is a hybrid war going on.

Re: Donetsk economy. I'm not saying Donetsk is in poverty, or third world economy-wise. All you need is sufficient economic disparity to cause unhappiness...

Re: Techology. It's an enabler that makes the propaganda bit of waging a hybrid war easier than before. There, I should just say it like that.

I just thought that events in Ukraine are a classic example that helps demonstrate a unique fact of hybrid war, that when a lot of small issues (which on their own are worrying but not major) come together, it sets the stage for hybrid war to be conducted.
 

Ocean1Curse

Member
Gah. Phrased my words really badly. Thats what you get trying to comment just before a flight.

Re: Russian ethinics. My point is that if there were no Russian ethinics there, then there will not be the turmoil today. The fact that there are Russian ethnics provides further support that there is a hybrid war going on.

Re: Donetsk economy. I'm not saying Donetsk is in poverty, or third world economy-wise. All you need is sufficient economic disparity to cause unhappiness...

Re: Techology. It's an enabler that makes the propaganda bit of waging a hybrid war easier than before. There, I should just say it like that.

I just thought that events in Ukraine are a classic example that helps demonstrate a unique fact of hybrid war, that when a lot of small issues (which on their own are worrying but not major) come together, it sets the stage for hybrid war to be conducted.
There is this phrase technical change. We know the dictionary meaning of humanitarian aid and, the technical meaning of humanitarian aid in pollie speak being, military aid.

Putin always said humanitarian will be given. When you look at Russia's some $2 billion investment aid into Crimea since May last year. A total 6.9 billion earmarked for investment in Crimean infrastructure out to 2017. Technically Putins intentions haven't changed.

In Todjaeger's historical accounts he mentions the U.S government didn't want to annex Texas at first because of the slave thing. At some point this dictionary meaning was given a technical meaning. Because sometime later and for a whole lot of different reasons did America address there slave problem, leads me to believe technical change is fundamental to Hybrid warfare.

Some other technical reasons for change given in Todjaeger's historical account of the Sudetenland's.

Feanor should be given an honorary doctorate in journalism for his Ukraine Crises thread. There is no truer expression of this crises in mainstream media.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
Russian ethinics. My point is that if there were no Russian ethinics there, then there will not be the turmoil today. The fact that there are Russian ethnics provides further support that there is a hybrid war going on.
Pukhov's entire argument is that there is no such thing as a hybrid war. That this war uses quite traditional methods, that happen to be uniquely effective in Ukraine at this time.

Re: Donetsk economy. I'm not saying Donetsk is in poverty, or third world economy-wise. All you need is sufficient economic disparity to cause unhappiness...
They are practically third world economy wise, and I understand that your point refers to disparity. My question to you is... disparity compared to what? Certainly not the rest of Ukraine (save maybe Kiev).

Re: Techology. It's an enabler that makes the propaganda bit of waging a hybrid war easier than before. There, I should just say it like that.
Is it an enabler? Before you publish what you want in your own newspapers and nobody can question it. Not really anyway. Today I can disprove half the garbage on RT using social media. Modern media can be more effective under the right circumstances and if used correctly. However, I don't think Russia is very good at it. Information technologies in this case don't help Russia nearly as much as they could, or as much as they help the west.

I just thought that events in Ukraine are a classic example that helps demonstrate a unique fact of hybrid war, that when a lot of small issues (which on their own are worrying but not major) come together, it sets the stage for hybrid war to be conducted.
Would you hazard a definition of hybrid war?
 
Top