Russias Military Strategy and Doctrine Web
Russias Military Strategy and Doctrine Web
Russias Military Strategy and Doctrine Web
The key questions emphasized by this book include “how Russia fights wars” and “how its
experiences with modern conflicts are shaping the evolution of Russia’s military strategy,
capabilities and doctrine.” The book’s value comes not only from a piecemeal look at
granular Russian strategies in each of the theaters and domains where its Armed Forces
may act, but more importantly this study seeks to present a unifying description of Russia’s
military strategy as a declining but still formidable global power. Russia’s Military Strategy
and Doctrine will be an essential reference for US national security thinkers, NATO defense
planners and policymakers the world over who must deal with the potential military and
security challenges posed by Moscow.
■ ■ ■
“This book is a major addition to the field of Russian military studies and should Glen E. Howard and
be required reading by many of our senior civilian and military policymakers. Its
insights on Russian military strategy in key regions of the world are of great
Matthew Czekaj, Editors
value and will last for years to come. Jamestown is always a pivotal source of
information and a resource I greatly value, both now and since I left the US Army.” Foreword by
—LTG (ret.) Ben Hodges, former Commanding General of US Army Europe, Former NATO SACEUR
The Jamestown Foundation
$24.95
ISBN 978-0-9986660-1-3
52495>
9 780998 666013
Foreword by
Former NATO SACEUR
General Philip M. Breedlove
Washington, DC
February 2019
THE JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written consent.
For copyright and permissions information, contact The Jamestown
Foundation, 1310 L Street NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005.
The views expressed in the book are those of the contributors and not
necessarily those of The Jamestown Foundation.
ISBN: 978-0-9986660-1-3
Origins
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………………….v
Foreword
By Philip M. Breedlove……………………………………………vii
Introduction
By Glen E. Howard and Matthew Czekaj………………………….ix
Contributors’ Biographies…………………………………….436
v
Acknowledgements
Such a volume has been long overdue. The field of Russian military
studies, as a whole, has noticeably declined in the United States. And
this has been the case despite three Eurasian wars since 2008: the
Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008, the invasion and
annexation of Crimea in February–March 2014, and the subsequent
Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine in mid-2014 (four if one includes
Russia’s brutal suppression of the militant insurgency in Chechnya).
vi
As such, one would have thought the US think tank and policy
community would had supported such a reference work on the
Russian military long before 2019. But living up to Jamestown’s
mission statement, our faithful Board of Directors stepped forward
last year to make this book possible, providing constructive
encouragement and opening their pocketbooks.
The list of backers of this project is quite long, but a debt of gratitude
is owed first and foremost to our Board Chairman, Willem de Vogel,
who provided the leadership and support for this project as part of his
ceaseless quest to assist Jamestown and make it truly what it is
today. A very special note of thanks is also due to Board Member
Robert Spring, who played a distinctive role in coming up with the
idea to create this edited volume of articles on Russian military
strategy and then stepped forward to provide the effort with his
generous backing. We would also like to recognize the two co-
founders of Jamestown, James G. Gidwitz and Clint Smullyan, for
their contributions to this project and for never saying no when
asked. We would additionally like to express our thanks to Board
Member Michael Kavoukjian, who is always there to support this
organization.
And last but not least, we thank the readers of our publications for
their continued interest in our work, helping sustain Jamestown year
and after and continually allowing us to reach new generations of
policymakers and experts.
vii
Foreword
First of all, we need to understand that Vladimir Putin’s Russia does not
want to be our partner. For the last two decades, our efforts to turn
Moscow into one have repeatedly failed. Instead, of seeking to integrate
itself into the Western rule-based system, Russia has used force to change
internationally recognized borders on several different occasions:
Georgia in 2008 and then Ukraine in 2014. This should serve as an
important lesson to us as we assess the paths ahead for how to contend
with a revanchist Russia.
The United States has a substantially different posture today than during
the Cold War. And while the Cold War era was reasonably contained and
well understood, today the threat coming from Moscow is much broader
in terms of its geographic scope, stretching from the Levant to the North
Pole. Russia’s Military Strategy and Doctrine should serve as a valuable
reference guide for policymakers and all those seeking to comprehend
the multifaceted challenges posed by Moscow—particularly when it
comes to understanding the various theaters in which Russia operates as
well as regarding issue-based threats, such as this country’s nuclear or
cyber strategies. Jamestown has made an important contribution to
helping us achieve this goal. I commend their efforts to bring together
such a diverse array of authors and perspectives about Russian strategy
and trust you will benefit from the resulting study as well.
Introduction
For the next several hours, as the Ukrainian detachment slowly moved
northward to enter the Kerch Strait, Russian naval surface and air
assets continued to harass them. Starting at 11:00 a.m., and lasting for
the next six hours, the Gyurzas and their accompanying tug repeatedly
lost communications as a result of Russian jamming, while their crews
were targeted by various psychological pressure tactics. As Russian
Ka-52 attack helicopters circled overhead, two Su-25SM attack jets
overflew the Ukrainian ships at an altitude of 50 meters, with their
fire-control systems activated.
x | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Night fell. And at 7:48 p.m., after the two Gyurza-Ms and the tug
moved beyond the 12-mile zone around Crimea, the Russian vessels
opened fire, hitting the superstructure of one of the Ukrainian artillery
boats and injuring three of its sailors. The damaged ship’s captain
radioed “Mayday,” around 8:00 p.m. But just minutes later, Russian
FSB special forces troops forcibly began boarding the Ukrainian
vessels, as Su-30, Su-25 and attack helicopters fired on the ships from
above. The Russian forces seized and hauled away the three Ukrainian
naval ships overnight and took the 24 Ukrainian crew members into
custody. As of early February 2019, they remain in Russia, awaiting
trial.
Since the spring of 2018, Russia had deployed well over 40 warships
to the Azov Sea as well as strengthened its aerial and coastal assets in
Crimea. It had been using its greatly enhanced naval presence to
obstruct international shipping to and from Ukraine’s ports on the
Azov Sea. The long-term goal of this approach is clearly to reinforce
the perception of Moscow’s total control over maritime navigation in
the Azov Sea as well as to strangle the economy of Ukraine’s industry-
heavy southeastern coast. Thus, the dramatic November 25 naval
skirmish served to further buttress that narrative, with almost certain
lasting implications for commercial actors’ willingness to do business
with the Ukrainian ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk.3
* * *
xii | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Russia’s November 25, 2018, assault in the Black Sea on three small
Ukrainian naval boats traveling through international waters toward
the port of Berdyansk provides a valuable case study for how Russia
engages in conflicts while operating below the threshold of war.
Indeed, an even more extreme manifestation of this modus operandi
was the annexation of Crimea in February–March 2014, followed
weeks later by the use of surrogate forces to invade eastern Ukraine.
These events ushered in the era of “Hybrid War” as the West struggled
to define Russian President Vladimir Putin’s use of non-linear
warfare—just as Western journalists adopted the term “Blitzkrieg” to
describe the use of German tactics used in their 1939 invasion of
Poland. To the degree that Poland was a testing ground for new
weapons and tactics used by the Wehrmacht, Ukraine is also
becoming a modern laboratory for 21st century warfare. For this
reason it is important to understand how Russia is adjusting,
calibrating, and even redefining our description of non-linear means
used for achieving objectives short of open conflict. In other words:
limited war.
Not since Otto von Bismarck, has a European leader more skillfully
redrawn the borders of his country’s periphery than Putin. During the
latter half of the 19th century, Bismarck sought to unify Germany
through a series of short-lived campaigns, first by defeating Denmark
in the Second Schleswig War in 1864, then, two years later, beating the
Austrians at Königgrätz in 1866, followed four years after that by
summarily defeating France in 1870/1871 in the Franco-Prussian war,
xvi | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
* * *
As the Cold War ramped up, the US posture in Europe went from
President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s New Look defense strategy, which
relied on technology and air power, to soon be overtaken by John F.
Kennedy’s conventional buildup, rooted in the doctrine of Flexible
Response and strategic mobility. However, little room was left to
adapt to social instability or upheaval on the Soviet periphery. And
this visibly restricted Washington’s ability to react to unrest in the
Soviet empire, such as the 1956 Hungarian uprising or the
Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Even in
retirement, Eisenhower deliberated at great length over his own
perceived failure to respond adequately to the Hungarian rebellion
and bloody Soviet repression that occurred afterward. As he noted,
xviii | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Today, we are again seeing a return to limited war. As was the case
with the US experience of Korea (38th parallel) and later Vietnam (17th
parallel), demarcation lines are again influencing US policymakers in
their strategic decision-making as policy responses are being shaped
by dividing lines between old and new Europe and between what
constitutes an actual violation of NATO’s sacred Article V. For all
practical purposes, NATO response lines seem to end at the Alliance’s
edge. But serious uncertainties lie in the new demarcation lines of the
non-NATO periphery. This is the current challenge for policymakers
Introduction | xix
[and he] who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”11
Indeed, in many ways, today’s struggles are returning to the Rimland,
as the balance of power of world politics lies in Eurasia. Moreover, it
was Spykman who asserted that it would be up to the United States to
be the chief balancer in the competition to control the balance of
power in Eurasia.12
Frozen conflicts are at the heart of the struggle being fought in the
Rimland. The post-Soviet space is emerging as a contest where
Russian-backed rebellions threaten state sovereignty and political
stability in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and now Ukraine.
Understandably as the United States charts a new strategy of
deterrence, open conflict is no longer to be found only at the
geopolitical margins or in the Developing World, as was the case in
the 1960s. Instead, conflict threatening Western security and
transatlantic solidarity has now shifted to the borderlands of the post-
Soviet space, where a revanchist Russia endangers NATO’s youngest
and most exposed members. In order to safeguard the North Atlantic
Alliance’s eastern flanks, the United States should formulate a new
model of deterrence to not only safeguard those NATO member states
that border Russia but also their transatlantic-leaning neighbors, such
as Georgia and Ukraine.
Today, the entire center of gravity of NATO is shifting to the east, with
the critical allies of Poland, the Baltic States and Romania making up
the Alliance’s vulnerable flanks. It took the United States decades to
adjust to the geopolitical realities of the Cold War before becoming
comfortable with its presence in Western Europe and in its ability to
deter the Soviet Union. But that strategy was significantly more
geographically limited: over 360,000 US ground forces manned the
Fulda Gap, and its immediate flanks were guarded by NATO member
Italy in the South and Norway in the North. Now, NATO must adjust
to a new center of gravity east of the Oder River, an expansive region
where the US lacks geographic familiarity and operational certainty.
The Baltic and Black Seas, for example, were once areas that NATO
Introduction | xxi
* * *
political and military influence across the wider Middle East has
hampered and complicated the US-led international coalition’s anti-
terrorism operations against the Islamic State in Syria and beyond.
This book is divided into three main sections. Part I focuses on the
four main geographic vectors of Russia’s strategy, delving into the
most important regions and front lines against which Moscow arrays
its forces and political-military efforts. Part II features chapters that
explore key functional aspects of Russia’s warfighting and defense
posture. Whereas, Part III includes analysis of the lessons Moscow has
learned from its two ongoing foreign wars, in Syria and Donbas, as
well as how its national security and defense strategies have impacted
changes to mobilization and military reforms domestically.
The third chapter, “Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies,” by Pavel
K. Baev, pointedly links these two regions in light of Moscow’s focus
on developing the Northern Sea Route, which will connect the
European and East Asian markets via a maritime passage along the
country’s Arctic coastline. As the Arctic continues to open up, the
strategically important Northern Sea Route as well as economic
opportunities associated with extracting natural resources from the
xxiv | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
High North have been translating into growing focus on this region
by Moscow. However, as Baev points out, the inflated and entirely
unrealistic threat assessments pushed by the Russian military have
resulted in an unreasonable resource allocation to the Arctic, resulting
in more attention paid to building a string of new military bases and
A2/AD bubbles than actual economic development or commercial
investment there. The Far East, on the other hand, suffers from the
exact opposite situation, he notes. Despite quite real security
challenges to Russian Siberia and the Asia-Pacific region stemming
from an increasingly confident China and a nuclear North Korea, for
example, Moscow has been naively trying to link itself politically to
Beijing’s rise while misallocating billions on dubious economic and
infrastructure projects that have no hope of ever turning a profit.
The second section of this book pulls back and focuses on the non-
conventional elements of Russian strategy and doctrine that are
common to most if not all areas of conflict or political-security
competition with other powers that Moscow engages in around the
world. Chapter 5, “Not ‘Hybrid’ but New Generation Warfare,” by
Latvian defense analyst Jānis Bērziņš, seeks to dispel some of the
pervasive myths in the West about what role asymmetric, non-
Introduction | xxv
The final chapter in this section, “Russia’s Offensive and Defensive Use of
Information Security,” by Russian researcher Sergey Sukhankin, examines
the role that cyberspace and the broader information domain play in
Russian war making. Of particular note, Sukhankin writes that Moscow’s
attitude toward the information domain strongly retains many of its Soviet
legacies, including its use as both an offensive weapon against outside
enemies as well as a means to internally control the domestic population.
As he points out, modern Russian theorists frequently ascribe the collapse
of the Soviet Union to the authorities’ forfeiture of control over
information flows in and out of the country. At the same time, he writes
that, when it comes to defense, Russia’s view of information security differs
dramatically from the Western approach, with practice regularly
outrunning theory, thus making Russian actions more difficult to predict.
Part III of this book begins with two chapters analyzing the lessons Russia
has learned from its ongoing wars abroad and how those lessons are being
incorporated into its military reforms, rearmament processes as well as
doctrine and strategy. Chapter 9, “Deciphering the Lessons Learned by the
Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine, 2014–2017,” by Russian military expert
Roger N. McDermott, concludes that the “covert” campaign in Donbas,
first and foremost, revitalized the General Staff’s support for large, heavy
armor maneuvers. It also pushed a reorganization of Russia’s military
structure back to reintroducing some divisional units. In turn, analyst
Dima Adamsky contributed a chapter on Russia’s “open” foreign war:
“Russian Lessons Learned From the Operation in Syria: A Preliminary
Assessment.” One of the key points he makes is that the Russian
intervention in Syria has provided invaluable combat experience for the
country’s military commanders, who have been rotated in and out of the
campaign continually for the past several years. Moreover, his chapter
looks at the ways in which the Syrian campaign has been influencing how
Russia utilizes intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets in
combat, as well as the war’s impact on Russian disinformation operations.
Introduction | xxvii
The key questions emphasized by this book are “how Russia fights wars”
and “how its experiences with modern conflicts are shaping the evolution
of Russia’s military strategy, capabilities and doctrine.” The book’s value
comes not only from a piecemeal look at granular Russian strategies in each
of the theaters and domains where its Armed Forces may act, but also from
the collective work’s unifying description of Russia’s military strategy as a
declining but still formidable global power. It is our sincere hope that
Russia’s Military Strategy and Doctrine will be an essential reference for US
national security thinkers, NATO defense planners and policymakers the
world over who deal with the potential military and security challenges
posed by a revanchist Russia.
Glen E. Howard
President, The Jamestown Foundation
Matthew Czekaj
Editor-in-Chief, Eurasia Daily Monitor and
Senior Program Associate for Europe and Eurasia, The Jamestown
Foundation
February 5, 2019
Washington, DC
xxviii | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Notes
1
The presented timeline of events can be found in “Russian Attack Against
Ukrainian Navy Ships,” Presentation, Ukrainian Navy, December 14, 2018; “How
Russia occupied Sea of Azov: full chronology,” Empr.media,
https://empr.media/opinion/analytics/how-russia-occupied-sea-of-azov-full-
chronology/, accessed January 4, 2019.
2
Michael Kofman, “The Kerch Strait Naval Skirmish,” Russia Military Analysis,
November 28, 2018, https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/the-
kerch-strait-naval-skirmish/.
3
Maryna Vorotnyuk, “In Serious Escalation, Russia Openly Attacks Ukrainian
Vessels in Azov Sea,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 15, Issue 165, November 26,
2018, The Jamestown Foundation,
https://jamestown.org/program/in-serious-escalation-russia-openly-attacks-
ukrainian-vessels-in-azov-sea/; Ihor Kabanenko, “Strategic Implications of Russia
and Ukraine’s Naval Clash on November 25,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 15,
Issue 167, November 28, 2018, The Jamestown Foundation,
https://jamestown.org/program/strategic-implications-of-russia-and-ukraines-
naval-clash-on-november-25/.
4
Yuri Lapaiev, “Martial Law in Ukraine: A Rehearsal for War,” Eurasia Daily
Monitor, Volume 15, Issue 175, December 12, 2018, The Jamestown Foundation,
https://jamestown.org/program/martial-law-in-ukraine-a-rehearsal-for-war/.
5
See for example: Robert Endicott Osgood, Limited War: The Challenge to
American Strategy University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 62. Osgood’s book, written
in 1957, is considered the classic work on the term limited war that heavily
influenced American strategic thinkers in the l960s. Many experts consider this time
period to be the golden age of academic thinking on strategy.
6
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power, New
York: Basic Books, 2012, p. 95.
7
Harry G. Summers, Jr. On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context, Strategic Studies
Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania (Fifth Printing),
January 1989, p. 70.
Introduction | xxix
8
Ralph Gordon Hoxie, Command Decision and the Presidency: A Study of National
Security Policy and Organization, New York: Readers Digest Press, 1977, p. 208.
9
“National Security Decision Directive 166,” The White House, Washington, DC,
March 27, 1985, https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-166.pdf.
10
Basil H. Liddell Hart, Deterrent or Defense: A Fresh Look at the West’s Military
Position, New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1960.
11
Nicholas J. Spykman, The Geography of the Peace. New York: Harcourt Brace and
Company, 1944, p. 43.
12
Geoffrey R. Sloan, Geopolitics in United States Strategic Policy, 1890–1987,
Brighton, United Kingdom: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd, 1988, p. 16.
13
James Stavridis, Seapower: The History and Geopolitics of the World’s Oceans, New
York: Penguin Press, 2017, p. 133.
14
Stavridis, op. cit., p. 161
Part I
The Geographic Vectors of
Russia’s Strategy
1. The Russian Strategic Offensive in the
Middle East
Pavel Felgenhauer
Introduction
3
4 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Syria, signed in 2015 with the US military, had been working fine for
more than two years, with both sides fully complying. But according
to Gerasimov, all further Russian proposals for joint operations “did
not interest the Americans.”4
The Syrian overseas campaign was not particularly popular with the
Russian public. The Russian military effort in Syria seemed at times
like an outdated, imperialistic foray into the Middle East and the
Mediterranean—a theater in which the Russian tsars and Communist
leaders traditionally wrestled against Western opponents for
influence. Putin’s Russia seemed to be acting out of its depth, taking
on too heavy a strategic role it did not have the resources or manpower
to complete, for reasons that did not seem clear-cut or imperative.
But the real reason for entering the Syrian civil war was complex,
involving different internal and foreign policy considerations. On the
one hand, preventing the fall of the al-Assad regime and reversing the
course of the Syrian civil war was seen as another manifestation of
Russian national state revival, of its military demonstrating the ability
to take on a logistically and organizationally challenging overseas
mission. The world and the Middle East were supposed to see that
Russia is once again on par with the mighty United States, like the
Soviet Union during the Cold War. And on the other hand, the
Kremlin believed, thanks to the Russian intervention, the balance of
power in a strategically sensitive region of the world could be
significantly altered—with global ramifications.
Concrete military plans to defend Russia and its allies against all
possible threats are kept under wraps, as are most of the
tactical/technical capabilities of deployed and newly developed
weapons systems. And yet, the underlining threat assessment seems
to be less of a secret. Just two weeks after the PORF was approved by
the Kremlin, Gerasimov delivered public remarks at a conference in
Moscow, where he presented a gloomy forecast of impending danger,
apparently based on the PORF threat assessment analysis: “In the
period until 2030, the level of existing and potential military threats
may grow substantially.” Leading world powers will be fighting to
control natural energy resources, markets and “Lebensraum [Nazi
German term meaning ‘living space’; a call for eastward territorial
expansion],” actively using military means to achieve national goals.9
Since the adaption of the PORF, the concept of Russia under siege and
the growing threat of enemy attack has dominated strategic military
planning, rearmament, as well as the country’s foreign and domestic
policies. Moscow has been reinforcing its defenses in all strategic
8 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
operation in Syria that has since turned the course of the civil war. At
the same time, however, Moscow’s Syria intervention has secured a
possibly much more fundamental strategic goal: reinforcing the Iugo-
Zapadnoye Napravleniye and providing it with strategic depth. Only a
couple of weeks into the operation, in October 2015, the Russian
General Staff announced that Hmeymim, together with the Tartus
naval facility, would become “permanent” naval, army and air force
bases on the Syrian Mediterranean coast.11 The al-Assad regime,
dependent on Russian military support for its survival, immediately
consented that the Russians could have any bases they wish.12
The desire to hold on to the Tartus naval base may have been one of
the main strategic reasons behind why the Russian military began its
prolonged and costly foray in Syria to secure the survival of Bashar al-
Assad. Indeed, the embattled Syrian president, in turn, could
guarantee continued Russian military permanent presence in the
Eastern Mediterranean. But during the Russian campaign in Syria
from 2015 through 2017, the Tartus naval facility, though an
important logistics hub on the Syrian coast, did not see much military
action per se. Importantly, it is situated in a region inhabited by
friendly pro-al-Assad Alawites, with practically no insurgent activities
by armed opposition or jihadist groups. The most notable exception
was a series of brazen drone attacks on the Tartus and Hmeymim
bases in early January 2018. Although these terrorist strikes ultimately
caused little damage and were repelled by Russian forces.16
Russian Strategic Offensive in the Middle East | 11
The headquarters and the main operational base of the Russian forces
in Syria were instead located in Hmeymim. High-ranking Russian
generals regularly rotated through this military airfield. In an
interview published in December 2017, Gerasimov mentioned five
colonel generals—Aleksandr Dvornikov (56), Andrei Kartapolov
(54), Sergey Surovikin (51), Vladimir Zarudnitsky (59) and Alexander
Zhuravlyov (52)—who rotated as commanders of the Armed Forces
Gruperovka in Syria. According to the General Staff chief, each of
these generals arrived in Hmeymim with his own operational staff,
intelligence and reconnaissance chiefs, artillery and rocket
commanders, and so on from one or another of Russia’s military
districts. The constant rotation of top military commanders and staffs
through Syria (a typical tour lasts three months) have allowed,
according to Gerasimov, to provide all the military districts and army
staffs, together with 90 percent of divisional command staffs, with
firsthand combat experience. In all, over 48,000 servicemen did tours
in Syria in 2015–2018, and a quarter of them were decorated.
Zhuravlyov commanded the Syria Gruperovka in 2016 and took over
for a second tour in December 2017.17
Though the VKS and its bombers were the decisive military arm of the
Gruperovka, its commanders were all tank and mechanized infantry
(motor-rifle) generals. All of them have since been decorated and
promoted. Dvornikov, Surovikin and Zhuravlyov received the Order
of Heroes of Russia medal. Only Zarudnitsky, who is approaching
retirement age from active service, was appointed to the honorary
position of commandant of Russia’s top military school—the
Academy of the General Staff—following his Syria tour. The Syrian
campaign was hailed by state propaganda as a spectacular VKS
operation, but not a single flyer general was in overall command of
the Gruperovka. Apparently, Gerasimov, himself a tank general
(tankyst), used the Syrian campaign as an opportunity to promote
fellow tank and army generals who traditionally dominate the Russian
military and the General Staff and do their best to keep the admirals,
the flyers and the rocket generals at bay. In November 2017, in an
unprecedented move, Surovikin was appointed the commander of the
VKS. Surovikin, a “tank” general, replaced Army General (ret.) Viktor
Bondarev, a former pilot, who was recently appointed chairman of the
Federation Council defense and security committee.19
Surovikin made a stellar career in the top echelons of the General Staff
and defense ministry after 2008, during the radical military reform
that required ruthlessness in dismissing unneeded veterans and
building a more battle-ready and leaner force. Surovikin’s readiness
to vigorously execute any orders trounced any potential questions
about his checkered curriculum vitae.22
Today, Russia has four main military districts (West, South, Central
and East). Russia’s most powerful Northern Fleet was expanded in
December 2014 into a separate Joint Strategic Command “North,” in
charge of the entire Arctic, reinforced by an Army corps and VKS
units.23 Joint Strategic Command North is seemingly on par with the
other four military districts, but its commander, Admiral Nikolai
Yevmenov, has never command the Gruperovka in Syria—nor has any
other Russian admiral. Russia’s navy, the Military-Maritime Fleet
(Voyenno-Мorskoy Flot—VMF), played a vital part in the Russian
expansion in the Middle East. It could be said the entire operation in
Syria was in large part undertaken to establish a solid home base for
the OSVMFRFSM in the Eastern Mediterranean. But the VMF
apparently did not gain much in terms of top echelon influence and
was often criticized for its deficiencies.
Over the next three years, the VMF continued to launch Kalibr-NK
missiles, but none of the individual volleys were as massive as the
October 7, 2015, strike. Since that first attack and through the end of
2017, over 25 volleys of, together, more than 140 Kalibr-NK missiles
were reportedly fired by Russian Black Sea Fleet frigates operating in
the Eastern Mediterranean, over a hundred miles off the Syrian coast.
Each Kalibr-NK volley consisted of four to eight missiles. Newly built
Project 636.3 (Kilo) diesel-electric BSF submarines fired Kalibr-PL
(the submarine version of the Kalibr) cruise missiles at targets in Syria,
some of them as the subs were transiting from the Baltic Sea, where
they were built. In all, some 40 Kalibr-PLs were reportedly fired at
targets in Syria, in volleys of 2 to 4, through the end of 2017. By this
time, the BSF had received six 636.3 (Kilo) submarines. The Kalibr
missiles launched by the navy from the Mediterranean hit targets 400–
900 km away in Syria. The Kalibr missiles appeared to be a reliable
weapon, but the navy apparently had insufficient stockpiles of these
cruise missiles to organize more massive attacks. Moreover, the VMF
could not properly test the ability of the Kalibr-NK to pierce enemy
defenses, because the Syrian opposition and jihadists groups lacked
any anti-aircraft capabilities or early-warning radars.25
The need to assess the ability of new Russian ships, including frigates,
small corvettes and diesel-electric submarines, to launch long-range
missiles was clearly one of the main reasons to use a relatively large
number of different ships. The Kalibr missiles are extremely
expensive, reportedly some $3 million–$6.5 million apiece, and there
was no clear tactical reason to use these stealthy weapons against
Russian Strategic Offensive in the Middle East | 15
targets that lack air defenses and were already being bombed with
impunity by Russian jets.26
repairs and refits that may take several years. At present, the nuclear
cruiser is not designed to attack land targets.
The frustrated Russian navy will have to make do without any aircraft
carriers for some years to come, and the fleet’s land-attack capabilities
are limited. Still, the VMF played a decisive role in the logistics of the
Syrian campaign by organizing the so called “Syrian express” route to
deliver weapons, munitions and other essential supplies to Russian
troops and their local allies from Black Sea ports (mostly
Novorossiysk) to Syria (Tartus). According to the chief of staff of the
Russian naval base in Tartus, Alexei Tarasov, the port handles 100,000
tons of traffic a month “and most of that traffic is to supply the
Gruperovka in Syria"31 The overall supply traffic from 2015 to 2017
through the “Syrian express” could be over two million tons. To
handle this massive traffic, the VMF mobilized its landing ships, first
of all Project 775 Ropucha-class vessels built in Poland in the 1970s
and 1980s, which have the capacity to carry a marine battalion, 12
tanks and supplies. The landing ships moved troops and supplies and
were supplemented by a number of old general-transport and
container-cargo vessels purchased in Turkey, Greece and Ukraine.
These ships, though unarmed and operated by civilian crews, were
repainted and carried the naval Russian flag as Black Sea Fleet support
vessels so that they could not be stopped and searched by the Turks as
they passed through the Straits. Il-76 and heavy An-124 military
transport jets flying directly to Hmeymim have been supplementing
the “Syrian express” maritime route. Military and civilian personnel
has been moved to and from Hmeymim by transport planes and
defense ministry passenger jets.32
The Russian military insists all of its bombing missions were super
accurate, hitting only jihadist and opposition fighters designated as
terrorists. During the Syrian campaign, the Russian military has
employed some precision-attack weapons: hundreds of long-range
naval (Kalibr) and air-launched (KH-555 and Kh-101) cruise missiles,
guided bombs, as well as Iskander and Tochka-U tactical ballistic
missiles. According to Shoigu, the VKS “in two years, flew some
34,000 combat [bombing] sorties” and killed over 60,000 enemy
combatants or “terrorists.” Yet, most of the bombing missions were
carried out using “dumb” OFAB bombs of various caliber. It is
claimed the new Su-34 bombers have modern targeting equipment,
while older Su-24M and Tu-22M3 swing-wing bombers have been
modernized and equipped with the SVP-24 targeting devices that
allowed them to use simple OFAB bombs as precision weapons,
“never hitting schools or mosques”37
Targeting intelligence was collected by satellites and, for the first time
in any Russian air campaign, by drones. According to Gerasimov,
there are some 50–70 drones in action over Syria one any given day.
The targeting intelligence and footage is provided simultaneously to
the command staff in Hmeymim and the General Staff in Moscow.
According to Gerasimov, the Russian military “made great strides” in
drone usage in the last five years. “Today, it is impossible to fight
without drones, and everybody uses them—special forces, the pilots
and artillery units,” concluded Gerasimov.38
Gerasimov is correct: Only five years ago, the Russian military did not
have any modern usable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and the
acute need to acquire them was not universally recognized. Aerial
reconnaissance and attack missions were carried out by manned
aircraft, either taking photos or the crew simply observing visually.
This situation began to change when, in 2012, the Yekaterinburg
(Urals)–based Uralskiy Zavod Grazhdanskoy Aviatsii (UZGA) began
producing the Forpost UAV, using Israeli-provided components. The
Forpost is a Russian-assembled licensed replica of the Israeli
Aerospace Industries’ Searcher II reconnaissance UAV. This Russian
drone is produced together with Israeli-designed command, control
and communications (C3) equipment. The Forpost has been the
backbone of successful Russian military UAV operations in Syria and
Donbas. According to defense ministry sources the Israeli-designed
Forpost is still the most potent operational Russian UAV, with the
biggest payload (up to 70 kilograms) and the longest flight endurance
(some 18 hours). The Russian-designed Orlan-10 UAV, also used by
Russian forces in Syria, can carry only a 5 kg payload.40
The Russian military has built up special drone units and successfully
integrated the Forpost and other drones to provide targeting
information to artillery, multiple rocket-launch systems (MRLS) and
attack aircraft. Footage provided by UAVs in Syria has been regularly
displayed by the Russian military for PR purposes. But while images
and videos of jets, helicopters and other attack systems are frequently
distributed by official government sources, the UAVs operating in
Syria are never pictured. In particular, the Forpost is not even
mentioned at all. It would appear that the Russian authorities are
embarrassed and hesitant to display Israeli-designed Russian UAVs
deployed on Arab soil and used against Muslim (jihadist) rebels.
Russian Strategic Offensive in the Middle East | 21
When Russia imported Israeli UAV technology some five years ago, it
did not manage to buy any drones more advanced or bigger than the
Searcher II. On the condition of anonymity, some Russian officials say
Washington forbid the Israelis from selling bigger or more modern
attack-capable UAVs. In an apparent sign of desperation, the Russian
defense ministry allocated budgetary funds to modernize the Forpost,
providing it with attack capabilities. It has been announced that, in
2019, the Yekaterinburg-based military contractor UZGA will begin
producing a modernized Forpost-M, “using Russian-made
components and with attack capabilities.”41 Russian defense industry
sources boast the Forpost-M will be “the best UAV in Russia and
possibly in the world.”42 Of course, a modernized Searcher II is too
light and small to be an effective attack UAV on par with the US MQ-
1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, Israeli Elbit Hermes 450 or IAI Heron. But
at present, it seems to be the only reliable and usable UAV Russia
might be able to convert to perform attack missions.
22 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
During the fall of 2017, the main campaign effort shifted to the
northeast corner of Syria, close to the Iraqi border. There, Russian
bombers, special forces and privateers or mercenaries from the
notorious private military company (Chastnye Voennie Companiy—
ChVK) “Wagner” were helping pro-al-Assad forces to take over the
oil and natural gas–rich province of Deir el-Zour. Russian sappers
were rushed into Syria using heavy-load An-124 transport jets.
Equipped with the newest PP-2005 pontoon bridge complex
equipment, the sappers built a 210-meter floating bridge over the
Euphrates River at Deir el-Zour for the pro-al-Assad forces to cross.46
On September 23, 2017, a number of top Russian commanders were
killed and wounded in Deir el-Zour, including the commander of the
5th Army in the Eastern Military District, Lieutenant General Valery
Asapov, as well as the commander of the 61st Marines Brigade of the
Northern Fleet, Colonel Velery Fedyanin. Other Russian casualties
included fighters from the Private Military Company (ChVK)
Wagner Group.47
The Deir el-Zour operation was seen as the climax of the Syrian
campaign to vanquish the Islamic State and reinstall President al-
Assad’s rule. By December 2017, the joint efforts of Russian, pro-al-
Assad and pro-Iranian forces, along with the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF—a militia alliance composed of Arab and Kurdish
fighters, backed by the US coalition and US Special Forces) effectively
crushed the Islamic State as an organized semi-state. On December
11, 2017, Putin landed on the tarmac of Hmeymim for a surprise visit.
At the airbase, Putin met with his Syrian counterpart, whose regime
had been salvaged by the Russian and Iranian war effort. Putin
announced victory over the Islamic State—“the vanguard of terror”—
24 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
When the fighting in Deir el-Zour was at its height, the Hmeymim
base turned out to be somewhat too far from the action: Su-25 attack
jets were simply out of range, and Su-24M bombers were operating at
the limit of their effective combat radius. The VKS does not have any
air-refueling capabilities over Syria. To step up the bombing, a force
of heavy Tu-22M3s from different bomber units across Russia was
gathered at the Mozdok airbase, in the steppes of the North Caucasus,
to fly missions from there to Deir el-Zour province—a return sortie of
some 5,000 km.49 Significantly, the Russian military did not try to
establish another airbase somewhere in central Syria in addition to
Hmeymim to better cover all the battlefields. Before the war broke out,
Hmeymim was a civilian airfield; the Russian VKS had transformed it
into a military facility. Russia’s helicopter fleet has established some
refueling and operational stations outside of Hmeymim, but the VKS
jets stubbornly stayed, even though al-Assad would surely have given
the Russians any additional base they might have asked for.
By the end of 2017, the Islamic State had been almost entirely defeated
in both Iraq and Syria. The course of the Syrian civil war had reversed,
Russian Strategic Offensive in the Middle East | 25
and the al-Assad regime now seems more secure than at any point
since the war started, back in 2011. The revived government in
Damascus signed agreements with Moscow, securing for Russia
permanent sea and airbases in Tartus and Hmeymim, on the
Mediterranean coast. Russian Army (“tank”) generals have extended
and fortified their dominance in the main center of gravity of military
(strategic) power in Moscow—the General Staff—at the expense of the
VMF and the VKS commanders. Putin, his generals and the state
propaganda machine are trumpeting a victory in Syria; and Russia has
surely dramatically extended its presence and influence in the Middle
East—in some aspects probably outdoing the mighty Soviet Union’s
outreach in the region at the height of the Cold War, in the 1970s and
1980s.
Moscow seems not to mind too much when the IDF selectively attacks
Hezbollah and Iran in Syria. In contrast, when Washington
condemned the clampdown by the Iranian authorities and the IRGC
on street protests inside Iran, Moscow decisively sided with Tehran.
The Russian representative at the UN, Vasily Nabehzya, accused the
US of infringing on Iranian internal affairs and of seeking an excuse
to undermine the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.53
Fighting Sunni jihadists in the Middle East and propping up the al-
Assad regime together with Iran and Hezbollah is seen in Moscow an
important task, but clearly secondary in the overall zero-sum standoff
with the US. The Russian military command accuses the US military
of being in league with the Islamic State and former al-Nusra jihadists
in Syria. It is unclear how much of that is propaganda and what
Russia’s top brass truly accepts (in a zero-sum mindset) as covert
interactions that any reasonable military leader would presumably do.
In any case, this level of institutionalized mutual mistrust greatly
prohibits any meaningful US-Russian anti-terrorist cooperation.
sprayed the tarmac with mortar shells from several kilometers away
and escaped undetected. The outer perimeter defenses were
reportedly the responsibility of the Syrian (Alawite) forces that are
now accused of failing their mission. Hmeymim—a former civilian
airstrip—did not have reinforced concrete hangers for the aircraft,
known in Russia as “caponiers,” or bunkers for the personnel. While
occupying Hmeymim since 2015, the Russian military did not bother
to build permanent fortifications, and the VKS’s highly expensive
aircraft, armed and fueled, stood out in the open.54
Conclusion
Moscow has a clear strategy in the Middle East, and so far it appears
to be working fairly well. Deadly glitches occur regularly, but they
seem to be manageable and are seen as mostly the result of sloppiness
by the “unreliable” locals the Russian military has always disdained.
The most important fundamental detractor to Russian efforts to
return to the Middle East, looks to be a lack of overall resources to
match Moscow’s overly ambitious objectives. In contrast,
Washington possesses abundant resources, military and otherwise,
but no obvious coherent strategy in the region: US strategy was
reactive under President Barack Obama and apparently has not
improved much since. It is a fascinating contest.
Notes
1
“Sammit ODKB,” Kremlin.ru, September 15, 2015,
http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50291.
2
“S tribuny k miru,” Interfax, September 29, 2015, http://www.interfax-
russia.ru/print.asp?id=656523&type=view.
3
“SSHA otkazalis’ prinyat’ delegatsiyu vo glave s Medvedevym dlya obsuzhdeniya
Sirii,” Interfax, October 14, 2015, http://www.interfax.ru/world/473318.
4
“Nachal’nik Genshtaba Vooruzhennykh sil Rossii general armii Valeriy
Gerasimov: ‘My perelomili khrebet udarnym silam terrorizma,’ ” Komsomolskaya
Pravda, December 27, 2017, https://www.kazan.kp.ru/daily/26775/3808693/.
5
“Vystupleniye i diskussiya na Myunkhenskoy konferentsii po voprosam politiki
bezopasnosti,” Kremlin.ru, February 10, 2007,
http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034.
6
“Operativnoye soyedineniye VMF zashchitit interesy RF v Sredizemnom more RIA
Novosti,” RIA Novosti, February 27, 2013,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130227/924884303.html.
7
RIA Novosti, “Operativnoye soyedineniye VMF zashchitit interesy RF v
Sredizemnom more RIA Novosti.”
30 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
8
“Prezidentu predstavlen Plan oborony Rossiyskoy Federatsii,” Kremlin.ru, January
29, 2013, http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/17385.
9
“Uroven’ voyennykh ugroz dlya RF k 2030 godu mozhet sushchestvenno
povysit’sya,” RIA Novosti, February 14, 2013,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130214/922846600.html.
10
“VS RF na ucheniyakh ‘Kavkaz-2016’ otrabotali bor’bu s krylatymi raketami,”
Interfax, September 14, 2016, http://www.interfax.ru/russia/528124.
11
“General-polkovnik Andrey Kartapolov: U Rossii mozhet poyavit'sya baza v Sirii.
Ona budet i morskoy, i vozdushnoy, i sukhoputnoy,” Komsomolskaya Pravda,
October 16, 2015, https://www.kp.ru/daily/26446/3316981/#close.
12
“Mesto raspolozheniya voyennoy bazy RF v Sirii poka ne opredeleno,” Interfax,
October 16, 2015, http://www.interfax-russia.ru/print.asp?id=663181&type=view.
13
“Soglasheniye s Siriyey o rasshirenii voyenno-morskoy bazy v Tartuse usilit
pozitsii Rossii v Sredizemnom more - Minoborony RF,” Interfax-AVN, December
21, 2017, http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=469716.
14
“U Rossii yest’ dolgosrochnaya strategiya voyennogo prisutstviya v Sredizemnom
more-Sablin,” Interfax-AVN, December 21, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=469750.
15
“Ministr oborony vystupil na zasedanii Soveta Federatsii v ramkakh
‘pravitel’stvennogo chasa,” Interfax-AVN, May 24, 2017,
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12125102@egNews&.
16
Pavel Felgenhauer, “Despite Putin’s Declaration of Victory, Fighting Escalates in
Syria,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 15, Issue 4, The Jamestown Foundation,
January 11, 2018, https://jamestown.org/program/despite-putins-declaration-
victory-fighting-escalates-syria/.
17
Komsomolskaya Pravda, “Nachal'nik Genshtaba Vooruzhennykh sil Rossii general
armii Valeriy Gerasimov: ‘My perelomili khrebet udarnym silam terrorizma.’ ”
18
Ibid.
19
“Glavkomom VKS RF naznachen general Surovikin,” Interfax-AVN, November
29, 2017, http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=467806.
Russian Strategic Offensive in the Middle East | 31
20
Interfax, October 31, 2008.
21
“Ofitser pokonchil zhizn' samoubiystvom,” Kommersant, April 23, 2004,
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/469455.
22
“Voyennuyu prokuraturu ne ustroil politseyskiy kandidat,” Kommersant,
December 14, 2011, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1837567.
23
“Na vooruzhenii Sevflota nakhodyatsya samyye sovremennyye podvodnyye lodki,
korabli i samolety – komanduyushchiy,” Interfax-AVN, December 15, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=469233.
24
“Demonstratsiya vozmozhnostey: chem i iz chego Rossiya udarila po IGIL s
Kaspiyskogo morya,” Vesti, October 7, 2015,
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2672786&cid=3962.
25
“ ‘Kalibr’ na chas,” Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier, December 26, 2017,
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40592.
26
“Zachem kaspiytsy obnazhili ‘Tomagavki,’ ” Fontanka, October 7, 2015,
https://www.fontanka.ru/2015/10/07/159/.
27
“SSHA nadeyutsya ostavit’ ‘Kuznetsova’ bez topliva,” Vzglyad, October 26, 2016,
https://vz.ru/politics/2016/10/26/674906.html.
28
“Byudzhet remonta i modernizatsii avianostsa, ‘Admiral Kuznetsov’ mozhet byt’
sokrashchen pochti vdvoye,” Interfax-AVN, October 7, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=463650.
29
“Tochnyye sroki nachala remonta ‘Admirala Kuznetsova’ poka ne opredeleny,”
Interfax-AVN, December 14, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=0&nid=469168.
30
Interfax-AVN, “Na vooruzhenii Sevflota nakhodyatsya samyye sovremennyye
podvodnyye lodki, korabli i samolety – komanduyushchiy.”
31
“Punkt material’no-tekhnicheskogo obespecheniya VMF Rossii v Tartuse.
Dos’ye,” TASS, December 13, 2017, http://tass.ru/info/4808523.
32
“ ‘Siriyskiy ekspress’ zabuksoval,” Free Press, September 20, 2017,
http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/181633/.
32 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
33
Komsomolskaya Pravda, “Nachal'nik Genshtaba Vooruzhennykh sil Rossii general
armii Valeriy Gerasimov: ‘My perelomili khrebet udarnym silam terrorizma.’ ”
34
“Pokoreniye voyny,” Izvestia, December 27, 2017,
https://iz.ru/688413/konstantin-bogdanov/pokorenie-voiny.
35
“Ni razu ne promazali,” Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier, December 20, 2017,
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40474.
36
“Bombardirovshchik okazalsya ne v tom polozhenii,” Kommersant, October 11,
2017, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3435128.
37
Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier, “Ni razu ne promazali”; “Rasshirennoye
zasedaniye kollegii Ministerstva oborony,” The Kremlin, December 22, 2017,
http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56472.
38
Komsomolskaya Pravda, “Nachal’nik Genshtaba Vooruzhennykh sil Rossii
general armii Valeriy Gerasimov: ‘My perelomili khrebet udarnym silam
terrorizma.’ ”
39
“Tochnaya Stavka,” Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier, December 26, 2017,
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40587.
40
“Samyy tsennyy bespilotnik Rossiyskoy armii rusifitsiruyut za 2 mlrd rubley,”
Vedomosti, June 7, 2016,
https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2016/06/07/643859-mlrd-rublei-
beskonechnii-forpost.
41
“Razvedyvatel’nyye drony ‘Forpost’ prevratyat v udarnyye bespilotniki,”
Rossyskaya Gazeta, May 5, 2017, https://rg.ru/2017/05/05/razvedyvatelnye-drony-
forpost-prevratiat-v-udarnye-bespilotniki.html.
42
“Izrail’skiy BPLA ‘Forpost’ moderniziruyut v Rossii,” Defense.ru, March 17, 2017,
https://defence.ru/article/izrailskii-bpla-forpost-moderniziruyut-v-rossii/.
43
Kremlin.ru, “Rasshirennoye zasedaniye kollegii Ministerstva oborony.”
44
“Divizion sistemy PVO S-300V4 vozvrashchen iz Sirii v punkt postoyannoy
dislokatsii – Minoborony,” Interfax-AVN, December 28, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=470316.
45
Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier, “Ni razu ne promazali.”
Russian Strategic Offensive in the Middle East | 33
46
“Rossiyskiye voyennyye privezli mashiny dlya forsirovaniya Yevfrata siriyskoy
armiyey-SMI,” Interfax-AVN, September 24, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=462598; “Most cherez Yevfrat
dlya perebroski voyennoy tekhniki i lichnogo sostava na vostochnyy bereg vozveli v
Sirii rossiyskiye avtodorozhniki,” Interfax-AVN, September 26, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=462689.
47
“Ikh prosto net. Rassledovaniye,” Novaya Gazeta, October 9, 2017,
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/10/09/74125-ih-prosto-net.
48
“Putin prikazal nachat’ vyvod voysk iz Sirii,” Interfax-AVN, December 11, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=0&nid=468860.
49
“V Murmanskuyu oblast’ vernulis’ samolety Tu-22M3, uchastvovavshiye v
nanesenii aviaudarov po terroristam v Sirii,” Interfax-AVN, December 12, 2017,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=468988.
50
“Avi Dikhter: yesli kto-to iz terroristov poschitayet Siriyu spasitel’noy gavan’yu,
my prevratim yego zhizn’ v ad,” Interfax, December 5, 2017,
http://www.interfax.ru/interview/590501.
51
“Report: Iran accuses Russia of giving Israel codes for Syrian air defenses,”
Jerusalem Post, March 21, 2017, http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-
Conflict/Report-Iran-accuses-Russia-of-giving-Israel-codes-for-Syrian-air-defenses-
484777.
52
“Rossiya zayavila protest v svyazi s okazaniyem Izrailem pomoshchi siriyskim
povstantsam,” December 14, 2017,
http://www.newsru.co.il/mideast/14dec2017/ru_il_103.html.
53
“Postpred Rossii pri OON prizval SSHA ne vmeshivat’sya vo vnutrenniye dela
Irana,” Interfax, January 6, 2018, http://www.interfax.ru/world/594491.
54
“Khmeymim pod udarom: pochemu rossiyskaya aviabaza v Sirii popala pod
obstrel,” RBK, January 4, 2018,
https://www.rbc.ru/politics/04/01/2018/5a4def379a7947a9e3f00a5b.
55
“Ekspert rasskazala, kak zashchitit’ samolety na aviabaze Khmeymim,” RIA
Novosti, January 5, 2018, https://ria.ru/syria/20180105/1512157084.html.
56
“Obstrel Khmeymima vyyavil probely vo ‘vtorom kol’tse’ oborony,” Vzglyad,
January 5, 2018, https://vz.ru/politics/2018/1/5/902400.html.
2. Strategy in the Black Sea and
Mediterranean
Ihor Kabanenko
Introduction
out tasks in any areas of the World Ocean important for our
national interests, including, currently, the Mediterranean Sea.1
This chapter will analyze Russia’s BSR strategy across the full
spectrum of historical, geopolitical, doctrinal and other domains as
related to the Russian military. Of particular focus will be Russia’s
regional naval and maritime doctrines, the roles electromagnetic
warfare and nuclear weapons play in its strategy, Moscow’s posture in
the Black Sea, as well as the lessons its Armed Forces have learned
from their ongoing operations in Syria and eastern Ukraine.
For millennia, the Black Sea region, with its complex ethnic diversity,
difficult geography and variable climactic conditions, played the role
of a natural barrier between various civilizations that would otherwise
have clashed. This began to dramatically change with the rise (1299–
1453) and expansion (1453–1566) of the Ottoman Empire, which
eventually became the dominant naval power in the Black Sea, in
control of much of the wider region’s transport routes, including the
sea lanes.
The Black Sea region played a key role in Russia’s southwestern policy
for centuries. But for most of this long historical era, Russian Black
Sea maritime strategy was oriented along the vertical, “North-South”
axis. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and subsequent
friendly relations between the newly born Republic of Turkey and
Bolshevik Russia turned the latter’s regional maritime policy 90
degrees, to proceed along the horizontal “East-West” axis. Following
the end of WWII, the Soviet Union’s Black Sea horizontal vector
became dominated by hard power. The Kremlin took control over
most of the Black Sea the Balkan countries, and advanced to North
38 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Africa and the Middle East. When Turkey joined the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952, this was seen in Moscow as
vindication of the Soviet naval strategy, which from the 1970s was
built according to the formula “keep Turkey below the 43rd parallel
and the US beyond the 23rd meridian.”
After the end of the Soviet period, Russia lost much of its influence in
the Black Sea territories occupied or annexed during the bloody wars
of the 18th–20th centuries because Moscow’s former Soviet republics
and satellites, including Ukraine, became independent states. Russian
naval bases, in particular Sevastopol, survived in Crimea, but their
status was not clear. In 1997, the Partition Treaty on the Status and
Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet gave Russian naval forces the
opportunity to stay in Crimea up to 2017. In 2010, this agreement was
prolonged to 2042 by the so-called Kharkiv Pact, signed by then-
president Viktor Yanukovych.
Until 2010.”6 One year later, the “The Maritime Doctrine of the
Russian Federation for the period until 2020”7 was signed by the
president of Russia and the Maritime Board under the government of
the Russian Federation, headed by the prime minister, was formed.
His deputy became the commander-in-chief of the Russian navy
(Voyenno-Мorskoy Flot—VMF).8 The influence of Russian admirals
resulted in the adoption of “The Fundamentals of the Russian
Federation State Policy in the Field of Naval Activities” in 2012,9 this
document’s significant revision in 2017,10 as well as an updated
version of the Maritime Doctrine of Russia in 2015.11
Like during the Soviet era, the Kremlin today links Russia’s naval
activities in the Atlantic direction to opposing NATO and the United
States. Notably, “The Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation for
the period until 2020” states,
In the 1970s and 1980s, the BSF primarily concentrated on sea power
projection to the Mediterranean in order to be able to carry out so-
called “sea control and strike” missions in important sea zones. Today,
however, at least two strategic developments have modified this
primary mission profile: the appearance of General Valery
Gerasimov’s doctrine of modern warfare as well as the creation of
Russian naval long-range cruise missile capabilities.
42 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Since 2014, Russia has significantly increased the number of its Black
Sea military assets capable of carrying out hidden and covert missions.
Notably, between 2014 and 2016, it has deployed six recently built
Improved Kilo–class submarines to Crimea.18 Thus, at least two
Russian Kilos are likely carrying out 24/7 combat duties in the Black
Sea and beyond, at any given time.
Russian could also use Improved Kilos as hidden platforms for naval
special forces (SEAL) operations, particular against undersea cables
connecting the global economy in the Atlantic and the
Mediterranean.20 And it appears Moscow has already attempted such
actions. US Navy Rear Admiral Andrew Lennon, the commander of
NATO’s submarine forces, observed in late 2017,
The balance of forces in the Black Sea has changed in recent years,
and the Turkish navy cannot be called the master in the region
anymore.30
But in practice, Moscow has been visibly tilting the balance of its fleet
more strongly toward underwater capabilities. In the last decade,
Russia has dramatically boosted its submarine activity near the
maritime borders of various NATO members.37 At the same time, it
has been actively building blue-water nuclear ballistic-missile
submarines as a key element of Russia’s nuclear triad, as well as multi-
purpose nuclear-powered and conventional submarines. Conversely,
Moscow has paid relatively less attention to the development of its
surface naval forces and maritime aviation. As a result, Russia’s blue-
water surface fleet experienced a dramatic decline in the 1990s and
early 2000s. Only one of its eight Soviet-built Kirov-class
battlecruisers, the Pyotr Velikiy, can still be put out to sea.38
Meanwhile, the Russian aircraft-carrying cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov,
48 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The same is true of the Black Sea Fleet. More than 80 percent of its
surface ships were built in Soviet times, and their capabilities are now
quite limited. The BSF’s maritime aviation is old as well, excluding the
Su-24M bombers and Su-30 fighters that were deployed in Crimea in
2014–2016. Thus, Moscow’s ambition to create a well-balanced fleet
is being undermined due to two factors: by the BSF’s limited surface
forces capabilities as well as insufficient financing and shipbuilding
capacities. That inherent tension has forced the Russian leadership to
look for alternatives to a balanced naval capabilities development.
And under influence from these factors, Moscow has been looking to
develop operational means to carry out combat actions against an
enemy located within a Russian anti-access, area denial bubble.
by the Russian VMF, the Krivak V–class frigates are equipped with
Kalibr-NK cruise missiles and should be counted as part of Russia’s
blue-water fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean.
At the same time, Russian landing ships’ capabilities in the Black Sea
remain limited. Moscow is attempting to close this gap by building
Priboy-class amphibious-assault ships.61 Two such ships are included
in the state armament program for 2018–2025. According to Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, the first of these new ships will
be commissioned in 2022, and the second—five years later.62 And
given Russia’s broader southwestern strategy, it cannot be ruled out
that these vessels will eventually also make an appearance in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
All of the above incidents and stated goals illustrate Russia’s growing
confidence in its ability to operate in the electromagnetic (and cyber)
warfighting domain.
The Black Sea was never excluded from Moscow’s nuclear policy.
Indeed, a developed system of nuclear ammunition bases,
transportation and loading facilities has existed in Crimea since Soviet
times. And during the 1970s–1980s, Black Sea Fleet assets carried out
their combat duties with nuclear munitions on board. Nuclear-
capable ships and submarines would sail out into the Mediterranean
Sea, while the 2nd Naval Missile-Carrying Air Division (Tu-22M3
aircrafts) operated out of an airbase near Simferopol.
As the Cold War came to a close, nuclear warheads were moved out
of Crimea based on a set of strategic agreements made in 1991 by
George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev to remove nuclear sea-
launched cruise missiles from ships and submarines—a decision
subsequently confirmed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin.78 At the
same time, however, the relevant systems for operating or
safeguarding onboard nuclear munitions were never dismantled from
BSF vessels. These systems have been maintained in good working
order to this day.
Conclusion
The rise in military incidents in the Black Sea over the last several
years have correlated with Russia’s growing vision of this body of
water as an “internal Russian lake” and mounting ambition in
Moscow to “return Russia to its former greatness” in the region via
hard power domination. Generally, the degree of Russia’s hard-power
activity in the Black Sea, the transformation of Crimea into a
“peninsula-fortress” and further plans to build up Russian military
capabilities in the rest of Black Sea region, including the Sea of Azov
as well as the Eastern Mediterranean, should be taken seriously.
Strategy in the Black Sea and Mediterranean | 63
Russian Black Sea naval assets play an important role in this type of
warfare, which has clear similarities with Soviet-style “Political
Warfare.”82 The BSF has accumulated a great deal of political warfare
experience thanks to the use of the fleet’s so-called “cultural-
enlightenment institutions” (officers’ and sailors’ clubs, theater
troupes, music bands, military newspapers, etc.) to influence the local
Crimean community and even to engage in direct information
warfare. Not only Ukraine, but the Balkans and the Caucasus have
been identified as bridgeheads for Russian expansion into the region.
Notes
1
Andrey Gavrylenko “Na Chernomorskom rubezhe,” Red Star, February 22, 2013,
http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/nekrolog/item/7671-na-chernomorskom-rubezhe.
2
“Shoygu nazval Ukrainu, Siriyu i Koreyskiy poluostrov strategicheski vazhnymi
dlya RF regionami,” TASS, May 24, 2017, http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4276229.
3
Olga Kovalevska “Chorne more v heopolitychnykh viziyakh ukrayintsiv,” Tyzhden,
October 22, 2016, http://tyzhden.ua/History/176543.
4
“Kak Rossiya zakhvatila Krym: Minyust sozdal khronologiyu anneksii,”
Segodnya.ua, June 1, 2017, http://www.segodnya.ua/politics/pnews/kak-rossiya-
zahvatyvala-krym-minyust-sozdal-hronologiyu-anneksii-1026294.html.
5
Ihor Kabanenko “Strategic Overview of the Russian Maritime Threat to Ukraine:
Mariupol and Odesa at Stake,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation,
July 13, 2017 https://jamestown.org/program/strategic-overview-russian-maritime-
threat-ukraine-mariupol-odesa-stake/.
Strategy in the Black Sea and Mediterranean | 67
6
“Osnovy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii v oblasti voyenno-morskoy deyatel'nosti na
period do 2010 goda,” Flot, March 4, 2000,
http://flot.com/nowadays/concept/osn_napr.htm.
7
“Morskaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii na period do 2020 goda,” Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, August 18, 2004,
http://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/official_documents/-
/asset_publisher/CptICkB6BZ29/content/id/462098.
8
“Morskaya kollegiya pri pravitel'stve Rossiyskoy Federatsii,” http://marine.gov.ru/.
9
“Osnovy gosudarstvennoy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii v oblasti voyenno-
morskoy deyatel'nosti na period do 2020 goda,» BlackSeaFleet, January 20, 2013,
http://blackseafleet-21.com/news/20-01-2013_osnovy-gosudarstvennoj-politiki-
rossijskoj-federatsii-v-oblasti-voenno-morskoj-dejatelnos.
10
“Osnovy gosudarstvennoy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii v oblasti voyenno-
morskoy deyatel'nosti na period do 2030 goda,” President of the Russian Federation,
decree № 327, July 20, 2017, http://kremlin.ru/acts/bank/42117.
11
“Osnovopolagayushchiye dokumenty Morskoy kollegii pri pravitel'stve
Rossiyskoy Federatsii,” http://marine.gov.ru/about/maindocs/.
12
“Morskaya doctrina of the Russian Federation,” July 26, 2015,
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50060.
13
President of the Russian Federation, “Osnovy gosudarstvennoy politiki
Rossiyskoy Federatsii v oblasti voyenno-morskoy deyatel’'nosti na period do 2030
goda.”
14
Ibid.
15
“Glavnokomanduyushchiy VMF Rossii admiral Vladimir Vysotskiy vstretilsya s
predstavitelyami SMI,” Ministry of Defence of Russian Federation, February 17,
2012, http://mil.ru/et/news/more.htm?id=10956737@egNews.
16
“Avianostsam byt,” Lenta.ru, July 28, 2008,
https://lenta.ru/articles/2008/07/28/carrier/; “Perspektivnyy esminets rossiyskogo
VMF budet mnogotselevym, osnashchen udarnym raketnym oruzhiyem i pochti
nevidim,” Novosti OPK, June 23, 2009; “MO RF reshilo zakazat' vosem' atomnykh
esmintsev ‘Lider,’ ” TASS, September 10, 2016, http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3610760.
68 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
17
Alexey Zakvasyn, “‘Rossiya dolzhna byt' sredi gosudarstv-liderov’: Putin prizval k
stroitel'stvu armii novogo pokoleniya,” RT, December 22, 2017,
https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/463425-putin-armia-minoborony-shoigu.
18
Anastasiia Ivanova, “‘Rasshireniye voyennogo prisutstviya’: v Krymu sozdana
samodostatochnaya gruppirovka voysk,” November 7, 2017,
https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/447129-genshtab-krym-gruppirovka.
19
Christopher Woody, “A cat-and-mouse game between NATO ships and a Russian
sub hints at changes happening in naval warfare,” October 20, 2017, Business
Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-ships-russian-sub-in-mediterranean-
hint-at-changing-naval-warfare-2017-10.
20
Submarine Cable Map, TeleGeography, https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/.
21
Christopher Woody, “Russia’s undersea naval activity is at record levels, and
NATO is worried about a crucial lifeline to the world,” Business Insider, December
24, 2017, http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-increased-naval-activity-
threatening-undersea-cables-2017-12.
22
Pavel Zavolokyn, “Krymskaya VMB: vozrozhdeniye utrachennogo,” Red Star,
December 5, 2014, http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/newspaper/item/20382-
krymskaya-vmb-vozrozhdenie-utrachennogo.
23
“On this day: Russia in a click,” RT Russiapedia, July 26, 2017,
https://russiapedia.rt.com/on-this-day/july-26/.
24
Andrey Klymenko, “Voyenno-morskoye prisutstviye NATO v Chernom more i
militarizatsiya Kryma,” Black Sea News, July 08, 2016,
http://www.blackseanews.net/read/116989.
25
Sam LaGrone, “USS Porter Buzzed by Russian Planes in Black Sea,” February 14,
2017, https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/uss-porter-buzzed-russian-planes-black-
sea#sthash.C5DFZ6NG.dpuf.
26
Sergey Gromenko, “Rossiya i SSHA v nebe nad Krymom: nazrevayet li voyennyy
konflikt?” Krym Realii, May 25, 2017, https://ru.krymr.com/a/28508483.html; Ryan
Browne, “Russian jet makes ‘unsafe’ intercept of US Navy aircraft,” CNN, November
27, 2017, http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/russia-us-unsafe-
intercept/index.html.
Strategy in the Black Sea and Mediterranean | 69
27
“V rayone provedeniya ‘Si Briz-2016’ obnaruzheny rossiyskiye korabli-
razvedchiki,” 112 Channel, July 27, 2016, https://112.ua/obshchestvo/v-rayone-
provedeniya-si-briz-2016-obnaruzheny-rossiyskie-korabli-razvedchiki-
327694.html; “Za ucheniyami ‘Si Briz – 2016’ v Chernom more sledyat korabli-
razvedchiki Rossii,” Gordonua, July 29, 2016,
http://gordonua.com/news/politics/za-ucheniyami-si-briz-2016-v-chernom-more-
sledyat-korabli-razvedchiki-rossii-142932.html.
28
“Shoygu rasskazal, chto Rossiya sdelayet s flotom NATO u Kryma,” Pravda.ru,
February 6, 2017, https://www.pravda.ru/news/world/06-02-2017/1324015-nato-0/.
29
Bleda Kurtdarcan, Barın Kayaoğlu, “Russia, Turkey and the Black Sea A2/AD
Arms Race,” The National Interest, March 5, 2017,
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-turkey-the-black-sea-a2-ad-arms-race-
19673.
30
“Genshtab: Chernomorskiy flot Rossii mozhet unichtozhit' desant protivnika
yeshche v portakh,” TASS, September 14, 2016, http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3619937.
31
“Rossiya nezakonno dobyvayet na shel'fe Chernogo morya 2 milliarda
kubometrov gaza v god – ‘Chernomorneftegaz,’ ” UNIAN, November 3, 2016,
https://economics.unian.net/energetics/1604426-rossiya-nezakonno-dobyivaet-na-
shelfe-chernogo-morya-2-milliarda-kubometrov-gaza-v-god-
chernomorneftegaz.html.
32
“Ukrayins’kyy litak obstrilyaly nad morem iz zakhoplenykh RF vyshok,”
Ukrainska Pravda, February 1, 2017,
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/02/1/7134135/.
33
Andrey Rezchikov, Nikita Golobokov, Mikhail Moshkin, “Rossiyskiye S-300
zakryli nebo Sirii ot amerikanskikh krylatykh raket,” Vzglyad, October 7, 2016,
https://vz.ru/politics/2016/10/7/836801.html.
34
Tom Balmforth, “After U.S. Strikes Syrian Air Base, Russians Ask: ‘Where Were
Our Vaunted Air Defense Systems?’ ” Radio Free Liberty, Radio Liberty, April 7,
2017, https://www.rferl.org/a/weher-was-the-s-300-s-400-missile-defense-
systems/28417014.html.
35
President of the Russian Federation, “Osnovy gosudarstvennoy politiki
Rossiyskoy Federatsii v oblasti voyenno-morskoy deyatel’nosti na period do 2030
goda.”
70 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
36
Ibid.
37
112 Channel, “V rayone provedeniya ‘Si Briz-2016’ obnaruzheny rossiyskiye
korabli-razvedchiki.”
38
“‘Petr Velikiy’ postavyat na remont posle 2018 goda,” RIA Novosti, November 16,
2016, https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20161116/1481474295.html.
39
“Remont ‘Admirala Kuznetsova’ nachnetsya srazu posle soglasovaniya
goskontrakta,” Voenno-Promyshlenniy Kuryer, December 25, 2017, https://vpk-
news.ru/news/40575.
40
Andrey Rezchikov, “Rossiya bol’she ne mozhet pozvolit’ sebe okeanskiy flot,”
Vzglyad, April 21, 2017, https://vz.ru/politics/2017/4/21/324418.html.
41
Voenno-Promyshlenniy Kuryer, “Remont ‘Admirala Kuznetsova’ nachnetsya
srazu posle soglasovaniya goskontrakta.”
42
Alexander Chrolenko, “Atomnyy esminets ‘Lider’: kak Rossiya poluchit
prevoskhodstvo v Mirovom okeane,” RIA Novosti, July 29, 2017,
https://ria.ru/analytics/20170729/1499181539.html.
43
“Avianostsam byt’,” Lenta.ru, July 28, 2008,
https://lenta.ru/articles/2008/07/28/carrier/.
44
Voenno-Promyshlenniy Kuryer, “Remont “Admirala Kuznetsova” nachnetsya
srazu posle soglasovaniya goskontrakta."
45
“VMF poluchit dva novykh fregata s ‘Kalibrami’ do 2020 goda,” Red Star, March
7, 2017, https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201703071208-rjte.htm.
46
“VMF Rossii poluchit noveyshiye fregaty s opozdaniyem,” Lenta.ru, May 4, 2016,
https://lenta.ru/news/2016/05/04/frigates/.
47
Oleg Winer, “Proklyat’ye rossiyskogo ‘importozameshcheniya,’ ” Defense Express,
January 13, 2017, https://defence-ua.com/index.php/statti/2222-proklyat-e-
rossijskogo-importozameshcheniya.
48
“VMF poluchil noveyshiy fregat “Admiral Essen,” Red Star, June 07, 2016,
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201606071654-z5gu.htm; “Fregat ‘Admiral
Makarov’ voshel v sostav Voenno-Morskogo flota RF,” Regnum, December 27, 2017,
https://regnum.ru/news/2363058.html.
Strategy in the Black Sea and Mediterranean | 71
49
Alexander Mozgovoy, “Zhdet li nas novaya Tsusima,” Nezavisimoye Voennoe
Obozreniye, December 22, 2017, http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2017-12-
22/1_978_cusima.html.
50
“Remont korabley dalney morskoy zony,” Oruzhiye Rossyi, December 24, 2017,
http://www.arms-
expo.ru/news/novye_razrabotki/su_57_poluchil_dvigatel_vtorogo_etapa/.
51
“Kreyser ‘Moskva’ otremontiruyut v Sevastopole,” Rossiyskaya Gazeta, August 21,
2017, https://rg.ru/2017/08/21/reg-ufo/krejser-moskva-otremontiruiut-v-
sevastopole.html.
52
Kirill Ryabov, “Novosti modernizatsii kreyserov ‘Orlan,’ ” Voennoye Obozreniye,
April 18, 2017, https://topwar.ru/113686-novosti-modernizacii-kreyserov-
orlan.html.
53
Andrew Chuter, “Report flags NATO's naval shortfalls vis-a-vis Russia,” Defence
News, March 5, 2017, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/03/06/report-flags-
nato-s-naval-shortfalls-vis-a-vis-russia/.
54
Yevgen Tzybulenko, “Hruzynsʹka viyna: pravo i Pravda,” Tyzhden.ua, August 8,
2011, http://tyzhden.ua/World/28165; “Vertoletonostsy ‘Mistral’ sushchestvenno
povysyat boyevyye vozmozhnosti VMF Rossii,” Interfax, June 17, 2011,
http://www.interfax.ru/business/195096.
55
“ ‘Chernaya smert'’ nastupayet: morskuyu pekhotu zhdet global'naya
modernizatsiya,” Red Star, November 27, 2017,
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201411270254-tpal.htm.
56
“Ukraine crisis: France halts warship delivery to Russia,” BBC News, September 3,
2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29052599; “France Suspends Mistral
Warship Delivery to Russia,” Defense News, November 25, 2014
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2014/11/25/france-suspends-mistral-
warship-delivery-to-russia/.
57
President of the Russian Federation, “Osnovy gosudarstvennoy politiki
Rossiyskoy Federatsii v oblasti voyenno-morskoy deyatel'nosti na period do 2030
goda.”
58
“ ‘Chernaya smert'’ nastupayet: morskuyu pekhotu zhdet global'naya
modernizatsiya,” November 27, 2017.
72 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
59
Ihor Kabanenko, “Large Russian Land-Air-Sea Exercises in Crimea Highlight
Vulnerabilities in Ukrainian Navy and Coastal Defense,” Eurasia Daily Monitor,
The Jamestown Foundation, April 12, 2017, https://jamestown.org/program/large-
russian-land-air-sea-exercises-crimea-highlight-vulnerabilities-ukrainian-navy-
coastal-defense/.
60
“Krymchane budut osnovoy dislotsiruyemogo v Krymu desantno-shturmovogo
batal’ona,” RIA Novosti, December 2, 2017,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171202/1510076738.html.
61
Alexander Chrolenko, “Bez frantsuzskogo aktsenta: rossiyskiy vertoletonosets
prevzoydet ‘Mistrali,’ ” RIA Novosti, July, 1, 2017,
https://ria.ru/analytics/20170701/1497624360.html.
62
Victor Baranets, “Avianosets ‘Shtorm’: proyekt korablya super-klassa oboydetsya
v Z50 milliardov,” Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 6, 2017,
https://www.crimea.kp.ru/daily/26701/3725840/.
63
Roger N. McDermott, Michael Hayden, “Russia’s Electronic Warfare Capabilities
to 2025” International Centre for Defence and Security, Tallinn, Estonia, September
2017,
https://www.icds.ee/fileadmin/media/icds.ee/doc/ICDS_Report_Russias_Electronic
_Warfare_to_2025.pdf.
64
“Voyennyye razvernuli sverkhmoshchnyy kompleks REB ‘Murmansk’ v Krymu,”
Red Star, March 10, 2017, https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201703101746-
kdgq.htm.
65
“Ucheniye “Elektron-2016,” Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies, August 20,
2016, http://kret.com/media/news/uchenie-elektron-2016/.
66
Vladimir Tuchkov, “Amerikanskiy general: “My bessil’ny pered ‘Krasukhoy’ i
‘Moskvoy,’ Svobodnaya Pressa, August 28, 2017,
http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/180142/.
67
“Perekhoplennya radioefiru helikoptera REB VPS RF (Mi-8MTPR-1) u Krymu,”
InformNapalm, October 4, 2017, https://informnapalm.org/ua/perehoplennya-mi-
8mtpr-1-krym/.
68
Yuri Lastochkin, Oleg Falichev, “Kupol nad Minoborony,” Voenno-
Promyshlenniy Kuryer, April 24, 2017, https://vpk-news.ru/articles/36422.
Strategy in the Black Sea and Mediterranean | 73
69
“Avtomatizirovannaya sistema upravleniya ‘BAYKAL 1-ME,’” Raketnaya
Technika, September 28, 2012, http://rbase.new-
factoria.ru/gallery/avtomatizirovannaya-sistema-upravleniya-baykal-1-me.
70
“Ships fooled in GPS spoofing attack suggest Russian cyberweapon,” New
Scientist, August 10, 2017, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143499-ships-
fooled-in-gps-spoofing-attack-suggest-russian-cyberweapon/.
71
“Boyevoye traleniye v pervyye poslevoyennyye gody - surovoye prodolzheniye
voyny,” Voennoye Obozreniye, September 5, 2016, https://topwar.ru/100116-
boevoe-tralenie-v-pervye-poslevoennye-gody-neotemlemaya-chast-velikoy-
otechestvennoy-voyny.html.
72
“Vnimaniye! V Sevastopole iz-za opasnoy 1000-kilogrammovoy miny polnost'yu
ostanovyat sudokhodstvo,” Sevastopolskiye Novosti, June 6, 2017,
http://sevastopolnews.info/2017/06/lenta/sobytiya/069271045/.
73
“Kapkan na vsekh moryakh,” Voenno-Promishlennuy Kuryer, September 16,
2015, https://vpk-news.ru/articles/27023.
74
“V lyubom rayone Mirovogo okeana,” Nezavisimoye Voennoye Obozreniye, June
23, 2017, http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2017-06-23/8_953_ocean.html.
75
“Korabli Chernomorskogo flota otrabatyvayut postanovku minnykh zagrazhdeniy
i protivominnyye deystviya,” Red Star, December 4, 2017,
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/efd4c5dd4ee05752ba0c5f85b7c43901d0ac3
5b5e26745ee7616fa6e886f743f; Evgeniya Artemova, Yevgeniya Artemova “Proverka
flota,” Interfax-Russia, March 18, 2015, http://www.interfax-
russia.ru/Crimea/view.asp?id=592667.
76
“Komanduyushchiy CHF: v blizhaysheye vremya flot poluchit shest' korabley s
‘Kalibrami,’ ” Interfax, December 1, 2017, http://www.interfax.ru/interview/589923.
77
“‘Rossiya dolzhna byt’ sredi gosudarstv-liderov’: Putin prizval k stroitel'stvu armii
novogo pokoleniya.” RT, December 22, 2017,
https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/463425-putin-armia-minoborony-shoigu.
78
“Lavrov ne isklyuchil razmeshcheniya yadernogo oruzhiya v Krymu,” Interfax,
December 15, 2014, http://www.interfax.ru/russia/413164; Vladimir Belous,
“Opasny, kak i strategicheskiye nastupatel'nyye vooruzheniya,” Nesavisimoye
Voennoye Obozreniye, November 20, 2009, http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2009-11-
20/1_control.html.
74 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
79
“Muzhenko: Rossiya vosstanavlivayet ob’yekty dlya khraneniya yadernogo
oruzhiya v Krymu,” Krym Realii, July 7, 2017,
https://ru.krymr.com/a/news/28601314.html.
80
“V Krymu mogut primenit' yadernoye oruzhiye – razvedka,” Korrespondent.net,
August 11, 2016, https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3730077-v-krymu-mohut-
prymenyt-yadernoe-oruzhye-razvedka.
81
“Rossiya otrabatyvayet postavki yadernykh boyepripasov v Krym – GUR,”
Segodnya, July 30, 2016, https://www.segodnya.ua/regions/krym/rossiya-
otrabatyvaet-postavki-yadernyh-boepripasov-v-krym-gur-738252.html.
82
Jeffrey V. Dickey, Thomas B. Everett, Zane M. Galvach, Matthew J. Mesko, Anton
V. Soltis, “Russian political warfare: origin, evolution, and application,” Monterey,
California: Naval Postgraduate School, June 2015,
https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/45838/15Jun_Dickey_Everett_Gal
vach_Mesko_Soltis.pdf.
83
Dave Majumdar, “Why are Russia and Turkey Holding Joint Naval Exercises in
the Black Sea?” National Interest, April 5, 2017, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-
buzz/why-are-russia-turkey-holding-joint-naval-exercises-the-20041.
3. Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies
Pavel K. Baev
Introduction
In the Far East, there are several unresolved issues with Russia’s
maritime and land borders, and a looming threat to its sovereignty
over that region. Russia’s claim for expanding its continental shelf in
the Sea of Okhotsk was approved by the UN CLCS in November 2013,
making it possible for Russian energy giants Gazprom and Rosneft to
proceed with exploration and drilling.9 However, the 1990 Maritime
Boundary Agreement with the United States (known as the Baker-
Shevardnadze line) is yet to be ratified by the Russian parliament.
Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies | 79
In Russia’s military security outlook, the Arctic and the Far East are
the two frontiers in which strategic matters have the highest priority.
The naval component of the country’s strategic nuclear deterrent—
reduced to just 12 nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles (SSBN)—
is divided between the Northern and Pacific fleets. Moreover, the
main “corridors” for strategic patrols by long-range aviation—
consisting of 66 aging bombers—stretch across the Northern Atlantic
and Northern Pacific. Many early-warning radars are located in the
High North and the Far East, from Olenegorsk, in the Murmansk
region, to Vorkuta, in the Komi republic, and Zeya, in the Amur
region. Russia’s two space-launch facilities (cosmodrome) are the
small-capacity Plesetsk, Arkhangelsk region, and the newly-built
Vostochny, Amur region. Plans for modernizing these assets and the
tasks of ensuring their safety determine the key guidelines for regional
development in Russia’s Arctic and the Far East, as well as define the
international profile of these regions.
The real problem with the sea leg of Russian deterrence is, however,
the main weapons system for the Borei-class submarines—the Bulava
(SS-N-32) ballistic missile. It has a checkered record of tests, and was
fired from the Yuri Dolgoruki (the first submarine in the series) only
once in 2016 and once in 2017, and the four-missile salvo from the
same submarine on May 22, 2018 has not eliminated all issues.18 Two
of the Boreis (the Aleksandr Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh) are
presently based in Vilyuchinsk, but they did not partake in the
exercises of strategic forces in October 2017, when Putin allegedly
launched personally (as technically improbable as that is) three
missiles from two submarines.19 Moscow apparently finds it necessary
to maintain strategic naval capabilities in the Pacific theater, but the
sustainability of this deployment in the logistically isolated
Kamchatka is rather uncertain.
In the course of the on-going confrontation with the West, Russia has
found that long-range aviation is in fact its most useful element of
82 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Despite the fact that Russia now cannot build anything resembling the
old Soviet “bastion” in the Barents Sea, its strategic assets in the Kola
Peninsula are reasonably safe and can perform efficiently. The
strategic capabilities in the Far Eastern theater are far less solid and
cannot in any meaningful way counter-balance the US naval or air
power deployed in the Pacific region. Furthermore, the fast
modernization of China’s strategic forces constitutes another indirect
challenge to Russia, even if there is no official acknowledgement of the
task of balancing the capabilities of this senior partner. Russian
strategic offensive forces have never had any interactions with their
Chinese counterparts; however, in December 2017, the first ever joint
Chinese-Russian command missile defense exercise was held in
Beijing.23 Undoubtedly, the escalation of the crisis driven by North
Korea’s nuclear and missile programs has prompted this advance in
cooperation, but Russia’s readiness to deal with the potentially grave
consequences of this fluid situation is highly uncertain. According to
informed Russian experts, the country’s early-warning system—
designed for quite different tasks—provided rather imprecise data
when it came to monitoring North Korean missile launches and
Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies | 83
The Arctic and the Far Eastern theaters are open to the sea as no other
areas of the Russian Federation, and this determines the key role of
naval forces in military planning and activities there. While Russia is
historically and geopolitically a land power, the navy has secured for
itself major functions in guaranteeing national security and plays a
prominent symbolic role.26 This role was performed with great fanfare
during the unprecedented naval parade on July 30, 2017, which
involved all naval bases from Severomorsk and Vilyuchinsk to Tartus,
Syria, and was attended by Putin in St. Petersburg.27 A week prior to
that demonstration of sea power, Putin signed a document entitled,
“The Foundations of State Policy in the Area of Naval Activity for the
Period up to 2030.”28 The document is essentially doctrinal in scope
and presents the usual wide range of threats and dangers, based on the
fundamental assumptions of further escalation of competition
84 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The new naval policy sets as a general aim preventing other states
from achieving “significant superiority” over the Russian navy, which
has to retain “the second place in the world in combat capabilities”
(Article 39). It is quite clear from many statements in the document
that the US Navy is perceived as the main source of threat, but it is not
acknowledged that the fast build-up and modernization of China’s
navy makes the proposition of securing second place quite
unrealistic.29 Characteristically, the situation in the Asia-Pacific is not
mentioned once in the document, while there are several references to
the Arctic. Additionally, there is no hint in the official guidelines that
the Russian navy is set to suffer particularly painful cuts in funding in
the 2027 State Armament program, which has been curtailed due to
the sustained contraction of Russia’s economic base.30 The July 2018
naval parade, for that matter, was a more modest affair.
the Kazan is still undergoing tests.33 The reasons for such delays are
never entirely explained, but it may presumably have to do with the
fact that the Severodvinsk shipyard has to prioritize the Borei
program, while also working on the Admiral Kuznetsov and
proceeding with the planned overhauls of the Delta IV–class SSBNs.
A new and hard task for the Norther Fleet is to ensure control over
the Sevmorput, and the new naval policy specifically points out among
the threats to Russia’s interests “military pressure on the Russian
Federation aimed at […] weakening its control over the Northern Sea
Route—the historically established national transport route of the
Russian Federation” (Article 24). Yet, the fact of the matter is that,
historically, the Northern Fleet operated primarily in the ice-free
Barents Sea and the Northern Atlantic, and even now lacks a single
ice-class surface combatant. So its annual (since 2012) summer cruises
into the Kara and Laptev seas require the mobilization of several
icebreakers.34 A new Ivan Papanin (Project 23550) series of ice-class
patrol ships was started at the St. Petersburg shipyard, but only two
ships have been contracted.35 The Northern Fleet received, in
December 2017, its first icebreaker, the Ilya Muromets (Project
21180), but no more ships of this class are planned, while the
construction of the nuclear icebreaker Arktika for the Atomflot
corporation has run into delays.36
The Pacific Fleet is facing a far more difficult situation and receives
far less attention. Its combat order was supposed to be reconfigured
around two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, but the
cancelation of the deal with France in mid-2014, due to sanctions, has
left it with indefinite prospects.37 Its flagship cruiser, the Varyag
(Project 1164, launched in 1983), needs an overhaul and
modernization. The arrival, in 2017, of the corvette Sovershenny
(Project 20380) is not going to add significantly to the Pacific Fleet’s
strength, even if three more ships of this class are in construction.38
Problems with new designs for diesel submarines prompted the
Russian high command to focus on the still useful Kilo-class
86 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The Pacific Fleet has a key role in achieving the goal vaguely
formulated in the new naval policy as “engagement of foreign states
in joint actions aimed at ensuring security and strategic stability in the
World Ocean” (Article 29), which means primarily expanding
cooperation with China. Joint naval exercises in the South China Sea
in September 2016 attracted much international speculation about
whether they signify an implicit support from Russia to Chinese
claims in this region.41 In September 2017, joint exercises were hold in
the Sea of Japan in order to establish that the US Navy grouping
concentrated near the Korean peninsula did not have total dominance
in the theater.42 Moscow is aware that Beijing is particularly interested
in exercising amphibious operations, but it is exactly this capability
that the Pacific Fleet increasingly lacks. The Ropucha-class (Project
775) large landing ships, including the Admiral Nevelsky and Oslyabya
(built in Poland in 1981–1982), based in Vladivostok, are worn out
beyond repair, and the new Ivan Gren series (Project 11711) has been
reduced to just two ships, which are supposed to join the Northern
Fleet—where this capability is even more exhausted.43
Russian strategic thinking has evolved fast and far in the last few years
when it comes to placing new emphasis on conventional (rather than
nuclear) deterrence and on defending against a wide variety of
unconventional challenges, often conceptualized as “hybrid wars.” In
the former proposition, the main instrument is long-range high-
precision missiles, particularly the 3M-54 Kailbr (SS-N-27 Sizzler)
missile deployed on various naval platforms. As for the latter—though
Russia is often portrayed in Western analysis as the main perpetrator
of “hybrid wars”—in the Russian perspective, it is the US strategic
combination of counter-terrorism, information warfare, and “regime
change” methods that brings about a new quality of unconventional
warfare.44 Both doctrinal propositions have different manifestations
in the Arctic and Far Eastern theaters.
regulations for the Northern Sea Route, but Russian experts warn that
climate change could make it possible for Chinese vessels,
accompanied by Chinese icebreakers, to set a polar course outside
Russia’s territorial waters.60 In the US security community, concerns
about Russia’s superiority in icebreakers are often emphasized,
particularly as the Northern Fleet adds icebreakers to its combat
order.61 Such worries are generally misplaced, since this Russian
capability presents no threat to US interests and is aimed at
strengthening control over the growing maritime traffic in the long
sea lines of communications in the Arctic. The transfer of
management of the Sevmorput to the state corporation Rosatom,
which owns the fleet of nuclear icebreakers, follows the same aim.62
Conclusion
In the Arctic, the security assessments still do not reflect the economic
assessments of the negative cost-efficiency of projects for developing
off-shore oil and natural gas resources and continue to confirm the
need for Russia to assert control over these presumed natural riches
by military means.71 The strategic guideline to expand Russian
military infrastructure in the eastern part of this vast theater—in order
to assure control over the Northern Sea Route—clashes with the
Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies | 93
Notes
1
This trend is examined in Pavel K. Baev, “The military dimension of Russia’s
connection with Europe,” European Security, vol. 27, no. 1, 2018, pp. 82–97.
2
Both statements can be found on the Kremlin website; the former at
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/56378, and the latter at
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56472.
3
On the disappointment in expectations of an inflow of cross-border investments,
see Ivan Zuenko, “The ports of the Far East do not see Chinese investments,”
Carnegie.ru (in Russian), June 26, 2017, http://carnegie.ru/commentary/71383.
4
Both documents are available at the Russian Security Council website; the former
at http://www.scrf.gov.ru/security/docs/document133/, and the latter at
http://www.scrf.gov.ru/security/military/document129/.
5
One useful analysis of this priority is Mark Galeotti, “National Guard: The
watchdog that could break the leash”, Raamop Rusland, August 14, 2017,
https://raamoprusland.nl/dossiers/militair-beleid/677-national-guard-the-
watchdog-that-could-break-the-leash.
6
Useful examination of this case is Arild Moe, Daniel Fjærtoft & Indre Øverland,
“Space and timing: Why was the Barents Sea delimitation dispute resolved in 2010?”
Polar Geography, vol. 34, no. 3, pp 145–162.
7
Russian Defense Ministry presented on its website a virtual tour of this base; see
http://mil.ru/files/files/arctic/Arctic.html.
8
For my initial assessments of that claim, see Pavel K. Baev, “Russia’s Race for the
Arctic and the New Geopolitics of the North Pole,” Occasional Paper, Washington
DC: Jamestown Foundation, October 2007.
9
“Gazprom Neft has discovered new offshore field in the Okhotsk Sea,” Press
release, 4 October 2017, http://www.gazprom-neft.com/press-center/news/1166743/.
10
Nikolai Surkov, Aleksei Ramm, “Bastion on the Kurils,” Izvestia (in Russian),
November 29, 2017, https://iz.ru/676106/nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/bastion-na-
kurilakh; Seth Robson, “Putin: Russian buildup on disputed islands is response to
US military,” Stars and Stripes, June 2, 2017, https://www.stripes.com/news/putin-
russian-buildup-on-disputed-islands-is-response-to-us-military-1.471616.
Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies | 95
11
Elena Masyuk, “To love the dragon,” Novaya Gazeta (in Russian), July 4, 2015,
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2015/07/04/64786-lyubit-drakona.
12
See Peter Wood, “Xi visits China’s Northeast, emphasises revitalization,
environment, and food security,” China Brief, The Jamestown Foundation, June 1,
2016, https://jamestown.org/program/xi-visits-chinas-northeast-emphasizes-
revitalization-environment-and-food-security/.
13
Miles Yu, “Storm over Russian border rages,” Washington Times, November 12,
2015, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/12/inside-china-storm-
over-russia-border-rages/.
14
One informed Russian opinion is Igor Denisov, “Aigun, Russia, and China’s
‘century of humiliation,’ ” Commentary, Carnegie Moscow Center, June 10, 2015,
http://carnegie.ru/commentary/60357.
15
Thomas Nilsen, “Larger portion of Russia’s nukes will be on subs in Arctic
waters,” Barents Observer, March 3, 2017,
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2017/03/larger-portion-russias-nukes-
will-be-subs.
16
Aleksandra Dzhordzhevich, Ivan Safronov, “Trillions have two allies – the Army
and the Navy,” Kommersant (in Russian), November 18, 2017,
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3500710?query=2027.
17
Vladimir Putin, “Being strong: National security guarantees for Russia,”
Rossiiskaya Gazeta (in Russian), February 20, 2012, https://rg.ru/2012/02/20/putin-
armiya.html.
18
Nikolai Litovkin, “What’s wrong with Russia’s new Bulava missile?” Russia
Beyond the Headlines, October 23, 2016,
https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/10/03/whats-wrong-with-russias-new-bulava-
missile_635311.
19
“Putin launched four ballistic missiles in the course of nuclear triad exercises,”
Interfax, October 27, 2017, http://www.interfax.ru/russia/584940.
20
On the “homecoming” of a pair of Tu-22M3 bombers to the Olenegorsk base
from the forward base in Mozdok, North Ossetia, see Thomas Nilsen, “Murmansk
governor welcomes home Syria bombers,” Barents Observer, December 13, 2017,
96 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2017/12/murmansk-governor-
welcomes-home-syria-bombers.
21
Bill Gertz, “Russian bombers again circle Guam,” Washington Free Beacon,
December 4, 2015, http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-bombers-again-
circle-guam/.
22
Matthew Bodner, Aaron Mehta, “Op tempo, sustainment flaws hit Russian Air
Force,” Defense News, July 12, 2015,
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/12/russian-fleets-
crashing-ukraine-nato-fighter-bomber/29962399/.
23
Franz-Stephen Gady, “China claims ‘new breakthrough in anti-missile
cooperation with Russia,” The Diplomat, December 19, 2017,
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/china-claims-new-breakthroughs-in-anti-missile-
cooperation-with-russia/.
24
Vladimir Dvorkin, “The global threat from the North Korean nuclear-missile
capabilities,” Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie (in Russian), September 8, 2017,
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2017-09-08/1_964_korea.html.
25
David Jozef Volodzko, “China wins its war against South Korea’s US THAAD
missile shield – without firing a shot,” South China Morning Post, November 18,
2017, http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2120452/china-wins-its-
war-against-south-koreas-us-thaad-missile.
26
Tom Fedyszyn, “Russia: A land power hungry for the sea,” War on the Rocks,
April 19, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/04/russia-a-land-power-hungry-
for-the-sea/.
27
Bruce Jones, “Russia’s Navy sets international strategic markers,” Jane’s Navy
International, August 1, 2017, http://www.janes.com/article/72763/russia-s-navy-
day-sets-international-strategic-markers.
28
The text (in Russian) is available at the Kremlin website,
http://kremlin.ru/acts/news/by-date/20.07.2017.
29
Aleksandr Golts, “The Russian Navy: To deter US and to compete with China,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation, August 1, 2017,
https://jamestown.org/program/the-russian-navy-to-deter-the-us-and-to-compete-
with-china/.
Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies | 97
30
Alexei Nikolsky, “New State Armament program will have new priorities,”
Vedomosti (in Russian), May 19, 2017,
https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2017/05/19/690524-novoi-
gosprogrammi.
31
The original estimate of costs for Admiral Kuznetsov overhaul was about $US 900
million, but in the updated plan it is reduced by half, so that modernization would
be much reduced; see Mikhail Khodarenok, “Kuznetsov is not in the same league
with Washington,” Gazeta.ru (in Russian), October 15, 2017,
https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/10/15/10944080.shtml.
32
Matthew Bodner, “Russia’s most anachronistic warship is getting an overhaul,”
Moscow Times, August 31, 2015, https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russias-most-
anachronistic-warship-is-getting-an-overhaul-49252.
33
Dave Majumdar, “Russia’s most powerful nuclear attack submarine is almost
ready for sea,” The National Interest, March 15, 2017,
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-most-powerful-nuclear-attack-
submarine-ever-almost-19775.
34
Thoman Nilsen, “Warships of Russia’s Northern Fleet sail to Arctic waters,”
Barents Observer, August 15, 2017,
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2017/08/warships-russias-northern-
fleet-sail-arctic-waters.
35
Nikolai Novichkov, “Russian Project 23550 Arctic patrol ship laid down,” Jane’s
Defence Weekly, April 25, 2017, http://www.janes.com/article/69803/russian-
project-23550-arctic-patrol-ship-laid-down.
36
On the criminal investigation of this delay, see Anastasiya Vedeneeva, Ivan
Safronov, et al, “Arktika is adrift,” Kommersant (in Russian), July 12, 2017,
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3351960.
37
John C.K. Daly, “Russia’s Pacific Fleet receives new ships, missions,” Eurasia Daily
Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation, March 12, 2014,
https://jamestown.org/program/russias-pacific-fleet-receives-new-ships-missions/.
38
Alexander Zudin, “Russia’s first Pacific-built 20380 frigate sets out on sea trials,”
Jane’s Defence Weekly, February 3, 2017, http://www.janes.com/article/67441/russia-
s-first-pacific-built-20380-frigate-sets-out-on-sea-trials.
98 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
39
Franz-Stefen Gady, “Russia’s Pacific Fleet to receive 10 new warships in 2018,”
The Diplomat, November 29, 2017, https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/russias-
pacific-fleet-to-receive-10-new-warships-in-2018/.
40
Ivan Petrov, “A new Russian naval base will appear on the Kurils,” Rossiskaya
Gazeta, October 26, 2017, https://rg.ru/2017/10/26/reg-dfo/na-kurilah-poiavitsia-
baza-vmf-rossii.html.
41
Aleksandr Khrolenko, “What is interesting about Russian-Chinese exercises in the
South-China Sea,” RIA Novosti (in Russian), September 12, 2016,
https://ria.ru/analytics/20160912/1476705773.html.
42
Matthew Little, “Russia and China send message to US, North Korea with military
drills,” The Epoch Times, December 12, 2017,
https://www.theepochtimes.com/russia-and-china-send-message-to-us-north-
korea-with-military-drills_2385698.html.
43
“Large landing ship Ivan Gren resumed trials in the Baltic,” TASS (in Russian),
June 5, 2017, http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4313765.
44
Mark Galeotti, Hybrid War or Gibridnaya Voina? Prague: Mayak Intelligence,
2016.
45
Steve Micallef, “Russia’s evolving Arctic capabilities,” Center for International
Maritime Security, February 7, 2017, http://cimsec.org/russias-evolving-arctic-
capabilities/30712.
46
Andrei Kots, “Cold arms: How Russia protects its interests in the Arctic,” RIA
Novosti (in Russian), August 17, 2017,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20170817/1500406740.html.
47
Alexei Ramm, Evgeny Andreev, “Russia will be protected from the North by an
impenetrable screen,” Izvestia (in Russian), February 20, 2017,
https://iz.ru/news/665208.
48
Alexei Ramm, Evgeny Andreev, “A new army corps is formed in Murmansk,”
Izvestia (in Russian), April 13, 2017, https://iz.ru/news/681638. The broader
perspective is given in Andrew Foxall, “Russia’s Policy Toward a Changing Arctic:
Implications for UK Security,” Research Paper 12, Russia Studies Centre, June 2017,
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Russias-Policies-
towards-a-Changing-Arctic-1.pdf.
Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies | 99
49
“The Ministry of Defense emphasised the defensive character of the division to be
deployed in the Kurils,” Interfax, March 20, 2017,
http://www.interfax.ru/russia/554387.
50
“Shoigu told when the Vostok-2018 exercises would be conducted,” RIA Novosti,
December 5, 2017, https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171205/1510222671.html.
51
Vasily Kashin “Each party has its own victory,” EastRussia, December 12, 2017,
https://www.eastrussia.ru/material/vasiliy-kashin-u-vsekh-uchastnikov-svoya-
pobeda/.
52
“The Northern Fleet ships conducted counter-terrorist exercises near the
Prirazlomnaya platform,” VPK News (in Russian), September 5, 2016,
https://vpk.name/news/162629_korabli_severnogo_flota_proveli_antiterroristiches
kie_ucheniya_u_platformyi_prirazlomnaya.html.
53
Aleksandr Bartosh, “Hybrid threats have appeared in the Arctic,” Nezavisimoe
Voennoe Obozrenie (in Russian), December 2, 2016, http://nvo.ng.ru/gpolit/2016-
12-02/1_928_arctic.html.
54
Boris Nikolaev, “Garbage in the High North,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (in Russian),
April 11, 2017, http://www.ng.ru/ng_energiya/2017-04-11/11_6971_north.html.
55
“Russia postpones implementation of some Arctic projects,” Lenta.ru (in
Russian), July 27, 2017, https://lenta.ru/news/2017/07/27/arcticmedvedev/.
56
Ivan Tselichtchev, “Chinese in the Russia Far East: A geopolitical time bomb?”
South China Morning Post, July 8, 2017, http://www.scmp.com/week-
asia/geopolitics/article/2100228/chinese-russian-far-east-geopolitical-time-bomb.
On the failure to stimulate domestic migration, see Dmitry Shcherbakov, “Outflow
of population exceeds explanations,” EastRussia (in Russian), July 18, 2017,
https://www.eastrussia.ru/material/ottok-naseleniya-vykhodit-iz-pod-obyasneniya/.
57
“Salmon season 2017: How to stop poaching in the rivers of the Far East,” TASS
(in Russian), May 21, 2017, http://tass.ru/v-strane/4268367.
58
Pavel K. Baev and Stein Tønnesson, “The troubled Russia-China partnership as a
challenge to East Asian peace,” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences,
vol. 10, no. 2, 2017, pp. 209–225.
100 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
59
Alekasndr Ermakov, “Flying sharks of the Celestial Empire,” Russian Council,
April 27, 2017, http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-
comments/analytics/letayushchie-akuly-podnebesnoy/.
60
Anastasia Bashkatova, “China is looking for alternatives to the Northern Sea
Route,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (in Russian), October 2, 2017,
http://www.ng.ru/economics/2017-10-02/1_7085_china.html.
61
Robert Farley, “How Russia could win a war in the Arctic,” National Interest, June
13, 2017, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-russia-could-win-war-the-
arctic-21134.
62
Anastasia Vedeneeva, Vladimir Dzaguto, Evgenia Krychkova, Ivan Safronon,
“Atomic sea route: Vladimir Putin approved the transfer of the Arctic to Rosatom,”
Kommersant (in Russian), November 8, 2017,
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3460569.
63
“Putin: Russia will monitor the activity of US Navy in the Arctic,” RIA Novosti (in
Russian), June 15, 2017 https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20170615/1496565509.html.
64
Natalya Demchenko, Ilya Nemchenko, “The commander of marine brigade died
in Moscow from wounds inflicted in Syria,” RBC (in Russian), October 1, 2017,
https://www.rbc.ru/society/01/10/2017/59d0eb1f9a794765768648ca.
65
Stephanie Pezard, Abbie Tingstad, Kristin Van Abel, Scott Stephenson,
Maintaining Arctic Cooperation with Russia. Santa Monica: RAND, 2017,
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1731.html.
66
Ilya Plekhanov, “In the mountain king’s cave: What US marines are hiding in
Norway,” RIA Novosti (in Russian), June 20, 2017,
https://ria.ru/analytics/20170620/1496856112.html.
67
Timo Koivurova, Filip Holiencin, “Demilitarisation and neutralisation of
Svalbard,” Polar Record, vol. 53, no. 2, March 2017, pp. 131–142,
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/polar-record/article/demilitarisation-
and-neutralisation-of-svalbard-how-has-the-svalbard-regime-been-able-to-meet-
the-changing-security-realities-during-almost-100-years-of-
existence/907DA8BACCA9FE39204C7FBBFC6E1024.
68
Aleksandra Dzhordzhevich, Ivan Safronov, Dmitri Kozlov, “Geopolitics in
support of logistics,” Kommersant (in Russian), October 10, 2017,
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3428044.
Russia’s Arctic and Far East Strategies | 101
69
Mathiew Boulege, “The Russia-NATO relations between a rock and a hard place:
How ‘defensive inferiority syndrome’ is increasing the potential for error,” Journal
of Slavic Military Studies, vol. 30, no. 3, 2017, pp. 361–380.
70
Charles Clover, “US and China broach sensitive topic of N Korea regime
collapse,” Financial Times, December 19, 2017,
https://www.ft.com/content/074feca0-e485-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da.
71
Anastasia Bashkatova, “Arctic is a net loss,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (in Russian),
March 30, 2017, http://www.ng.ru/economics/2017-03-30/1_6961_arktic.html.
72
Eugene K. Chow, “Are Russia and China preparing for war?” National Interest,
August 15, 2017, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-russia-china-
preparing-war-21907.
4. Baltic Sea Strategy
Jörgen Elfving
Introduction
“First and foremost I would like to point out that the military-political
situation on our western border remains tense and has a tendency to
intensify.”
– Sergei Shoigu, Russian minister of defense, October 27, 20171
102
Baltic Sea Strategy | 103
Since ancient times, the Baltic Sea has been an important waterway
and remains one of the most heavily trafficked seas in the world, with
about 15 percent of global cargo transportation. About 2,000 ships
navigate the area at any given time; and on a yearly basis, 7,600
tankers, 17,500 passenger ships and 25,000 other vessels travel
through the Baltic.6 Along the coastline, there are about 200 ports.
Russia has led in total port handlings since 2011.7
History
Throughout recorded history, the BSR has been a battleground for the
states situated along the Baltic Sea, which frequently entered these
wars in ever-shifting constellations of alliances.16 Since the 16th
century, Russia has strived to reach the eastern seaboard of the Baltic
Sea, an aspiration driven by the fact that Russia at that time was in a
disadvantageous situation from a maritime point of view: The Black
Sea was blocked by Tatars and the Ottoman Turks, whereas the White
Sea was remote and hard to reach, both by sea and by land from
central Russia.
106 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The outcome of the Second World War resulted in the Baltic States
being reoccupied, but an active armed resistance against Soviet power
raged there from 1944 to 1953.18 Finland remained free. And in 1947,
it signed a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, limiting the size of the
Finnish armed forces as well as ceding the Petsamo area, on the Arctic
coast, and the Karelian Isthmus, in southeastern Finland, to Moscow.
Another provision, in force until 1956, was leasing the Porkkala area
near Helsinki to the Soviet Union to use as a naval base, which
included free access to the area across Finnish territory.19 In 1948,
Finland signed The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual
Assistance with the Soviet Union; this document was the basis of
Soviet-Finnish relations until 1992.20 The key provisions of the treaty
included military cooperation between Finland and the Soviet Union
if Germany or a country allied with it attempted to invade Finland or
Baltic Sea Strategy | 107
Of the above, the “National Security Strategy” and the “Foreign Policy
Concept” are fairly modern, with their most recent iterations written
since the events of 2014—the annexation of Crimea and subsequent
war in eastern Ukraine.
are passages applicable to that area, and these echo analogous points
in the “Foreign Policy Concept.” Notably, the mentioned military
risks include NATO deploying military contingents close to Russia’s
borders and the enlargement of the Alliance. Other described military
risks are the establishment and deployment of strategic missile
defense systems and implementation of the global strike concept by
Russia’s competitors or enemies. Military threats consist of, inter alia,
“the demonstration of military power during exercises carried out on
the territory of countries bordering on the territory of the Russian
Federation or its allies’ territories.” The wording is particularly
poignant considering the increased tempo, in recent years, of NATO
exercises in Central-Eastern Europe, which routinely receive
extensive coverage in the Russian media.26
The 2015 Russian “Naval Doctrine” is, according to its preamble, the
primary document determining the country’s national naval policy.30
It comprises of four functional sections—sea transportation,
exploitation and preservation of natural resources, maritime science,
Baltic Sea Strategy | 111
The conclusion is interesting and says a little about how Russia views
the role of its navy: “Trends in the development of the current
geopolitical situation in the world convincingly confirm that only the
presence of a strong Navy will secure the Russian Federation a leading
position in a multipolar world in the 21st century, as well as enable the
state to effectively implement and protect its national interests.”
112 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
As a result of having been part of the Russian Empire between the 18th
century until 1918, and then undergoing nearly continuous
occupation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991, the Baltic States
have a distinct relationship to Russia. Based on that historical heritage,
and reinforced by an uncertainty concerning how post-Soviet Russia
would develop politically, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia put
membership in NATO and the EU high on their foreign policy
agendas soon after recovering their independence in 1991; those twin
goals were accomplished in 2004. Yet, Euro-Atlantic integration,
combined with diverging views on their shared history with Russia
Baltic Sea Strategy | 113
strained the Baltic States’ relations with their large eastern neighbor.
It is worth noting that in 1991, neighborly relations could easily have
developed in a more positive trajectory. At first, the newly
independent Baltic States and Russia followed similar paths to
transition—i.e. democratization and market economy reforms.
Furthermore, the Baltics’ strive for independence at the time
coincided with then–Russian president Boris Yeltsin’s ambitions to
dismantle the Soviet Union. However, this congruence of interests did
not last, leading to decades of various levels of crises and conflicts that
culminated in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the
ongoing Moscow-sponsored war in eastern Ukraine.32 The widely
held notion, and hope, of the Baltic States acting as “a bridge” between
Europe and Russia has, for the time being, been shelved; but
Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė has hinted that it might one
day still be possible.33
That view not only influences Moscow’s relations with the Baltic
States, but also Russian activities directed against them.
114 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The seaports of the Baltic States are also closely linked to Russian
infrastructure, such as important transnational east-west roadways,
along which Russian goods are exported to global markets. But in the
last 10–15 years, the volume of Russian goods transiting through the
Baltic countries has declined.48 For example, in 2015, nine million tons
of Russian oil exports transited via the Baltic States, compared with
five million tons in 2016; and this transit of oil products was projected
to completely cease in 2018.49
These states’ relations with Russia and the way Moscow behaves
against them varies, depending on a number of key factors, including
history, membership status in NATO, as well as the actual degree—
perceived or real—of their levels of “russophobia.”
Denmark
The right-wing populist Danish People’s Party (DPP), which won 21.1
percent of the vote in the 2015 elections and became Denmark’s
second-biggest political faction in the parliament, has been accused of
pro-Russian leanings.63 Indeed, in its appearances on Danish media,
the party frequently seems to express opinions favorable to Russian
positions. Moreover, Russia’s propaganda news channel RT mentions
the DPP twice as much as other Danish parties.64
Germany
[having] normal ties, open wounds are still out there, there are
unresolved issues, first and foremost it concerns the takeover of
Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, which are a burden and
continue to be a burden for our ties.”65 And a Swiss paper described
the present German-Russian relations more bluntly as being in a state
of permafrost.66 Russian analyst Olga Lebedeva ascribes these current
tensions to the political agreements Germany has signed with the EU
and NATO.67 Nevertheless, a majority of respondents (58 percent) to
a German poll conducted in fall 2017 supported improving relations
with Russia—an opinion that has also been increasingly entering
German political debate.68
Poland
Russian trade with Poland has halved since 2014, as a result of Russia
banning the import of Polish fruit and vegetables. In 2013, Poland
exported €1.3 billion ($1.5 billion) worth of agricultural products to
Russia; and by 2015, that amount dropped to €398 million ($476
million).
Finland
Sweden and Finland are special cases within the BSR: they are not
NATO members but carry on extensive cooperation with the Alliance
and maintain intense internal debates regarding possible future
membership. Finland also differs markedly in its bilateral relations
with Russia compared with the other countries in the region. Despite
the changed European security situation since 2014, Helsinki has
preserved high-level contacts with Moscow, such as the visits to
Finland by the Russian foreign minister in May 2017 and the Russian
president that following July.85 According to Finnish Foreign Minister
Timo Soini, “We have been here for centuries and we know them
[Russia] and they know us. They respect our consistent approach to
them. They do not respect crawling on knees.”86 This attitude seems
to be largely reflected by the Russian side: its foreign ministry
spokesperson, Maria Sacharova, noted in a 2016 interview that Russia
and Finland have managed to maintain positive cooperation despite
negative relations between the EU and Russia.87 This attitude on the
part of Helsinki can be explained by Finland having a 1,340 km (830-
mile) border with Russia, the experience of relations with Russia since
the presidency of Urho Kekkonen (president in 1956–1982), and high
levels of bilateral trade. In 2016, Finnish exports to Russia amounted
to €6.145 billion ($7.589 billion) and imports from Russia totaled
€2.977 billion ($3.561billion), making Russia Finland’s third most
important trade partner.88
124 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Sweden
Kaliningrad Oblast
East Prussia was partitioned and its northern portion was annexed by
the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the Second World War (the
southern section was appended to post-war Poland). Particularly
starting in 1944, the region saw bitter fighting and suffered extensive
destruction. As a result of the fighting and annexation, the German
population either fled or was expelled. During the Soviet era, the
renamed Kaliningrad oblast was a closed military zone; but that ended
in 1991, when possibilities opened up for cooperation with foreign
128 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
countries.109 This raised hopes locally and abroad that the exclave
would become a Russian gateway to Europe and a Baltic Hong Kong,
hopes that have not materialized. In spite of its ice-free port and
proximity to the EU, Kaliningrad oblast has relatively high
unemployment and lower salaries than the Russian average.
Additionally, customs and transport costs raise local consumption
prices, which, combined with low salaries, lower Kaliningrad’s living
standards.110
Twenty years later, the first scenario has come to pass: Kaliningrad
oblast is clearly a militarized exclave directly controlled by the central
government in Moscow. As a result of the withdrawal of
Soviet/Russian forces from Eastern Europe, the oblast become a
reception area for those units and, consequently, became heavily
militarized. In 1994, the Kaliningrad defensive district was formed
and later, in 1998, renamed the Kaliningrad special district, unifying
the ground, naval, air and air-defense units under a common
command, i.e. the Baltic Fleet.112 The 1990s saw a substantial (albeit
temporary) downsizing of the military presence in oblast, with
personnel reduced from 25,000 to 11,600; additionally, hundreds of
tanks, combat vehicles and artillery were transferred to Russia proper
or put in storage, and the number of ships in the Baltic Fleet was
reduced from 200 to 40.113 This changed in 2009, when the then–chief
Baltic Sea Strategy | 129
The above should not be treated as isolated events. They must be seen
within the broader context of what has taken place in the Western
Military District, which has a substantial impact on the BSR.
According to the Chief of the Russian General Staff the following units
have been set up in the Western Military District during 2012–2017:126
This is not the complete picture, as a number of other units have also
been organized. It cannot be excluded that additional military
formations will be organized in the Western Military District over
time, including potentially in Kaliningrad oblast, even though its size
limits how many new units would be able to be housed locally. It
remains open to debate whether the recently organized units are fully
manned and equipped or what their operational capabilities actually
look like in practice. Indeed, information gleaned from Russian open
sources suggests that at least some of these units are not yet fully
manned nor equipped and lack full operational capability. However,
their weaknesses may still be rectified in the long run. It is worth
noting that Russian military expert Aleksandr Golts assesses that the
new divisions are cadre units, only to be manned with reservists
during a full-scale mobilization in wartime—i.e., a return to Soviet
practice.132
Baltic Sea Strategy | 131
All that said, Russia has deployed substantial forces in and around the
Baltic—ground, airborne/air assault, naval, and air defense units—
giving Moscow the possibility to carry out either offensive or
defensive operations in the BSR and to create a robust A2/AD bubble
over the area. Moreover, the forces present in the Western Military
District can easily be reinforced from elsewhere in Russia—something
Moscow has annually practiced on a large scale. Indeed, this is a
recurring feature in connection with the larger exercises carried out
on a yearly basis, including Vostok, Zapad, etc. The Russian Armed
Forces, including those of the Western Military District, are
significantly better trained and operate under higher readiness levels
today than they did than in 2008, during the war with Georgia.
Moreover, the ongoing Syrian operation and intervention in eastern
Ukraine have provided the Russian military with valuable combat
experience.
Conclusion
Russia’s relations with the other states in the BSR are today
more or less frozen. Reestablishing and developing these
relations would be advantageous for Moscow, not least in
order to gain influence and promote a positive image of
Russia. Additionally, improved relations would contribute to
reinforcing Russia’s status as a major actor in the BSR.
Finland has a special, longstanding and durable relationship
with Russia; and this bilateral association has endured despite
Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. During a tense political
situation, such as today, close ties to Finland may also enable
Russia to convey its viewpoints to the West and vice versa,
thus according the Helsinki-Moscow link additional value.
In this context, the question arises whether Moscow is giving the BSR
priority over other strategic directions. In 2014, the chief of the
Russian General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, singled out Kaliningrad
oblast, Crimea and the Arctic as areas of precedence for the military.135
And indeed, these three territories show a remarkable similarity from
a military point of view: among other factors, all of them have seen
deployments of S-400 surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, the
introduction of Bal and Bastion coastal defense missiles, as well as the
organization of two new regiments, a new naval squadron and an
army corps. Despite these similarities, it is still possible to argue that
the Western strategic direction—i.e., the BSR—is currently being
given priority by Moscow because of the fact that traditional West–
East invasion routes traverse this region, due to the presence of NATO
forces deployed close to the Russian border there, as well as the
possibility of Swedish and Finnish NATO membership.
NATO’s forces in the Baltic States act as a trip wire and a deterrent;
but alone, they are not enough to counter a full-scale Russian attack.
This fact poses a dual challenge for the Alliance. First, increasing the
present forces in the Baltic States is hampered by the fact that
additional available forces are difficult to come by. Furthermore, even
if a reinforcement were successful, the forces are, in principle, stuck in
the Baltics, making it problematic to redeploy them in case of a crisis
or an armed conflict. Second, NATO would struggle to bring in
reinforcements quickly enough before the forces already engaged on
the ground become overwhelmed. In the latter context, the use of
Swedish and Finnish territory and facilities would be of crucial
importance; but they may not be wholly available, particularly if
Russian pressure or outright threats push Stockholm and/or Helsinki
to withhold their assistance.
138 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Events during the last few years show continued Russian interest and
increased activity in the BSR, which Moscow considers to be of
strategic importance. Its regional Baltic strategy is likely to remain in
force for the foreseeable future, thus continuing to pose a challenge to
the other countries in the BSR. It is a challenge they have all begun to
meet, although a little belatedly.
Notes
1
“A meeting of the Collegium of the Ministry of Defense of Russia was held in
Moscow,” Russian MoD, October 27 2017,
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12148569@egNews.
2
Softschools.com, http://www.softschools.com/facts/seas/baltic_sea_facts/3312/.
3
“The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” The Security Council of the
Russian Federation, December 25 2014,
http://www.scrf.gov.ru/security/military/document129/.
4
JustFunFacts, “Interesting facts about the Baltic Sea,” 2017,
http://justfunfacts.com/interesting-facts-about-the-baltic-sea/.
5
Ibid.
6
The Baltic Ports Organization, “The Baltic Sea as a model region for green ports
and maritime transport,”
http://www.bpoports.com/BPC/Helsinki/BPO_report_internet-final.pdf; ITE
Transport & Logistics, “Russia & the Baltics: transport trials ready to be overcome,”
October 10 2017, http://www.transport-exhibitions.com/Market-
Insights/Russia/Russia-the-Baltics-transport-logistics.
7
Ibid.
8
Nick Butler, “Nord Stream 2: a test of German power,” Financial Times, July 3,
2017, https://www.ft.com/content/4875c9ff-0868-3798-8f66-4efa667eb5ba.
9
The Swedish Government, Ett användbart Försvar, Regeringens proposition
2008/09:140,
Baltic Sea Strategy | 139
http://www.regeringen.se/49bb67/contentassets/1236f9bd880b495f8a9dd94ce1cb71
de/ett-anvandbart-forsvar-prop-200809140.
10
Ibid and Atlantic Council, “With a Little Help from My Friends: How Sweden is
Balancing its Security in the Baltics,” September 21, 2017,
”http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/with-a-little-help-from-my-
friends-how-sweden-is-balancing-its-security-in-the-baltics.
11
”EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region,” https://www.balticsea-region-
strategy.eu/about.
12
Council of the Baltic Sea States, http://www.cbss.org/.
13
HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki
Commission), http://www.helcom.fi/about-us.
14
Euroregion Baltic, http://www.eurobalt.org/.
15
Daniel Workman, “Russia’s Top Trading Partners,” World´s Top Exports, March
27, 2018,
http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-import-partners/.
16
Michail Nikolaevitj Tichomirov, “The struggle of the Russian people for exits to
the sea in the 13th-17th centuries: Introduction,” http://flot.com/history/io02.htm,
“The Russian Quest for Warm Water Ports,” Global Security,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/warm-water-port.htm and
René Nyberg, The Baltic Sea – Sea of Peace?, September 7, 2017,
http://www.anselm.fi/baltic-sea-sea-peace/.
17
Eric Solsten and Sandra W. Meditz, editors. Finland: A Country Study.
Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988, The Continuation War,
.http://countrystudies.us/finland/20.htm.
18
“Guerrilla war in the Baltic states” Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_war_in_the_Baltic_states.
19
“Finland - Soviet/Russia Relations,” Global Security,
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/fi-forrel-ru.htm.
140 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
20
Eric Solsten and Sandra W. Meditz, editors. Finland: A Country Study.
Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988, The Cold War and the Treaty
of 1948,
http://countrystudies.us/finland/24.htm.
21
Ibid.
22
“Baltic theatre of the Crimean War,” The Gutenberg Project,
http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/Baltic_theatre_of_the_Crimean_War#Baltic_
theatre.
23
“The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation,” The Security Council
of the Russian Federation, December 31, 2015,
http://www.scrf.gov.ru/security/docs/document133/.
24
“Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation,” The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Russian Federation, November 30, 2016,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/official_documents/-
/asset_publisher/CptICkB6BZ29/content/id/2542248.
25
“The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” The Security Council of the
Russian Federation, December 25 2014,
http://www.scrf.gov.ru/security/military/document129/.
26
NATO Exercises, https://korrespondent.net/tag/175286/.
27
Isabelle Facon, Russia’s national security strategy and military doctrine and their
implications for the EU, European Union 2017.
28
Ibid, page 9.
29
Ibid.
30
The Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” The Security Council of the
Russian Federation,,http://www.scrf.gov.ru/security/military/document34/.
31
“The Fundamentals of Russia’s State Naval Policy Through 2030,” July 20, 2017,
Official Internet-portal for judicial information,
http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201707200015?index=0&rang
eSize=1&mc_cid=8dbd8574d4&mc_eid=3baefa44e9.
Baltic Sea Strategy | 141
32
Agnia Grigas, “Russia-Baltic Relations After Crimea’s Annexation,” Cicero
Foundation Great Debate Paper, June, 2014,
http://www.cicerofoundation.org/lectures/Agnia_Grigas_Russia-
Baltic_Relations.pdf.
33
“The Lithuanian president declares that she does not renounce cooperation with
Russia,” Voenno-Promysjlennyj Kure, December 27, 2017, https://vpk-
news.ru/news/40563.
34
About the portal, Rubaltic.ru, https://www.rubaltic.ru/about/.
35
Statistics Estonia, June 9, 2017, https://www.stat.ee/34278, Latvia. Statistics in
Brief 2017,
http://www.csb.gov.lv/sites/default/files/nr_04_latvia_statistics_in_brief_2017_17_0
0_en.pdf; Jolanta Pivoriene, Ethnic Minorities In Lithuania, Sociológia a S
poločnoSť 1 / 1 (2016), http://www.sociology-society.ff.ukf.sk/archiv-cisel/c1/c1-
jolanta-pivoriene.pdf.
36
Dario Cavegn, “Monument of contention: How the Bronze Soldier was removed,”
ERR.ee, April 25, 2017, http://news.err.ee/592070/monument-of-contention-how-
the-bronze-soldier-was-removed.
37
Agnia Grigas, Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire, Yale University Press,
Danbury, Connecticut, 2016, pp. 140–145.
38
Swedish Embassy Tallinn, About Estonia, http://www.swedenabroad.com/sv-
SE/Ambassader/Tallinn/Landfakta/Om-Estland/ and the Estonian government,
Prime Minister Jüri Ratas, ,https://www.valitsus.ee/en/prime-minister-juri-ratas.
39
Dario Cavegn, “Overview: Center Party’s cooperation protocol with Putin’s
United Russia,” ERR.ee, November 8, 2016,
http://news.err.ee/119629/overview-center-party-s-cooperation-protocol-with-
putin-s-united-russia.
40
The Estonian government, Minister of Public Administration Mihhail Korb files
his resignation, May 24, 2017, https://www.valitsus.ee/en/news/minister-public-
administration-mihhail-korb-files-his-resignation.
41
“The Mayor of Riga named Putin the best Russian president for Latvia,” Lenta.ru,
September 4, 2014, https://lenta.ru/news/2014/09/05/riga/.
142 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
42
Dario Cavegn, “Latvia's Saskaņa party ditches agreement with Putin's United
Russia,” ERR.ee, October 10, 2017, http://news.err.ee/635146/latvia-s-saskana-party-
ditches-agreement-with-putin-s-united-russia.
43
“Lithuanian farmers party sweeps to victory in second round vote,” BNE
IntelliNews, October 24, 2016, http://www.intellinews.com/lithuanian-farmers-
party-sweeps-to-victory-in-second-round-vote-108717/.
44
Sanita Jemberga, Mikk Salu, Šarūnas Černiauskas, “The Kremlin's Millions, and
its support of pro-Russian activists in the Baltics,” The Baltic Times, September 7,
2015, https://www.baltictimes.com/kremlin_s_millions/.
45
Nina Novikova, “Russia's influence in the Baltic States tends to reach zero,”
Pravda.ru, March 15, 2016, https://www.pravda.ru/world/formerussr/latvia/15-03-
2016/1295133-korotchenko-0/.
46
European Parliament, Briefing April 2016 The Russian ban on agriculture
products,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/581971/EPRS_BRI%28
2016%29581971_EN.pdf.
47
Information Note on the Russian Ban on Agri-Food Products From the EU,
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/russian-import-ban/pdf/info-
note-03-09_en.pdf.
48
“Russia is Reducing Transit through Baltic States,” The Analytical Center for the
Government of the Russian Federation, May 29, 2017,
http://ac.gov.ru/en/events/013079.html.
49
“Meeting with the managing director of the company ‘Transneft,’ Nikolaj
Tokarev,” The Homepage of the Russian President, September 12,
2016,http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52879.
50
“Baltic States Seek Security, Reduced Dependence on Russia,” BIZNESALERT,
June 13, 2017,
http://biznesalert.com/baltic-states-seek-security-reduced-dependence-on-russia/.
Baltic Sea Strategy | 143
51
“EU to work with Baltic States on decoupling from Russian power grid,” Reuters,
June 1, 2017,
https://www.reuters.com/article/baltics-energy-eu-russia/eu-to-work-with-baltic-
states-on-decoupling-from-russian-power-grid-idUSL8N1IY455;” Integration of the
Baltic States into the EU electricity system,” EU Publications, June 2, 2017,
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8d3b7da2-562e-
11e7-a5ca-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-31392329.
52
https://www.fpri.org/article/2017/06/baltic-energy-sources-diversifying-away-
russia/.
53
Simon Hoellerbauer, “Baltic Energy Sources: Diversifying Away from Russia,”
FPRI Baltic Bulletin, June 14, 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/9d016276-43c3-
11e4-baa7-00144feabdc0; Thomas Frear, Łukasz Kulesa, “Dangerous
Brinkmanship: Close Military Encounters Between Russia and the West in 2014,”
European Leadership Network, November, 2014,
https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/Dangerous-Brinkmanship.pdf.
54
“Drunkenness, rape and other “coforts” in the life of the NATO-soldiers in the
Baltic States,” NewInforma, February 22, 2017, https://newinform.com/45884-
pyanstvo-iznasilovaniya-i-drugie-prelesti-zhizni-soldat-nato-v-
pribaltike?utm_source=warfiles.ru; Anatolij Wasserman, Memo for Latvians: before
you refuse a NATO soldier, think twice, Sputnik, June 20,
2017,https://ru.sputniknewslv.com/columnists/20170620/5093872/anatolij-
vasserman-pamjatka-latyshkam-pribytie-soldat-nato.html.
55
“NATO: Russia targeted German army with fake news campaign,” Deutsche
Welle, February 16, 2017, http://www.dw.com/en/nato-russia-targeted-german-
army-with-fake-news-campaign/a-37591978.
56
“Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club,” September 19, 2013, The
Homepage of the Russian President,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19243.
57
Hold Vinduet Åbent, En antologi om tilstandene i relationerne mellem Rusland
og Vesten, Rådet for International Konfliktløsning, September 2016.
http://riko.nu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11925/2017/02/samlet-1.pdf.
144 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
58
“Danish MP Challenges Russian Stereotypes, Calls for ‘Sober Analysis,’ ” Sputnik,
September 9, 2016, https://sputniknews.com/politics/201609201045507209-
denmark-russia-stereotypes-sober-analysis/.
59
Udredning: Dansk diplomati og forsvar i en brydningstid, The Danish Foreign
Ministry, May 1, 2016, http://um.dk/da/udenrigspolitik/aktuelle-emner/dansk-
diplomati-og-forsvar-i-en-brydningstid/.
60
Lars Kabel, ”Danske mediers dækning af Rusland,” Danmarks Medie- og
journalisthøjskole, December, 2016,http://njc.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/Danske-mediers-d%C3%A6kning-af-Rusland.pdf; Jens-
Kristian Lütken, ”Putins Rusland er en trussel mod Danmark og andre civiliserede
lande,” Jyllands-Posten, August 23, 2017, https://jyllands-
posten.dk/debat/blogs/jenslutken/ECE9810567/putins-rusland-er-en-trussel-mod-
danmark-og-andre-civiliserede-lande/.
61
Martin Borre, Thomas Larsen, Rystet Claus Hjort: ”Rusland har hacket det danske
forsvar over to år,” Berlingske, April 23, 2017,
https://www.b.dk/politiko/rystet-claus-hjort-afsloerer-rusland-har-hacket-det-
danske-forsvar-over-to-aar; “Denmark Says Russia Hacked Defense Ministry E-
Mails,” Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, April 24, 2017,
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-denmark-defense-ministry-hacking/28448928.html.
62
”Ruslands ambassadør: Danske skibe kan blive mål for russisk atomangreb,”
Jyllands-Posten, March 20, 2015, https://jyllands-
posten.dk/indland/ECE7573125/Ruslands-ambassad%C3%B8r-Danske-skibe-kan-
blive-m%C3%A5l-for-russisk-atomangreb/.
63
Hans Redder, ”Voldsom debat i Folketinget: - Dikkende lammehaler og Putins
skødehunde,” TV2, March 24, 2017,
http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2017-03-24-voldsom-debat-i-folketinget-dikkende-
lammehaler-og-putins-skoedehunde.
64
Caroline Damsgaard Christensen, “Russisk statspropaganda elsker Dansk
Folkeparti, mandagmorgen, September 11, 2016,
https://www.mm.dk/artikel/russisk-statspropaganda-elsker-dansk-folkeparti.
Baltic Sea Strategy | 145
65
“Germany's Steinmeier Tells Putin Improving Relations 'Essential',” Radio Free
Europe Radio Liberty, October 25, 2017, https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-steinmeier-
russia-germany-gorbachev-memorial-cathedral/28814600.html.
66
Ulrich Schmid, "Die Beziehungen zwischen Russland und Deutschland sind auf
einem historischen Tiefstand. Ulrich Schmid über die unterschiedlichen
Perspektiven der Parteien auf Moskau,” September 5, 2017, Universität St.Gallen,
https://www.unisg.ch/de/wissen/newsroom/aktuell/rssnews/meinung/2017/septemb
er/bundestagswahlen-beziehungen-russland-deutschland-5september2017.
67
Olga Lebedeva, “Russian-German relations on the eve of 2018,”
Mezjdunaraodnaja Zjizn, September, 22, 2017,
https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/18371.
68
“Umfrage: Soll Deutschland bessere Beziehungen zu Russland haben?” Contra
Magazin, https://www.contra-magazin.com/2017/10/umfrage-soll-deutschland-
bessere-beziehungen-zu-russland-haben/.
69
“Commentes in connection with the working visit of the Russian foreign minister
to federal republic of Germany,” The Foreign Ministry of the Russian federation,
July 11, 2017, http://www.mid.ru/ru/maps/de/-
/asset_publisher/Ho2VLi5PHLYX/content/id/2811896.
70
Paul Carrel, Andreas Rinke, “Ties between Germany and Russia enter new chill,”
Reuters, April 4, 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-russia-
relations-insight/ties-between-germany-and-russia-enter-new-chill-
idUSKCN0X10NV; Stefan Meister, “The "Lisa case": Germany as a target of Russian
disinformation,” NATO review, July 27, 2016,
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2016/also-in-2016/lisa-case-germany-target-
russian-disinformation/EN/index.htm.
71
Katja Bauer, “Der "Fall Lisa" und sein bitteres Nachspiel,” Stuttgarter Nachrichten,
June 20, 2017, https://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.erfundene-
vergewaltigung-der-fall-lisa-und-sein-bitteres-nachspiel.ece0548c-340c-4ae3-8d2c-
e751c139e183.html; "Fake: Fall Lisa – Russisches Mädchen in Deutschland von
“Flüchtlingen” entführt und vergewaltigt,” StopFake.org, January 17, 2016,
https://www.stopfake.org/de/fake-fall-lisa-russisches-madchen-in-deutschland-von-
fluchtlingen-entfuhrt-und-vergewaltigt/.
72
Bundestagswahl 2017, Der Bundestagswahlleiter,
https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/bundestagswahlen/2017/ergebnisse/bund-99.html;
146 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
“Gauland bestreitet Finanzierung der AfD aus Russland,” Zeit Online, September 8,
2017, http://www.zeit.de/news/2017-09/08/deutschland-gauland-bestreitet-
finanzierung-der-afd-aus-russland-08084604; “Umstrittene Osteuropa-Reisen:
AfD-Männer sollen Beziehungen zu Russland-Spion haben,” Focus, August 17,
2017, https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/umstrittene-osteuropa-reisen-
lobby-arbeit-fuer-putin-afd-maenner-sollen-verbindungen-zu-russischem-spion-
haben_id_7480861.html; "Gold-AfD lässt sich jetzt von Pleite-Putin beraten,” Focus,
December 7, 2014, https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/gold-shop-spielt-
angeblich-keine-rolle-austausch-mit-diplomaten-macht-die-afd-jetzt-gemeinsame-
sache-mit-putin_id_4328505.html.
73
“Russlanddeutsche in der Bundesrepublik,” Deutscher Bundestag, February 10,
2016,
https://www.bundestag.de/blob/424502/e534deaef41f3f1f1efcf098f64cb013/wd-3-
036-16-pdf-data.pdf; Manuela Roppert , "Russlanddeutsche - die verführbaren
Wähler?,” BR24, September 13, 2017,
http://www.br.de/bundestagswahl/bundestagswahl-russlanddeutsche-manipulation-
100.html.
74
Ibid.
75
Fabian Reinbold, “Was plant Moskau?” Spiegel Online, September 1, 2017,
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/bundestagswahl-2017-debatte-um-moegliche-
manipulationen-durch-russland-a-1165520.html; Michael Schwirtz, “German
Election Mystery: Why No Russian Meddling?” New York Times, September 21,
2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/world/europe/german-election-
russia.html.
76
“President of Poland: if we forgive Russia for Ukraine and Georgia, we are in for a
tragedy,” UAWIRE, November 13, 2017, https://uawire.org/polish-president-if-we-
forgive-russia-for-ukraine-and-georgia-a-tragedy-awaits-us.
77
“Polish FM says Russia uninterested in dialogue,” Radio Poland,
http://thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/333941,Polish-FM-says-Russia-uninterested-in-
dialogue.
78
The Concept of Defence of the Republic of Poland, The Polish Ministry of
Defense, May, 2017,
http://www.mon.gov.pl/d/pliki/rozne/2017/05/KORP_DRUK_v03_mn2.pdf.
79
Poland, Gazpormexport, http://www.gazpromexport.ru/en/partners/poland/.
Baltic Sea Strategy | 147
80
“Poland aims to stop buying Russian gas after 2022,” Radio Poland, September 22,
2017, http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/326978,Poland-aims-to-stop-buying-
Russian-gas-after-2022-FM.
81
Łukasz Wenerski, Michal Kacewicz, Russian soft power in Poland, Political
Capital, Budapest 2017, http://www.politicalcapital.hu/pc-
admin/source/documents/PC_NED_country_study_PL_20170428.pdf.
82
Paulina Pacula, “New pro-Russia party emerges in Poland,” Euobserver, March 23,
2015, https://euobserver.com/beyond-brussels/128075.
83
“Poland detains pro-Kremlin party leader for ‘spying,’ ” The Guardian, May 19,
2016,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/19/poland-detains-pro-kremlin-
party-leader-mateusz-piskorski-spying.
84
European Center for Geopolitical Analysis (ECAG),
https://www.occrp.org/en/laundromat/profiles/european-center-for-geopolitical-
analysis.
85
”Rysslands president på arbetsbesök till Finland,” The President of Finland, July
19, 2017,
http://www.presidentti.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=364575&nodeid=44809&co
ntentlan=3&culture=sv-FI; Thelia Johnson, ”Lavrov på besök i Finland – säkerheten
kring Östersjön på agendan,” Sveriges Radio, May 4, 2017,
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6689526.
86
“A century on, Finland has learnt to tame the Russian bear,” Financial Times,
December 5, 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/927b91be-d9c5-11e7-a039-
c64b1c09b482.
87
”Maria Sacharova: Russia and Finland maintains nonconfrontational relations,”
RIA Novosti, June 4, 2016, https://ria.ru/interview/20160604/1442590887.html.
88
Statistics Finland, Trade,
http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_kotimaankauppa_en.html#foreigntrade,2016.
89
Lukas Lindström, Ann-Lis Fredriksson, “En klar majoritet av finländarna
motsätter sig ett medlemskap i försvarsalliansen Nato,” Yle, November 11, 2017,
https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2017/11/05/hs-rungande-nej-till-nato-i-finland.
90
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-nato/finnish-president-says-joining-
nato-would-require-referendum-idUSKBN1CZ2K6.
148 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
91
Tuomas Forsell, Jussi Rosendahl, “Finnish president says joining NATO would
require referendum,” Reuters, October 30, 2017,
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2017/10/13/russia-promises-
countermeasures-if-finland-joins-nato/.
92
Mark Rivett-Carnac, “Finland and Russia Temporarily Close Border to Migrants,”
Time, March 23, 2016, http://time.com/4268754/finland-russia-border-restrict-
migrants/.
93
Katri Pynnöniemi, “Hybrid influence – lessons from Finland,” NATO Review,
June 28, 2017, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2017/Also-in-2017/lessons-from-
finland-influence-russia-policty-security/EN/index.htm.
94
Tom Batchelor, ”Finland stops Russians buying land near military sites amid
invasion fears,” Independent, February 13, 2017,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-finland-invasion-fears-
military-sites-land-sales-blocked-a7578601.html; ”Skypo misstänker att främmande
makt kan ha köpt fastigheter till soldater,” Yle, November 1, 2016,
https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2016/11/01/skypo-misstanker-att-frammande-makt-
kan-ha-kopt-fastigheter-till-soldater.
95
Global Indicators Database, Pew Research Center,
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/27/.
96
Ryssland, The Swedish Governement, http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-
regering/utrikesdepartementet/sveriges-diplomatiska-forbindelser/europa-och-
centralasien/ryssland/.
97
Johan Pisoni, “Bara var tredje vill att Sverige går med i Nato,” Sveriges radio, July
3, 2017, https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/bara-var-tredje-vill-att-sverige-gar-med-
i-nato-fragan-politiskt-dod.
98
“Putin emphasizes that Sweden's entry to NATO would jeopardize ties with
Moscow,” TASS, June 1, 2017, http://tass.com/politics/949067.
Baltic Sea Strategy | 149
99
Michael Winiarski, “Om Sverige går med i Nato kommer vi att vidta nödvändiga
åtgärder,” Focus, April 24, 2016, https://fokus.dn.se/lavrov/; “Ekot
direktrapporterar från lördagsintervjun med ryske ambassadören,” Sveriges Radio,
October 1, 2016,
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6531651; ”Russia
May Take 'Reciprocal Steps' if Sweden Joins NATO,” Sputnik, September 10, 2015,
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201509101026834982/.
100
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of the
Kingdom of Sweden and Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation as well as Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe regarding
the Provision of Host Nation Support for the Execution of NATO
Operations/Exeercises/Similar Military Activity,
https://web.archive.org/web/20160214223359/http://natoutredningen.se/wp-
content/uploads/140904-HNS-MoU-Sweden-NATO.pdf.
101
“Russia spreading fake news and forged docs in Sweden: report,” The Local,
January 7, 2017, https://www.thelocal.se/20170107/swedish-think-tank-details-
russian-disinformation-in-new-study.
102
”Alexander, 34, är SD:s hemliga desinformatör,” Aftonbladet, September 3, 2016,
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article23449197.ab.
103
”Säpo: Rysk spion på svensk konferens, Sveriges television,” April 30, 2016,
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/sapo-rysk-spion-pa-svensk-konferens; Mikael
Holmström, ”Säpo: Ryska agenter motarbetar på svensk mark,” Dagens Nyheter,
April 30, 2016, https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sapo-ryska-agenter-motarbetar-
pa-svensk-mark/?forceScript=1&variantType=large.
104
David Cenciotti, “Russia Simulated A Large-Scale Aerial Night Attack On
Sweden,” Business Insider, April 23, 2013, http://www.businessinsider.com/david-
cenciotti-russia-simulated-a-massive-aerial-attack-2013-4?r=US&IR=T&IR=T.
105
”Rysslands ambassadör: Hög tid att Sverige och Ryssland sluter fred,” Dagens
Industri, October 12, 2017, https://www.di.se/debatt/rysslands-ambassador-hog-tid-
att-sverige-och-ryssland-sluter-fred/?loggedin=true.
106
Verfassungsschutzbericht 2016, Bundesministerium des Innern,
https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/embed/vsbericht-2016.pdf, Annual Report for
2017, TheLatvian Security Police, http://www.dp.gov.lv/en/useful/annual-reports/;
150 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
“National Security Threat Assessment 2017,” The State Security Department of the
Republic of Lithuania and the Second Investigation Department under the Ministry
of National Defence, https://www.vsd.lt/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/AKATSKT_DRAFT-3-31-EN-HQ.pdf.
107
David Cenciotti, “Sweden Protests As Russian Fighter Buzzes Swedish Spyplane
Over The Baltic Sea,” The Aviationist, June 21, 2017,
https://theaviationist.com/2017/06/21/sweden-protests-as-russian-fighter-buzzes-
swedish-spyplane-over-the-baltic-sea/.
108
“Lithuania – Russia Cross-Border Cooperation Programme 2014-2020,”
http://www.eni-cbc.eu/lr/data/public/uploads/2017/01/lt-ru-jop-_approved-2016-
12-19.pdf; “Population,” The Local Government Kaliningrad Oblast,
https://gov39.ru/region/peoples.php; Natural resources, The Local Government
Kaliningrad Oblast, https://gov39.ru/region/natural.php.
109
“Kaliningrad profile – Overview,” BBC, March 12, 2015,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18284828; “History,” The Local
Government Kaliningrad Oblast, https://gov39.ru/region/history.php.
110
Beatrix Tolgyesi, “Kaliningrad – A bridge between two worlds or a military
outpost?” Baltic review, April 28, 2016, http://baltic-review.com/kaliningrad-bridge-
between-two-worlds/; Linas Kojala, Vytautas Keršanskas, (Un)convenient
Kaliningrad and Kremlin’s relationship, Delfi, December 7, 2016,
https://en.delfi.lt/central-eastern-europe/unconvenient-kaliningrad-and-kremlins-
relationship.d?id=73098334.
111
Mark Kramer, “Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia, and Baltic Security,” PONARS Policy
Memo 10, October 1997, http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-
memos-pdf/pm_0010.pdf.
112
“Kaliningrad Special region,” The Ministry of Defence of the Russian federation,
uhttp://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/details_rvsn.htm?id=5867@mo
rfDictionary; Svetlana Ivanova Adamovitj, “The cognitive project ‘Kaliningrad
Special Area,’ ” Alye Parusa, January 22, 2017,
https://nsportal.ru/ap/library/drugoe/2017/01/22/poznavatelnyy-proekt-
kaliningradskiy-osobyy-rayon.
113
Dmitri Verchoturov, "Island Territories" of Russia, KM.RU, December 28. 2014,
http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2014/12/28/strategii-razvitiya-rossii/752972-ostrovnye-
territorii-rossii; Olga Gontyarova, “How the Baltic Fleet Commander frightened
Baltic Sea Strategy | 151
114
Sergei Safronov, “The North Caucasian Military District and the Kaliningrad
Special Area will be rearmed before 2012,” RIA Novosti, June 17, 2009,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20090617/174604357.html.
115
Jevgenij Krutikov, “The strategic directions of defense will be significantly
strengthened,” Vzgljyd, January 30, 2015,
https://vz.ru/politics/2015/1/30/727061.html.
116
“The commander and the chief of staff of the Baltic Fleet were sacked for
embellishing reality,” Lenta.ru, June 29, 2016,
https://lenta.ru/news/2016/06/29/za_upuschenia.
117
Sergey Isityenko, “A US division has already Kaliningrad in its sights,”
Svobodnaya Pressa, October 12, 2017, http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/183432/.
118
“The 152nd Guards Missile Brigade in Kaliningrad has received Iskander-M
missile systems,” bmpd, November 25, 2017,
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2970466.html.
119
“Why the small missile boats ‘Serpuchov’ and ‘Zeljonyi dol’ arrived in the Baltic
Sea,” Voennoe Obozrenie, November 2, 2016, https://topwar.ru/103044-dlya-chego-
mrk-serpuhov-i-zelenyy-dol-prishli-na-baltiku.html; Vladimir Tytjkov, “The Baltic
Fleet asks for support,” Svobodnaya Pressa, December 12, 2016,
http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/162423/.
120
“New missile systems have arrived in the Baltic Fleet,” Interfax, April 15, 2017.
121
Andrej Gavrilenko, “Both on the sea and on land,” Krasnaya Zvezda, November
26, 2017, http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/2011-07-25-15-55-32/item/35208-i-na-
more-i-na-sushe.
122
“The airbase in the Kaliningrad oblast will be replenished with a Su-30SM
fighter,” Vesti.ru, December 8, 2016,
https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2830689&cid=17; “The naval aviation of the
Baltic Fleet received two more Su-30 SM fighters,” Novyi Kaliningrad, May 29, 2017,
https://www.newkaliningrad.ru/news/briefs/politics/13717780-morskaya-aviatsiya-
baltiyskogo-flota-poluchila-eshche-dva-istrebitelya-su-30-sm.html; “Three new Su-
30SM entered the naval aviation of the Baltic Fleet,” Voennoe Obozrenie, August 29,
152 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
2017, https://topwar.ru/123702-tri-novyh-su-30sm-voshli-v-sostav-morskoy-
aviacii-bf.html.
123
“The Baltic Fleet will be strengthened by two air regiments,” Interfax, October 10,
2017, http://www.interfax.ru/russia/582599.
124
“Shojgu told which military airfields to be renovated in 2018,” Politika Segodnya,
December 22, 2017, https://polit.info/379581-shoigu-rasskazal-kakie-voennye-
aerodromy-rekonstruiruyut-v-2018-godu.
125
Magnus Nordenman, “China and Russia’s Joint Sea 2017 Baltic Naval Exercise
Highlight a New Normal in Europe,” USNI News, July 5, 2017,
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/05/china-russias-baltic-naval-exercise-highlight-
new-normal-european-maritime.
126
“Statement by Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation - First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, General of
the Army Valery Gerasimov, at an open meeting of the Collegium of the Russian
Defense Ministry on November 7, 2017,” The Ministry of Defense of the Russian
Federation, November 7, 2017,
http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12149743@egNews.
127
“The formation of the 1st Guards Tank Army,” BMPD, June 15, 2015,
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1324525.html.
128
“The composition of the army corps created in the fleets,” Voennoe Obozrenie,
May 25, 2017, https://topwar.ru/116427-sostav-sozdannyh-na-flotah-armeyskih-
korpusov.html.
129
“Two new divisions of the Western Military District and the Southern Military
District will be fully equipped in May 2017,” RIA Novosti, November 11, 2016,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20161111/1481182101.html; “A new mechanized
division is beginning to be organized in the vicinity of Smolensk,” Vzglyad, April 27,
2016, https://vz.ru/news/2016/4/27/807722.html.
130
“In Russia, the Taman and Kantemirov tank divisions have been recreated,”
Gazeta.ru, May 4, 2013,
https://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2013/05/04/n_2890657.shtml.
131
“4-ya gvardeyskaya Kantemirovskaya tankovaya diviziya (v/ch 19612),”
Voyskovyye Chasti Rossii, June 22, 2015, https://voinskayachast.net/suhoputnie-
voyska/tankovie/vch19612.
Baltic Sea Strategy | 153
132
Alexandr Golts, Military Reform and Militarism in Russia, University of Uppsala,
2017, http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1138525/FULLTEXT01.pdf%20September%202017.
133
Address by President of the Russian Federation, The President of Russia, March
18, 2014, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603.
134
Security in the Baltic Sea Region: Realities and Prospects: The Rīga Conference
Papers 2017, The Latvian Institute of International Affairs, 2017, pp. 148–158.
http://www.liia.lv/en/publications/security-in-the-baltic-sea-region-realities-and-
prospects-the-riga-conference-papers-2017-643.
135
“Russia strengthens its geopolitical borders,” KM.RU, January 15, 2015,
http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2015/01/15/vladimir-putin/753519-rossiya-ukreplyaet-
geopoliticheskie-rubezhi.
Part II
Non-Conventional Elements
of Strategy and Doctrine
5. Not ‘Hybrid’ but New Generation
Warfare
Jānis Bērziņš
Introduction
years. Albeit relatively marginal until about 2005, the idea that Russia
is a victim of the US’s vested interests, which are allegedly being
implemented and executed by multilateral agencies and NATO, has
been gaining legitimacy in Russian security circles. This idea has been
gradually incorporated into Russian policymaking over the past ten
years. It has also had significant influence on the military.
First, economic: Although the United States has the most powerful
economy in the world, it is also the most fragile, he argues. This is the
result of American external debt—trillions of dollars that cannot be
paid. The only way the United States can maintain its influence is to
provide security to the world and demonstrate its superior power.
Second, the military: The United States has extensive military and
technological superiority over the rest of the world (including Russia
and China). Third, information: The United States practically
controls all major sources of information and is thus able to portray
facts to its advantage, the president of the Russian Board of Military
Experts asserts. Fourth, geopolitical: The United States can control the
majority of the nations in the world, although this power is in decline.
It includes controlling Europe and attempting to push European
countries to the political periphery. Fifth, internal politics: In the
United States, the basis for internal stability is a high level of
160 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The second point is that the main external threat to Russia consists of
the interests of the United States and its Western allies. According to
this idea, the West resists Russia restoring its status as a global power.
Instead, it pursues policies, mostly economic, to force Russia to
become a producer of raw materials, unable to develop its military
strength. To achieve supremacy over Russia, the Euro-Atlantic
community has been using so-called power instruments, including
the imposition of unbalanced agreements on, for example, the
reduction of strategic nuclear missiles and tactical nuclear weapons.
The authors of the Izborsky Club article conclude that Russia should
prepare for three possible military conflict scenarios: First, a major
war with NATO and Japan; second, a regional border-conflict
scenario, i.e. disputed territories; and third, an internal military
conflict as a result of terrorism. It is not believed that a direct military
conflict with NATO in the short term can be expected. However,
Russia has been facing severe pressure with the infringement of its
strategic national interests. NATO has politically and militarily wiped
out most of Russia’s natural potential allies. This can be exemplified
by NATO’s “expansion” into the former Warsaw Pact space. The
monetarist economic ideology imposed by the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other multilateral
organizations, not only had the objective of weakening Russian
164 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The core ideas discussed above have now been explicitly included in
the latest versions of the Russian “Military Doctrine” (adopted in
December 2014) as well as the “National Security Strategy”
(December 2015). In both cases, the West, especially the United States,
appears as Russia’s main adversary, but not necessarily as the main
enemy. Other problems affecting Russia’s security are poor economic
development, demographics and the environment, among others.
Both documents stress the use of non-military instruments to achieve
political goals, the most important one being social destabilization via
color revolutions and terrorism.17 Since it is a broader strategic
document, the “National Security Strategy” also mentions radical
public associations, the activities of criminal organizations,
corruption, natural disasters, as well as the utilization of economic
methods and instruments of financial, trade, investment and
technological policy.18
The Russian view of modern warfare is based on the idea that the main
battlespace is the mind. As a result, new-generation wars are to be
dominated by information and psychological warfare in order to
achieve superiority in troops and weapons control, morally and
psychologically depressing an enemy’s armed forces personnel and
166 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
In other words, the Russians have placed the idea of influence at the
very center of their operational planning and used all possible levers
to achieve this: skillful internal communications, deception
Not ‘Hybrid’ but New Generation Warfare | 167
Eighth Phase: roll over the remaining points of resistance and destroy
surviving enemy units by special operations conducted by
reconnaissance units to spot which enemy units have survived and
transmit their coordinates to the attacker’s missile and artillery units;
fire barrages to annihilate the defender resisting army units by
170 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The first four phases are basically non-kinetic, using strategies of Low
Intensity Conflict as understood by the Russians. The fifth phase is
when military action really starts. It is important to mention the use
of private military companies (PMC). The United States has
extensively used them in Iraq and Afghanistan—from operating mess
halls to providing security and, sometimes, performing military
duties. For the Russians, PMCs must be understood as mercenaries.
The objective is to have an active military force that cannot be linked
to the Russian Armed Forces. These mercenaries can act as if they are
locals, part of the enemy’s Armed Forces, police, or whatever is
necessary at that moment. They will often engage in sabotage,
blackmail, subversive activities, terrorism, kidnapping, or any other
activity that is not considered regular warfare. The Russian
government, in turn, can and will deny any connection with its
mercenaries, publicly accusing them of being part of the enemy’s
forces. The last three phases are a combination of Network Centric
Warfare, Sixth-Generation Warfare and Reflexive Control.
Asymmetric Warfare
Low-Intensity Conflict
Returning to the Russian case, the main concept used by the Russians
is “controlled chaos.” It is mostly based on the US literature about
Low-Intensity Conflict and Counterinsurgency operations, and is
often referred to as a strategy of “Destruction and Attrition.” Its
objective is the geopolitical destruction of the victim state by a set of
measures aiming to neutralize any geopolitical advantage the enemy
might have, such as economic power, military might, international
status, size of territory and population, etc. In Moscow’s view, Color
Revolutions and the Arab Spring are examples of how the West uses
this concept.
Sixth-Generation Warfare
make the enemy’s political system collapse, with the local population
turned into an instrument to achieve victory. In this case, the
occupation of foreign territory might not be necessary. Russian
bombings of hospitals and food storehouses in Syria in recent years
are clear examples of Sixth-Generation Warfare.
Network-Centric Warfare
Reflexive Control
Conclusion
Notes
1
Francis G. Hoffman, “Hybrid Warfare and Challenges,” Joint Force Quarterly, Issue
52, 1, (2009): 34–40.
2
Janis Berzins, “Russia’s New Generation Warfare in Ukraine: Implications for
Latvian Defense Policy,” National Defence Academy of Latvia Center for Security
and Strategic Research, Policy Paper No. 2, 2014.
3
Aleksandr I. Vladmirov, “Bol’shaya amerikanskaya voyna” (“The Great American
War”), Voyenno-promyshlennyy kur’yer, September 24, 2008, http://vpk-
news.ru/articles/1776.
4
Voyenno-promyshlennyy kur’yer, “Bol’shaya amerikanskaya voyna” (“The Great
American War”).
182 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
5
Aleksandr I.Vladmirov, “NATO v paradigme obshchey teorii voyny” (“NATO in
the Paradigm of the General Theory of War”), 2014,
http://kadet.ru/lichno/vlad_v/NATO&Obschaya_teoriya_voiny.htm.
6
Aleksandr I. Vladmirov, “SShA - Glavnyy Aktor Mirovoy Voyny” (“The United
States – The Main Actor in the World War”), 2012,
http://kadet.ru/lichno/vlad_v/USA_gl_aktor.htm.
7
Vladmirov, “NATO v paradigme obshchey teorii voyny” (“NATO in the Paradigm
of the General Theory of War”).
8
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “The North Atlantic Treaty,”
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm.
9
Vladmirov, “NATO v paradigme obshchey teorii voyny” (“NATO in the Paradigm
of the General Theory of War”).
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
“SShA - Glavnyy Aktor Mirovoy Voyny” (“The United States – The Main Actor in
the World War”).
13
Aleksandr A. Nagorny and Vladislav V. Shurygin, “Defense Reform as an Integral
Part of a Security Conception for the Russian Federation: a Systemic and Dynamic
Evaluation,” Izborsky Club, http://www.dynacon.ru/content/articles/1085/. The
Izborsky Club was formed by a group of Russian nationalists, some of them
sympathetic to national-Bolshevik ideas. It has major influence on Vladimir Putin’s
thinking and policies, including in Eurasianism (as espoused by Aleksandr Dugin),
geopolitics (Leonid Ivashov), socio-economic doctrine (Sergei Glaziev), and the
concept of Russian civilization in a clash with the West (Andrei Platonov).
14
Nagorny and Shurygin, “Defense Reform as an Integral Part of a Security
Conception for the Russian Federation: a Systemic and Dynamic Evaluation.”
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
President of Russia, “Voyennaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii” (“The Military
Doctrine of the Russian Federation”), December 26, 2014,
http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/news/47334; “O Strategii natsional'noy bezopasnosti
Not ‘Hybrid’ but New Generation Warfare | 183
18
Ministry of Defense of the Russia Federation, “O Strategii natsional'noy
bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii” (“On the National Strategy of the Russian
Federation”).
19
Ibid.
20
Berzins, “Russia’s New Generation Warfare in Ukraine: Implications for Latvian
Defense
Policy.”
21
Sergei G. Chekinov, Sergei A. Bogadanov, “O kharaktere i soderzhanii voyny
novogo pokoleniya” (“On the Nature and Content of a New-Generation War”),
Voennaia Mysl, no. 10 (2013).
22
Sergei G. Chekinov, Sergei A. Bogadanov, “O kharaktere i soderzhanii voyny
novogo pokoleniya,” pp. 13–24.
23
Nagorny and Shurygin, “Defense Reform as an Integral Part of a Security
Conception for the Russian Federation: a Systemic and Dynamic Evaluation.”
24
“Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict,” FM 100-20 / AFP 3-20,
Departments of the Army and Air Force, Washington, DC, December 5, 1990,
available at https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-
20/.
25
A. V. Raskin, V. S. Pelyak, S. A. Vyalov, “Kontseptsiya setetsentricheskoy voyny:
za i protiv (“The Concept of Network-Centric Warfare: Pro and Contra”),”
Voyennaya Mysl (Military Thought), 2005, p. 7.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Timothy L. Thomas, “Russia’s Reflexive Control Theory and the Military,” Journal
of Slavic Military Studies 17 (2004), pp. 237–256, available at
https://www.rit.edu/~w-cmmc/literature/Thomas_2004.pdf.
184 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
29
The author heard this story from General Davis himself during a meeting at the
NATO/SHAPE headquarters in Mons, Belgium.
6. Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and
Strategy
Stefan Forss
Introduction
As the Cold War was coming to an end, if not earlier, the leaders of
the world’s two superpowers largely came to believe that the
enormous effort of building up and maintaining their vast nuclear
weapons stockpiles had been a mistake. The nuclear arms race
consumed extensive quantities of material and human resources in
the United States, but particularly in the Soviet Union. It also
remained unclear whether nuclear weapons could in fact be employed
operationally in armed conflicts.1
All five of the world’s original recognized nuclear weapons states (the
United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China) are
bound by their commitments made in the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) to pursue a policy aiming for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The key commitment is found in Article VI: Each party
People of the Soviet Union, there is only one sane policy, for your
country and mine, to preserve our civilization in this modern age:
A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only
value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make
sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do
away with them entirely?4
We had said that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be
fought, we could not tolerate the situation that we had, we needed
to deal with those mountains of weapons, to get rid of nuclear
weapons. […] It is strange that some people still think about nuclear
weapons in terms of deterrence—that the positive role of nuclear
weapons is that they deter. I have to say that this is not serious, if you
look at the big picture. So, when we talk about nuclear weapons and
what’s to be done about them, the answer is to get rid of them.5
The idea of a world without nuclear weapons lived on, despite some
unanticipated setbacks. For more than a decade, influential, bipartisan
U.S. politicians and observers (notably, proponents of the so-called
“Hoover Plan”)6 have strongly argued that such a world would certainly
be in the interest of the United States. And in his speech in Prague, on
April 5, 2009, President Barack Obama reiterated this same vision:
As the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty came into force, on June 13,
2002, Russia declared the next day that it was no longer bound by
START II.12 This set the stage for developments that have become core
issues one and a half decades later.
The changed attitude was felt, in 2008, in the United Nations Security
Council Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (ABDM), where
the Russian delegate strongly resisted that US proposals on nuclear
disarmament that were introduced on the ABDM agenda.14 Two
distinct motives help explain such a dramatic change in Moscow’s
approach to the total elimination of nuclear weapons: balance of
power and Russia’s global power status.
START II and the outline of START III never became legally binding.
But even so, significant reductions on both sides continued during the
first decade of the 21st century. Presidents George W. Bush and
Vladimir Putin signed an unusually short (only a few pages long)
framework document, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty
(SORT), without any meaningful negotiations in 2002. After the
Yeltsin era, Russia had embarked on a major, and still ongoing,
nuclear buildup, which consumes a significant portion of the defense
budget. Although the START process began to show signs of tiring, it
still was advantageous for Russia.
as during the Kosovo War the year before.21 This author asked him
then to clarify the Russian implementation of the unilateral
presidential PNI commitments given in 1991/1992. General Ivashov
gave a lengthy answer with little information, but assured that Russia
fully abided by the given commitments.
The Missile Troops and Artillery (MT & A) are an Arm of the
Land Force, which is the primary means of fire and nuclear
destruction of the enemy during conduct of combined-arms
operations (combat actions).
Dr. Igor Sutyagin, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services
Institute in London, provided a thorough analysis of non-strategic
nuclear weapons in Russia’s armed forces in 2012.27 In particular, he
illuminated the dual-capable nature of many weapons systems in the
ground and naval forces, including ballistic and cruise missiles, rocket
launchers and artillery guns. The obvious conclusion is that Russia is
no longer bound by the political commitments of the presidential
initiatives.
The same Russian mindset is also at the core of the contentious INF
Treaty issue. Deep mistrust of this treaty was voiced in the Russian
nuclear weapons community more than two decades ago, in
September 1996. “We may have to withdraw from the treaty on the
elimination of medium- and shorter-range [INF] missiles and resume
194 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The missile would strike a target before its operator has time to
smoke a cigarette. Besides, we also have the navy and the air force.
They, too, can handle targets in Europe without ever leaving
Russian territory.
Since then, Russian defense authorities have repeatedly raised the INF
question in talks with the United States, despite objections from the
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On his visit to Washington in
January 2005, Defense Minister Ivanov asked his counterpart Donald
Rumsfeld how the United States would react if Russia were to
withdraw from the INF Treaty. This was repeated in August 2006,
when the two top defense officials met each other in Fairbanks,
Alaska.31
Shortly after Putin’s 2007 Munich speech, the Chief of the General
Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Army General Yuri Baluyevsky,
said that pulling out of the INF Treaty was possible, especially if the
United States were to implement their missile-defense plans in
Europe.37
The missile can be equipped not only with a conventional but also
a nuclear warhead. The range of the tactical Iskander-M is 500
kilometers, and many military objects of the alliance will be
threatened.
After Iskander missiles were deployed with the 26th Missile Brigade,
they were occasionally employed during exercises in the Kaliningrad
region, such as the surprise readiness inspection in March 2015.41 The
152nd Guards Missile Brigade in Chernyakhovsk, in Kaliningrad, still
equipped with aging short-range OTR-21 Tochka-U (SS-21 Scarab)
missiles, was the eleventh brigade to receive new Iskander missiles in
late 2017.42
The 9K720 Iskander missile system (SS-26 Stone) comes in two basic
variants: the fast (Mach 6–7) ballistic missile 9M723-1 and the sub-
sonic cruise missile 9M728 (a.k.a. R-500 or “Iskander-K”).
Collectively, the two are known as “Iskander-M.”44 Iskander-M
brigades consist of a mix of both ballistic and cruise missiles,
providing significant operational advantages. 45 Footage from the
Vostok-2014 exercise is quite illuminating, exhibiting launches of
both missile types.46 The Iskander-K was also fired in the Leningrad
region during the Zapad-2017 exercise in September 2017.47
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 199
Although both Iskander missile types may reach targets well beyond
500 kilometers, the US has not formally accused Russia of INF treaty
breach related to the Iskander missile system.48 This is due to
deficiencies in the treaty itself. Moreover, Russia’s “treaty compliance”
tends to blur the perception of the real capabilities of this missile
system. Russian arms control expert Dr. Pavel Podvig quoted a
colleague as implying that the range of the Iskander-K is dependent
on how much fuel is pumped into the missile. Extended range comes
with filling the fuel tank.49 The nuclear arms control treaties have, in
fact, become useful tools for deception.
The New York Times reported, in February 2017, that Russia had
deployed two battalions of the new prohibited SSC-8 cruise missile.52
American officials have voiced concerns since 2014 about the tests of
this experimental missile, which they designated SSC-X-8. Dropping
the “X” meant that the missile was considered operational, and it
added substance to the accusation of INF Treaty breach. No details of
the missile itself were disclosed, however.
The first test of RS-26, in September 2011, failed; but the second test
flight of the new missile, in May 2012, was successful.63 The missile
apparently flew with a light or empty payload from Plesetsk to the
Kura missile range in Kamchatka, 5,800 kilometers, i.e. to
intercontinental range. This automatically defined the missile as an
ICBM, covered by the New START treaty. The following test, in
October 2012, was performed from the Kapustin Yar proving ground
to Sary Shagan, in Kazakhstan, over a distance of approximately 2,000
kilometers.64
This was the first public telltale signal of a possible diversion from a
real intercontinental-range missile program toward the politically
dubious INF ground. However, being START accountable, the RS-26
evidently is not formally violating any treaty. All subsequent tests
have, however, been performed to the same medium-range distances,
indicating that the real operational purpose of this missile is sub-
strategic.
these items before deployment. But this exhibition had still not been
conducted as of the autumn of 2017.65
The RS-26 case shows to what lengths Russia is going to mask its real
intentions in the INF field. Letting the missile fly once beyond the
5,500-kilometer ICBM range definition was a clever way to disguise
its real intent to reintroduce an improved version of the INF flagship
SS-20.
This was the time for deep nuclear reductions and implementation
not only of the START treaty but also START II, including its ban
land-based ICBMs carrying multiple independently re-targetable re-
entry vehicles (MIRV). However, a fouled-up ratification process
resulted in START II being a lost opportunity. In the end, only the
United States abided by that treaty, and the Minuteman III missile was
converted to a single-warhead missile. Whereas, Russia ultimately
expanded its MIRVed ICBM stockpiles.
During the last five years, Russia produced 80 ICBMs, allowing for the
rearmament of 12 strategic missile regiments with RS-24s.76 The
Strategic Rocket Forces will obtain 20 Yars launchers in 2018, and all
single-warhead road-mobile Topol and Topol-M units will be
rearmed with Yars ICBMs by 2026.77 Dr. Pavel Podvig estimated, in
mid-2017, that 84 Yars missiles were deployed with four warheads
each.78 One hundred-fourteen Topol and Topol-M missiles were
eventually replaced.
The true specifications of the missile were withheld until March 2018.
It was thought that the missile, designed and manufactured in Russia
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 207
The Sarmat is likely to carry 8–10 warheads, but with yields lower than
the 750-kiloton warheads carried by the SS-18. The modern missile’s
increased accuracy ensures that “effect on target”85 will not be lost. It
also employs advanced penetration aids to defeat enemy missile
defenses. Finally, the missile has the option of carrying hypersonic
glide vehicles (HGV) as maneuverable reentry vehicles.86 TASS
reported in July 2018 that the work on the Avangard HGV was
completed and preparations made to accept the system for
operational service in the Strategic Missile Forces.87
The biggest disappointment for Russian officials and the top brass was
almost certainly the Typhoon-class (Project 941 Akula) submarine.
Lack of funding and persistent maintenance problems kept most of
the Typhoon boats moored in harbor, indeed as destabilizing sitting
ducks as long as they carried their complements of SS-N-20 Sturgeon
(R-39/D-19) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). The final
blow to this SSBN class was the failed effort to construct a reliable
follower to the SS-N-20 missile.89
boats will form the basis of Russia’s maritime strategic deterrent and
eventually carry the bulk of Russia’s nuclear second-strike capability.
Initial plans may have been to install 12 launch tubes. But after the
larger Bark missile was discarded, the Borei-class boats will carry 16
Bulava launchers. According to some sources, the upgraded Project
955A Borei II–class boats may obtain 4 additional launch tubes,
thereby increasing the missile load to 20, while others say that the
number of launch tubes will remain at 16.97
The lead ship, Yuri Dolgorukiy, the first of the planned eight, joined
the Northern Fleet in December 2013 and received its full
complement of missiles in 2014. Subsequent Project 955 submarines
are expected to join the Pacific Fleet. As of January 2016, three
submarines had been accepted for service—the Yuri Dolgorukiy,
Alexander Nevskiy and Vladimir Monomakh. 98
210 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The lead boat of the Project 955A Borei II series, Knyaz Vladimir (laid
down in July 2012), set sail for the first time on November 17, 2017.
Plans are that Knyaz Vladimir will be delivered to the Navy in 2018.99
According to the Russian defense ministry, four other hauls are
already being used to build the remaining four Borei II–class
submarines: the Knyaz Oleg, Generalissimus Suvorov, Imperator
Alexander III and Knyaz Pozharsky. Construction on these nuclear
submarines is expected to be completed by 2025.100
The recovery of the Russian strategic fleet, literally from the brink at
the end of the 1990s, is remarkable. One visible sign of this is that the
operational tempo of the Russian submarine fleet has returned to
former levels. Admiral Vladimir Korolev, the commander-in-chief of
the Russian Navy, said in March 2017, “Last year, we returned to the
level we had before the post-Soviet era in terms of the days at sea.
Russia’s submarine fleet has spent 3,000 days at sea.”101
Nuclear missions are, however, not only the business of the Russian
strategic fleet. Dual-use weaponry, such as SS-N-21 Sampson (S-10
Granat) and Kalibr cruise missiles, SS-N-19 Shipwreck (P-700 Granit)
missiles as well as P-800 Oniks missiles, are found in the attack
submarine fleet as well as in guided-missile submarines, diesel
submarines and various surface vessels. The number of these are
counted in several tens.
Strategic Aviation
Russia has used its strategic bombers for political signaling for more
than a decade, testing the readiness of the air forces of potential
adversaries around the world. This should not be interpreted as a
typical operational pattern in areas where they cannot fly uncontested.
This has largely been the case in Syria, where the Russian air force has
been able to test new weapons systems, including smart bombs and
cruise missiles.
This strategic choice evidently has borne fruit, as static objects in the
whole of Europe and parts of the US can now be targeted from safe
distances. The chief of the Russian General Staff, Army General
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 213
Increasing the range of the cruise missiles simply requires more fuel.
This has been accomplished in various ways, such as making the
missiles bigger or fitting them with external fuel tanks. In addition,
more reliable navigation and homing systems are needed. The
performance of Russian cruise missiles used in combat in Syria has
been likened to that of the US Tomahawk cruise missiles used during
Operation Desert Storm, in 1991.113 The most powerful of Russia’s
new air-launched cruise missiles is the Kh-101, with a range of 4,500
kilometers, according to internationally respected Russian experts.114
The nuclear variant is called the Kh-102.
The Kh-101 was developed over a long period of time to replace the
Kh-55 (AS-15 Kent), a Soviet/Russian ALCM. It has a low radar
signature and is equipped with a terrain avoidance system. An opto-
electronic flight correction system is used instead of a radio altimeter.
Stealth features, better resistance against jamming, flying at low
altitudes to avoid radars, and hiding behind terrain all contribute to
the Kh-101’s ability to defeat enemy defenses.
The Kh-101 is integrated with the Tu-160 (twelve missiles) and the
Tu-95MS16 (eight missiles). 116 The weapon can be dropped at aircraft
altitudes, between 3,000 meters and 12,000 meters. The medium-
range Tu-22M3/5 bomber is likely to receive a smaller ALCM.117
Russian experts argue that the new Kh-101 ALCM is a more potent
weapon than the Boeing AGM-86 ALCM carried by the B-52s. That
may very well be true. Had the General Dynamics/Raytheon
Advanced Cruise Missile AGM-129 not been retired in 2012, the
situation may have been different.118
At first, Soviet policy was to respond with a full nuclear attack to even
a single hit; but in the early 1970s, this policy was rejected. A more
“controllable way of conduct of nuclear war” was called for. This led
to doctrinal changes. Preemptive strikes were rejected as the only
option, and retaliatory strikes gained in importance. The military
situation was defining the preferred scenario of nuclear use, either
global or regional. The course of war itself was expanded to four
stages: a non-nuclear phase, a nuclear phase, follow-up actions and
concluding actions. The most important ingredient was the gradual
lengthening of the non-nuclear phase from hours to one week. With
Marshal Ogarkov as chief of the General Staff from 1977 onwards, the
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 217
In the last five to six years before the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, a defensive nuclear doctrine was adopted. This, according to
General Danilevich, was based on the realization that a nuclear war
could not be won. Even a retaliatory strike with just 10 percent of the
strategic nuclear inventory that had survived an enemy first strike
would be enough to “put out of commission all elements of the
viability of a state and put that state to death.” Large-scale use of the
enormous nuclear inventories available toward the end of the Cold
War was inconceivable, as the aftermath of a first strike would have
brought “irreversible changes in the world’s ecology.” As a result, a
large-scale nuclear exchange “came to be perceived as the death of
civilization and the death of the Soviet Union.”128
Escalate to Deescalate
Levshin et.al. thus suggest singling out the following stages of OTNW
employment buildup:
The general rule is this: the lower the stage of OTNW employment,
the higher the command level adopting the decision to deliver each
particular nuclear strike.”
The most acceptable type of weapon for this kind of impact may
be represented by sea-based long-range cruise missiles, which are
launched from nuclear-powered attack submarines, this fact
224 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
meaning that the strike will not involve strategic nuclear weapons.
Moreover, their low flight altitude and small radar cross section,
as well as the difficulty for the adversary to spot their possible
launch areas make for greater undetectability of strikes by
comparison with any other assets.
The revised Military Doctrine 2014 has the same wording as was
previously used to explain Russia’s policy with respect to the use
of nuclear weapons. Paragraph 27 states: “The Russian Federation
reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the
utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass
destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of
aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of
conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is
under threat. The decision to utilize nuclear weapons is made by
the president of the Russian Federation.”140
Toward the end of the Cold War, US and Soviet leaders understood
that the enormous nuclear buildup had been a mistake. Presidents
Reagan and Gorbachev came to share a common view that “a nuclear
war cannot be won and must never be fought.” In addition, they
believed in the pursuit of a nuclear-free world.
The turmoil after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the financial
bankruptcy of Russia created opportunities for nuclear arms control.
As successor to the Soviet Union, Russia assumed the responsibilities
and rights as a recognized nuclear weapons state. The 1990s were a
particularly difficult time. Russia’s armed forces, including the nuclear
forces and the nuclear community, were hit hard. Despite these
difficulties, Russian nuclear weapons laboratories, major missile
design bureaus and construction plants carried on their work and laid
the groundwork for a second coming.
sorry state that its whole existence was threatened, obtained a boost.
Work to restore capabilities lost in the INF Treaty was also started.
The United States and Russia still managed to conclude the New
START treaty, in 2010; but Moscow categorically rejected bilateral
negotiations with Washington on non-strategic nuclear weapons. The
US may prefer a world free from nuclear weapons—as President
Obama outlined in his speech in Prague in 2009—but for Russia, this
is unacceptable. Russia repeatedly declined US invitations for a
further round of strategic arms negotiations. After Obama’s last effort
in Berlin in 2013, Foreign Minister Lavrov responded that the time for
bilateral negotiations is over. From now on, the talks would be
multilateral, with all five NPT-recognized nuclear weapons states
participating. That put nuclear talks in limbo.
The nuclear policies of Russia and the United States have been
diametrically opposite for a decade. The US was committed to further
large-scale nuclear reductions and a reduced nuclear role. Only one
new nuclear weapon, the B61-12 nuclear bomb was in development.
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 229
Russia has declared time and again since 2010 that it will not
accept new reductions in nuclear arms, including non-strategic
types, in a changing strategic environment and that the New
START treaty is more likely to be the last bilateral Russia-US
“grand treaty” on the limitation and reduction of the nuclear
arsenals.148
230 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
On the other hand, the slightly larger land-based SSC-8 cruise missile
(9M729) is a clear treaty breach, although Russia denies this. On the
contrary, Russia claims to abide by the INF Treaty and, in its turn,
accuses the US of INF breaches.
Nuclear arms control has long served Russia well. Its main opponent,
the United States, remained committed to President Reagan’s policy
toward a world without nuclear weapons for three decades and, more
importantly, has continuously diminished its reliance on nuclear
weapons in its defense policy.
Notes
1
Forss, Stefan: “Yhdysvaltain ydinasepolitiikka” (US Nuclear Policy), Finnish
National Defence University, Deparment of Strategic and Defence Studies,
Publication Series 2, No. 34, 2006. As Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Admiral James A. Winnefield Jr. pointed out, “at the end of the Cold War, many felt
that the international system had evolved to the point where a nuclear deterrent was
obsolete.” House of the Armed Services Committee Hearing on NUCLEAR
DETERRENCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY, June 25, 2015, p.7,
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg95318/pdf/CHRG-
114hhrg95318.pdf.
2
Eli Corin, “Presidential Nuclear Initiatives: An Alternative Paradigm for Arms
Control,” NTI, March 1, 2004, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/presidential-
nuclear-initiatives/.
3
UNODA, “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Text of
the Treaty,” https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text.
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 233
4
Ronald Reagan, “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the
Union,” January 25, 1984, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40205.
5
CTBTO, “STORY: Gorbachev on Reykjavik and Nuclear Weapons Today,”
September 12, 2012,
ftp://ftp.ctbto.org/Reykjavik_Press_Kit/VIDEO/Shotsheet_Gorbachev_soundbites_
cutaways_final.pdf.
6
George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, “A World
Free of Nuclear Weapons,” The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007,
(https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116787515251566636). For a summary, see George
P. Shultz, “The War That Must Never Be Fought,” The Hoover Institution, March
12, 2015, https://www.hoover.org/research/war-must-never-be-fought-0.
7
Barack Obama, “Remarks By President Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered”,
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, April 05, 2009,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-
obama-prague-delivered.
8
Hans M. Kristensen, Robert S. Norris, “Estimated Global Nuclear Warhead
Inventories 1945-2017,” https://fas.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/history2017.jpg. See also Global Affairs Press, “Status of
World Nuclear Forces 2017,” February 28, 2017,
https://globalaffairspressdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/status-of-world-
nuclear-forces-2017/.
9
U.S. Department of State, “Treaty Between The United States Of America And The
Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Elimination Of Their Intermediate-
Range And Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty),” Bureau of Arms Control,
Verification and Compliance, (https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm,
accessed February 21, 2018). A total of 2,926 missiles were eliminated, 866 for U.S.
and 1826 for the USSR. SIPRI Yearbook 2007: Armaments, Disarmament, and
International Security. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 683.
10
Terence Neilan, “Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake”,
The New York Times, December 13, 2001,
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-
putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html.
11
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, “Foreign Policy Concept of
the Russian Federation (approved by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir
234 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
12
Wade Boese, “U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted,” Arms
Control Today, July/August 2002, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_07-
08/abmjul_aug02.
13
The Warsaw Reflection Group Report, “Arms Control Revisited: Non-
proliferation and Denuclearization,” The Polish Institute of International Affairs,
Warsaw, November 20–21, 2008, https://www.pism.pl/files/?id_plik=2941.
14
Private information from an advisor to the UN Secretary General, April 4, 2016.
15
Stefan Forss, “Rysslands problematiska ställning som kärnvapenstormakt”
(Russia’s problematic position as nuclear superpower), Proceedings of the Royal
Swedish Academy of War Sciences, No. 3, 1997, pp. 59–84.
16
Ibid. See also, Glen M. Segell, “European Security and the Russian Duma,” Journal
of Defense & Security Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2002, pp. 75–84.
17
Carl Bildt and Radek Sikorski, “Next, the Tactical Nukes,” New York Times,
February 1, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02iht-edbildt.html.
Mr Bildt spoke at the Paris Summit. In a private mail, the late French nuclear expert,
Professor Thérèse Delpech soon reported: “What I can tell you, is that the Russians
were furious.”
18
President Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Obama at the Brandenburg Gate
-- Berlin, Germany,” June 19, 2013, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-
press-office/2013/06/19/remarks-president-obama-brandenburg-gate-berlin-
germany.
19
Sputnik International, “Nuclear Arms Reduction Deals To Become Multilateral,”
June 22, 2013, https://sputniknews.com/world/20130622181811968-Nuclear-Arms-
Reduction-Deals-to-Become-Multilateral--Lavrov/.
20
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, “Foreign Policy
Concept of the Russian Federation (approved by President of the Russian
Federation Vladimir Putin on November 30, 2016),” December 1, 2016, § 27 f,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/official_documents/-
/asset_publisher/CptICkB6BZ29/content/id/2542248.
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 235
21
The Finnish moderator at the event at the Finnish National Defence University,
Colonel Heikki Hult challenged general Ivashov: “With all due respect, Sir, but what
about the Korean War, the Berlin crisis, and particularly the Cuban missile crisis of
1962?” Ivashov did not answer.
22
Arms Control Association, “The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) on
Tactical Nuclear Weapons at a Glance,” Fact Sheets & Briefs, July 2017,
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/pniglance.
23
Arms Control Association, “The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) on
Tactical Nuclear Weapons at a Glance,” Fact Sheets & Briefs, July 2017,
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/pniglance.
24
Igor Sutyagin, “Atomic Accounting – A New estimate of Russia’s Non-Strategic
Nuclear Forces” RUSI Occasional Paper, November 2012, p. 53,
https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201211_op_atomic_accounting.pdf.
25
Ibid.
26
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, “Missile Troops and Artillery,”
http://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/forces/ground/structure/rvia.htm (accessed 3
December 2017).
27
Igor Sutyagin, “Atomic Accounting – A New estimate of Russia’s Non-Strategic
Nuclear Forces.”
28
Vek, "NATO's Expansion and Russia's Security," Viktor Mikhailov, Igor
Andryushin, Alexander Chernyshev; 20 September 1996. See also, C. Austin Reams,
“Russia’s Atomic Czar: Viktor N. Mikhailov,” Center for International Security
Affairs Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-UR-97-234, December 1996, pp. 16-17,
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/077/28077312.
pdf.
29
Oleg Odnokolenko, “Russian Hawks Are Heard in Europe,” Segodnya, December
17, 1999, pp. 1, 3; Defence and Security, No. 150, 22 December 1999.
30
Nikolai Zlobin, “A close look at Russia’s leaders: Meeting Putin and Ivanov,” The
Defense Monitor 33, No. 5 (September–October 2004).
236 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
31
George P. Shultz, Steven P. Andreasen, Sidney D. Drell, James Goodby,
“Reykjavik Revisited: Steps Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons (complete
report),” Hoover Institution, August 6, 2009, p. 147. See also: Hubert Wetzel,
Demetri Sevastopulo, and Guy Dinmore, “Russia confronted Rumsfeld with threat
to quit key nuclear treaty,” https://www.ft.com/content/97c0ab8c-9013-11d9-9a51-
00000e2511c8, March 8, 2005. See also: STRATFOR, “Geopolitical diary: A polite
meeting about missiles,” https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitical-diary-
polite-meeting-about-missiles. Aug 29, 2006. See also: Nikolai Sokov, “Russia
military debates withdrawal from the INF Treaty,” October 2006. See also: Pavel
Podvig, “Russia wants to pull out of the INF Treaty,” August 25, 2006,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/08/russia_wants_to_pull_out_of_th.shtml.
32
Sputnik News, “Scrapping Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles a Mistake – Ivanov –
1,” February 7, 2007, https://sputniknews.com/russia/2007020760350944/.
33
Russian President Vladimir Putin, “Transcript: Putin’s prepared remarks at 43rd
Munich Conference on Security Policy,” Washington Post, December 2, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html (accessed December 3,
2017).
34
U.S. Department of State Archive, Office of the Spokesman, “Joint U.S.–Russian
statement on the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-
Range Missiles at the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly,” Oct. 25, 2007,
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/oct/94141.htm and Vitaly I. Churkin,
“Statement by Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian Federation’s Permanent Representative
to the UN, in the UN General Assembly’s first committee introducing the joint
Russian – United States statement on the INF Treaty,” Oct. 25, 2007,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7249/j.ctt3fh15z.16.pdf.
35
The arguments presented follow two lines: suspicion of deployment of offensive
arms in the BMD launchers, and fear of BMD eroding Russia’s nuclear deterrent,
strongly refuted by Russia’s leading missile designers and professionals. President
Putin: “if this missile [defense] system is put in place, it will work automatically with
the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the
U.S. nuclear capability.” President of Russia, “Interview with newspaper journalists
from G8 member countries, June 4, 2007,”
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24313. Yuri Solomonov, Chief
missile designer: “It is becoming obvious now that all that ballyhoo over the US
missile shield in Europe is just another bluff.” “US ballistic missile shield for Europe:
between propaganda and real threats,” Radio Voice of Russia, June 6, 2013, n.l. Dr.
Alexey Arbatov mentions several Russian top missile experts concurring. Alexei
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 237
36
President of Russia, “Expanded Meeting of the Defence Ministry Board”,
December 22, 2017, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56472.
37
“Russia to compensate for INF losses with Iskander system,” Sputnik International
(former RIA Novosti), November 14, 2007,
https://sputniknews.com/russia/2007111488066432/.
38
Roger McDermott and Tor Bukkvoll, “Russia in the Precision-Strike regime –
military theory, procurement and operational impact,” Nowegian Defence Research
Establishment (FFI), August 1, 2017, p. 17 https://www.ffi.no/no/Rapporter/17-
00979.pdf.
39
President of Russia, “Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation,”
November 5, 2008, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/1968.
40
Sergei Balmasov, “Russia shows Iskander Missile systems to NATO,” Pravda,
December 17, 2010, http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/17-12-
2010/116249-iskander-0/.
41
Johan Norberg and Fredrik Westerlund, ”Russia’s Armed Forces in 2016,” in
Russian Military Capability in a Ten-Year Perspective – 2016 (Gudrun Persson, ed.),
The Swedish Defence Research Establishment (FOI), December 2016, pp.53-54,
https://www.foi.se/rapportsammanfattning?reportNo=FOI-R--4326--SE.
42
Alexander Bondar, “Oruzhie v Umelykh Rukakh,” Krasnaya Zvezda, November
23, 2017, http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/component/k2/item/35173-oruzhie-v-
umelykh-rukakh. See also Russian Defense Policy Blog, “Iskander-M in
Kaliningrad,” November 27, 2017,
https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2017/11/27/iskander-m-in-kaliningrad/ and Live
Journal, “152nd gvardeiskaya raketnaya brigda v Kaliningrade poluchilia raketnye
kompleksy ‘Iskander-M,’” Nov. 25, 2017,
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2970466.html.
43
“Russian ground forces to be fully rearmed with ballistic Iskander-M missiles by
late 2020,” TASS, May 24, 2017 http://tass.com/defense/947360.
238 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
44
For a good general technical description, see MilitaryRussia.ru, “Комплекс 9К720
Искандер - SS-26 STONE,” http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-816.html.
45
Johan Norberg and Fredrik Westerlund, “Russia’s Armed Forces in 2016.” See also
World Daily News, “Russia wants to increase the Iskander-M missile range,” World
Daily News, May 23, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9pcDbLKSM.
46
“9K720 Iskander - SS-26 STONE,” Military Russia, 2014,
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-817.html.
47
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, “Zapad 2017: Iskander-K Tactical
Ballistic Missile System launched a missile during active phase of drills (Leningrad
Region),”
http://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/forces/ground/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=45272@c
msPhotoGallery.
48
The nominal range for the ballistic missile Iskander-M is estimated to be about
700 kilometers. The range of the cruise missile is 1,500–2,000 kilometers. A rule of
thumb used by FOI is that operational ranges are about two thirds of nominal
ranges. For a technical assessment of the ballistic missile Iskander-M, see Stefan
Forss: “The Russian Operational-Tactical Iskander Missile System,” The Finnish
National Defence University, Department of Strategic and Defence Studies, Series 4:
Working Papers No 42, 2012,
https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/84362/StratL4_42w.pdf.
49
Pavel Podvig, “The INF Treaty culprit identified. Now what?” Russian Strategic
Nuclear Forces Blog, December 5, 2017,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2017/12/the_inf_treaty_culprit_identif.shtml.
50
Roger McDermott and Tor Bukkvoll 2017, p. 12,
https://www.ffi.no/no/Rapporter/17-00979.pdf.
51
The U.S. Department of State, “Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control,
Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments,” July 2014, p.
8, https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/230108.pdf.
52
Michael R. Gordon, “Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging
Trump,” February 14, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-
control-treaty.html.
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 239
53
Dave Majumdar, “Novator 9M729: The Russian Missile that Broke INF Treaty’s
Back?” The National Interest, December 7, 2017,
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/novator-9m729-the-russian-missile-
broke-inf-treatys-back-23547.
54
Mikhail Barabanov, “Esho o razvertyvanii Rossei krylatyx raket 9M729,” (More on
the deployment of cruise missiles 9M729), CAST bmpd Blog, February 17, 2017
(https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2438303.html)
55
Semen Kabakaev, “Russia Deploys Banned Missile and Brags about It,” The
Atlantic Council Blog, May 10, 2017,
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russia-deploys-banned-missile-
and-brags-about-it. See also Military Update, “Kalibr NK: The Russian Cruise
Missile - That Shocked the World,” October 13, 2017,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtMDmTcW00Y. The video is interesting as it
also shows an animation of a land-based Kalibr system, possibly similar to the
system the US claims is prohibited by the INF.
56
See Barabanov “Esho o razvertyvanii Rossei krylatyx raket 9M729.” See Dave
Majumdar, “Novator 9M729: The Russian Missile that Broke INF Treaty’s Back?”
FAS researcher Hans Kristensen, however, tries to give the opposite impression
from a simple small deletion in an intelligence report. See Hans M. Kristensen,
“NASIC Removes Russian INF-Violating Missile From Report,” Federation of the
American Scientists, Strategic Security Blog, August 22, 2017
(https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/08/nasic-2017-corrected/.
57
See Norberg and Westerlund,” Russia’s Armed Forces in 2016.”
58
Ibid., p. 40.
59
Ibid.
60
Roman Azanov, “Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces as its decisive defense,” TASS,
December 19, 2017, http://tass.com/defense/981811. See also Mark Schneider,
“Additional Russian Violations of Arms Control Agreements,” RealClearDefense,
December 18, 2017,
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/18/additional_russian_violation
s_of_arms_control_agreements_112795.html.
61
Pavel Podvig, “More news about the RS-26 missile,” The Russian Strategic Forces
Blog, December 18, 2013,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/12/more_news_about_rs-26_missile.shtml.
240 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
62
Pavel Podvig, “RS-26 missile is tested and ready for deployment,” The Russian
Strategic Forces Blog, March 26, 2015,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/12/more_news_about_rs-26_missile.shtml. See
also Interfax, “Razrabotka strategicheskoi raket’ RS-26 – odin iz otvetnykhh shagov
na rasvertyvanie PRO SshA – istotchnik v Minoborony’ RF” (Developing strategic
missile RS-26 - one of the reciprocal steps to the deployment of US missile defense -
source in the Russian Defense Ministry),
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=370944.
63
Pavel Podvig, “Russia tests new prototype of ICBM,” The Russian Strategic Forces
Blog, May 23, 2012,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/05/russia_tests_prototype_of_a_ne.shtml.
64
Pavel Podvig, “New ICBM tested in Kapustin Yar,” The Russian Strategic Forces
Blog, October 24, 2012,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/new_icbm_tested_in_kapustin_ya.shtml.
65
Aleksandr Golts, “Russia’s Rubezh Ballistic Missile Disappears off the Radar,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, September 27, 2017, https://jamestown.org/program/russias-
rubezh-ballistic-missile-disappears-off-the-radar/.
66
See Gudrun Persson, ed., “Russia’s Armed Forces in 2016.”
67
“Russia’s latest rocket and artillery systems,” TASS, November 20, 2017,
http://tass.com/defense/976431.
68
See Stefan Forss, “The Russian Operational-Tactical Iskander Missile System.” See
also Viktor Myasnikov, “Full reverse,” Defense & Security, No. 131, November 23,
2007, http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/12998773.
69
Tom Demerly, “Russia Test Fires New Kh-47M2 Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile,”
The Aviatonist, March 12, 2018, https://theaviationist.com/2018/03/12/russia-test-
fires-new-kh-47m2-kinzhal-hypersonic-missile/.
70
Dave Majumdar, “Russia: New Kinzhal Aero-Ballistic Missile Has 3,000 km Range
if Fired from Supersonic Bomber,” The National Interest, July 18, 2018,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-new-kinzhal-aero-ballistic-missile-has-
3000-km-range-if-fired-supersonic-bomber.
71
Pavel Podvig, “Typhoon submarines decommissioned,” The Russian Strategic
Forces Blog, April 29, 2004,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2004/04/typhoon_submarines_decommissio.shtml.
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 241
72
Military Russia, “RT-2PM2, RS-12M1 / RS-12M2 Topol-M - SS-27 SICKLE-B /
STALIN,” January 7, 2018, http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-894.html.
73
U.S. Department of State, “Treaty Between the United States of America and the
Russian Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive
Arms (START II),” January 3, 1993,
https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102887.htm#treatytext. Reference: Article I, para
4(b) & 4 (c).
74
Military Russia, “RS-24 Yars / Topol-MR - SS-X-29 / SS-29 / SS-27 mod.2
SICKLE-B,” September 23, 2017, http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-430.html.
75
Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, ”Russian nuclear forces, 2017,” The
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73:2, 2017, pp. 115 – 126,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1290375.
76
Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, in President of Russia, “Expanded Meeting of
the Defence Ministry Board,” December 22, 2017,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56472.
77
Roman Azanov, “TASS highlights the Strategic Missile Force’s modern combat
potential and its prospects,” TASS, December 19, 2017,
http://tass.com/defense/981811. Past history indicates that annual production goals
may not be achieved. An educated guess is that production in 2018 may be about
half of that announced.
78
Pavel Podvig, Strategic Rocket Forces,” The Russian Strategic Forces Blog, June 22,
2017, http://russianforces.org/missiles/.
79
Private information from Dr. Gunnar Arbman, Research Director, The Swedish
Defence Research Agency (FOI), October 11, 2004. The Russian designers were
particularly pleased that they were able to squeeze a nuclear charge into the 152 mm
artillery round, thereby beating their American colleagues with 3 millimeters.
Academician Yevgeny Avrorin confirmed this in an interview in 2013. See Российское
атомное сообщество (Russian Atomic Energy Community), Академик Евгений
Николаевич Аврорин: “Наука — это то, что можно сделать, а техническая
наука — это то, что нужно сделать” (Academician Yevgeny Nikolaevich Avrorin:
“Science is what can be done, and technical science is what needs to be done”), April
10, 2013, http://www.atomic-energy.ru/interviews/2013/04/10/41068.
80
A heavy ICBM has a launch weight larger than 106 metric tons and a throw-
weight larger than 4.35 tons. See U.S. Department of State, “START TREATY
242 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
81
“Istochnik Pervyi Polk s Raketnoi ‘Sarmat’ Dolzhen Zastupit' Na Boeovoye
Dezhurstvo v 2021 Godu” (“Source: The First Regiment With a Rocket ‘Sarmat’
Should Enter Combat Duty in 2021”), TASS, March 29, 2018, http://tass.ru/armiya-
i-opk/5076963.
82
“PC-28 / OCD Sarmat rocket 15A28 - SS-X-30,” MilitaryRussia.ru, March 31,
2018 http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-435.html.
83
President of Russia, “Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly”, March 1,
2018, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957.
84
Yuri Avdeev, “V oboime – ‘Sarmat’, ‘Kinzhal’, ‘Avangard,’ ” Krasnaia Zvezda,
March 12, 2018, http://redstar.ru/index.php/newspaper/item/36438-v-obojme-
sarmat-kinzhal-avangard; “SS-30 ?? / RS-28 / 15A28 Sarmat New Heavy ICBM,”
GlobalSecurity.org, https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ss-30.htm.
85
The accuracy of Soviet/Russian strategic missiles is generally believed to have been
lower than that of comparable US strategic missiles. Therefore, Moscow used
comparatively higher-yield warheads to ensure destruction of the designated target.
As missile accuracy has improved, the same effect on target can be achieved with
lower-yield warheads.
86
Franz-Josef Gady, “Russia Completes Ejection Tests of RS-28 Sarmat ICBM,” The
Diplomat, July 20, 2018, https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-completes-
ejection-tests-of-rs-28-sarmat-icbm/; “PC-28 / OCD Sarmat rocket 15A28 - SS-X-30
(draft),” Military Russia, March, 31, 2018, http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-
435.html. See also “Russia's RS-28 Sarmat ICBM: Hypersonic Disaster for US
Missile Defense Shield,” Sputnik News, May 4, 2017,
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705041053289933-russia-sarmat-us-missile-
defense/.
87
“Russia completes work on Avangard hypersonic missile system,” TASS, July 19,
2018, http://tass.com/defense/1014104.
88
Stefan Forss, ”Rysslands kärnvapenstyrkor,“ (Russia’s nuclear forces), FOI
Strategiskt Forum, No. 7, January 2001. According to Jane’s Fighting Ships 1999–
2000, Russia had only 17 SSBNs operational, a decline by almost ten in 1–2 years. In
addition, there were 27 SSGNs and SSNs capable of firing nuclear SS-N-21 Sampson
(S-10 Granat) cruise missiles and SS-N-19 Shipwreck (P-700 Granit) missiles. Harri
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 243
Tielinen, “Ryska marinen och dess framtidsperspektiv,” (The Russian Navy and Its
Future Prospects), FOA Strategiskt forum för säkerhetspolitik och omvärldsanalys,
No.3. May 1998, The Swedish Defence Research Establishment (FOA), Stockholm.
For 2017, the corresponding numbers are 13 SSBNs and 26 SSGNs and SSNs. IISS,
“Chapter Five: Russia and Eurasia,” The Military Balance 2017, p. 213,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04597222.2017.1271211.
89
Ibid.
90
Harri Tielinen, “Ryska marinen och dess framtidsperspektiv.”
91
Stefan Forss, ”Rysslands kärnvapenstyrkor.“
92
John Pike, “R-29RMU / R-29RGU / RSM-54 Sineva / SS-N-23 SKIFF,” Global
Security, https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r29rmu.htm.
93
Pavel Podvig, “Liner SLBM explained,” Russian strategic nuclear forces, Blog,
October 4, 2011 http://russianforces.org/blog/2011/10/liner_slbm_explained.shtml
and “Liner version of the R-29RM SLBM accepted for service,” April 2, 2014,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2014/04/liner_version_of_the_r-29rm_sl.shtml.
94
“VMF Rossii prinyal na vooruzhenie raketny kompleks s MBR “Lainer,” Voenno-
Promyshlenniy Kourier, April 2, 2014, https://vpk-news.ru/news/19774.
95
Pavel Podvig, “Bulava missile test history,” Russian strategic nuclear forces Blog,
June 20, 2017, http://russianforces.org/navy/slbms/bulava.shtml.
96
Pavel Podvig, “Bulava is finally accepted for service,” Russian Strategic Nuclear
Forces Blog, June 29, 2018,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2018/06/bulava_is_finally_accepted_for.shtml
97
Franz-Stefan Gady, “Russia to Launch Its Most Powerful Ballistic Missile Sub in
November,” The Diplomat, October 31, 2017,
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/russia-to-launch-its-most-powerful-ballistic-
missile-sub-in-november/. See also, Lukas Andriukaitis, “#MeanwhileInTheArctic:
Prince Vladimir Submarine Sets Sail,” AtlanticCouncil's Digital Forensic Research
Lab, November 27, 2017, https://medium.com/dfrlab/meanwhileinthearctic-prince-
vladimir-submarine-sets-sail-71cebd22f77d.
98
Pavel Podvig, “Strategic fleet.”
244 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
99
Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, “Expanded Meeting of the Defence Ministry
Board,” December 22, 2017, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56472.
100
Lukas Andriukaitis, “#MeanwhileInTheArctic: Prince Vladimir Submarine Sets
Sail.”
101
Zachary Keck, “Russia's Nuclear Submarine Force Is Back (Maybe),” The
National Interest, November 2017, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-
nuclear-submarine-force-back-maybe-23255?page=show.
102
Dave Majumdar, “The Russian Defense Ministry Is Showing Off Some Truly
Terrifying Weapons,” The National Interest, July 22, 2018,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-defense-ministry-showing-some-
truly-terrifying-weapons-26496, Dave Majumdar, “Just How Much of a Threat Is
Russia’s Status-6 Nuclear Torpedo?” The National Interest Blog, January 16, 2018,
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/just-how-much-threat-russias-status-6-
nuclear-torpedo-24094?page=show. See also James Drew, “Russia’s Doomsday
Torpedo Is a ‘Third Strike’ Weapon,” Aerospace Daily, January 24, 2018,
http://aviationweek.com/defense/russia-s-doomsday-torpedo-third-strike-weapon.
103
Mark B. Schneider, “Escalate to De-escalate,” US Naval Institute Proceedings,
February 2017 Vol. 143/2/1,368,
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-02.
104
”Minoborony opublikovalo video podvodnogo bespilotnika ‘Poseidon’: polnaya
neuyazvimost,” MK.ru, July, 19, 2018,
https://tv.mk.ru/video/2018/07/19/minoborony-opublikovalo-video-podvodnogo-
bespilotnika-poseydon-polnaya-neuyazvimost.html; YouTube, “President Vladimir
Putin predstavil Rossii novyie vidy vooruzhenii” (President Putin Introduced New
Types of Weapons to Russia),” March 31, 2018,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf_cjAutcY8.
105
First flight was in 1981, series production begun in 1984, in service 1987. Pavel
Podvig (ed.), “Ty-160 (Blackjack),” Strategicheskoye yadernoye vooruzhenie Rossii,
Moscow, IzdAT, 1998, pp. 338–339.
106
Thomas Malmlöf and Roger Roffey, “The Russian Defence Industry and
Procurement,” in Russian Military Capability in a Ten-Year Perspective – 2016
(Gudrun Persson, ed.), The Swedish Defence Research Establishment (FOI),
December 2016, p. 158, https://www.foi.se/rapportsammanfattning?reportNo=FOI-
R--4326--SE.
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 245
107
Pavel Podvig, “Russia’s ambitious plans for strategic bombers,” Russian Strategic
Nuclear Forces Blog, May 10, 2017,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2017/05/russias_ambitious_plans_for_st.shtml.
108
“Not Necessarily New,” Russian Defense Policy Blog, July 17, 2017,
https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2017/07/17/not-necessarily-new/.
109
Pavel Podvig, “First Tu-160M2 takes flight, production contract for ten aircraft
signed,” Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Blog, January 26, 2018,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2018/01/first_tu-160m2_takes_flight_pr.shtml.
110
IISS, “Chapter Five: Russia and Eurasia,” The Military Balance 2017, p. 211,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04597222.2017.1271211.
111
Pavel Podvig, “Russia’s ambitious plans for strategic bombers,” Russian Strategic
Nuclear Forces Blog, May 10, 2017,
http://russianforces.org/blog/2017/05/russias_ambitious_plans_for_st.shtml.
112
Ministry of Defense RF, “Remarks by Chief of General Staff of the Russian
Federation General of the Army Valery Gerasimov at the Russian Defence
Ministry’s board session (November 7, 2017),” Ministry of Defense RF, November 7,
2017, http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12149743@egNews.
113
Giovanni de Briganti, “Kalibr SLCMs in Syrian Theater of Operations,” Defense-
Aerospace, http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-
view/feature/5/178397/naval-cruise-missiles-and-russian-operations-in-syria.html.
The three-part article builds on information from TASS Defense, October 26–28,
2016. Although Kalibr is a sea- and land-based cruise missile system, the navigation
systems on air-launched cruise missiles are at least similar if not identical.
114
“What Makes Russia's Advanced Kh-101 Cruise Missiles Such a Powerful Force,”
Sputnik News, July 8, 2017, https://sputniknews.com/military/201707081055365770-
russia-kh101-cruise-missile/.
115
Ibid.
116
Ibid.
117
“Х-50 / статья 715/9-А-5015” (Kh-50 / Product 715/9-А-5015), Military Russia,
November 17, 2017, http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-891.html.
246 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
118
However important and representative the Kh-101 may be for Russia’s ambitions
regarding air warfare, it still is only one weapons system in the vast inventory of the
Russian air force. The blog MilitaryRussia.ru offers a quality source to explore
systems omitted here, including retired weapon systems, weapons in use and
weapons in development, such as future hypervelocity weapons. See, “Raketny
Kompleks Knizhal,” Military Russia, 2018, http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-
40.html.
119
William Burr and Svetlana Savranskaya, “Previously Classified Interviews with
Former Soviet Officials Reveal U.S. Strategic Intelligence Failure Over Decades,”
The Nuclear Vault, National Security Archive, Washington, DC, September 11,
2009, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/. The two-volume report by
BDM Federal Inc. (John. G. Hines, Senior Author, Ellis M. Mishulovich and John F.
Shull) on SOVIET INTENTIONS 1965 – 1985, written in September 1995, can be
accessed using the links provided in Burr’s and Safranskaya’s summary.
120
The period dealt with here was well before the MX program got under way in the
1970s, but that did not convince Dr. V.L. Kataev, Senior Advisor to the Chairman of
the Defense Industrial Department of the Communist Party Central Committee. He
claimed that Soviet intelligence had found references to the U.S. MX missile, a
highly accurate counterforce weapon, were found possibly as early as 1963. BDM
report, Vol. I, p. 2.
121
Interview with Dr. Vitaly N. Tsygichko, December 21, 1991, in John. G. Hines,
Senior Author, Ellis M. Mishulovich and John F. Shull, “SOVIET INTENTIONS
1965 – 1985, An Analytical Comparison of U.S. – Soviet Assessments During the
Cold War,” Volume II, BDM Federal Inc., September 22, 1995, pp. 150–151,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/vol%20II%20Tysgichko.PDF.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
124
Ibid.
125
Interview with Colonel General (ret.) Andrian A. Danilevich, September 21,
1992, in John. G. Hines, Senior Author, Ellis M. Mishulovich and John F. Shull,
“SOVIET INTENTIONS 1965–1985, An Analytical Comparison of U.S.-Soviet
Assessments During the Cold War,” Volume II, BDM Federal Inc., September 22,
1995, p. 27,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/vol%20iI%20Danilevich.pdf.
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 247
126
General Danilevich was a key officer as Assistant for Doctrine and Strategy to
Chiefs of the General Staff and having led the work on the top secret three-volume
Strategy of Deep Operations (Global and Theater), which was the basic reference
document for Soviet strategic and operational nuclear planning for at least the last
decade of the Soviet Union.
127
This probably is one of the first times that thoughts of “escalation” or “de-
escalation” in the sense it is discussed currently, was voiced.
128
Hines et al., “SOVIET INTENTIONS 1965 – 1985, An Analytical Comparison of
U.S. – Soviet Assessments During the Cold War.”
129
Andrei Kokoshin, “Ensuring Strategic Stability in the Past and Present:
Theoretical and Applied Questions,” Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center, June
2011, p. 34,
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Ensuring%20Strategic%2
0Stability%20by%20A.%20Kokoshin.pdf.
130
National Institute for Public Policy, “A New Nuclear Review for a New Age,”
National Institute Press 2017, April 2017, p. 25, http://www.nipp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/A-New-Nuclear-Review-final.pdf.
131
Jeff Daniels, “Pentagon chief sees new nuclear missile as bargaining chip against
Russians” CNBC News, February 6, 2018,
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/mattis-sees-new-nuclear-missile-as-bargaining-
chip-against-russia.html.
132
Andrei Kokoshin, “Ensuring Strategic Stability in the Past and Present:
Theoretical and Applied Questions,” Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center, June
2011, p. 4,
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Ensuring%20Strategic%2
0Stability%20by%20A.%20Kokoshin.pdf.
133
Ministry of Defence RF, “Remarks by Chief of General Staff of the Russian
Federation General of the Army Valery Gerasimov at the Russian Defence
Ministry’s board session.”
134
Per Olov Nilsson, “Rysslands militärdoktrin i början av 2000-talet” (Russia’s
Military Doctrine in the Beginning of the 21st Century), Proceedings of the Royal
Swedish Academy of War Sciences, No. 3, 2000, pp. 43-68; Jacob W. Kipp, “Russia’s
Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons,” Military Review, May-June 2001, pp. 27–38
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p124201coll1/id/235/rec/
248 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
4; Stephen J. Blank, “Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future,” U.S.
Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle, PA, 2011,
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1087; James T. Quinlivan
and Olga Oliker, “Nuclear Deterrence in Europe – Russian Approaches to a New
Environment and Implications for the United States,” RAND Corporation, 2011,
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1075.
pdf; Elbridge Colby, “Russia’s Evolving Nuclear Doctrine and its Implications”,
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, Note no01/2016, January 12, 2016,
https://www.frstrategie.org/web/documents/publications/notes/2016/201601.pdf.
135
Major General V. N. Levshin, Colonel A. V. Nedelin, Colonel M. E. Sosnovskii,
“O primenenii iadernogo oruzhiia dlia deeskalatsii voennykh deistvii,” (On the Use
of Nuclear Weapons for the De-escalation of Combat Actions), Voennaia Mysl, May
1999.
136
Jacob W. Kipp, “Russia’s Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons.”
137
Stanislav N. Voronin and Sergey T. Brezkun, “Strategicheskii v’igodnaiia
assimetria” (A strategically beneficial asymmetry), Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozreniie,
No 36, September 18, 1999, http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/1999-09-18/assimetria.html;
Vladimir F. Sivolob and Mikhail E. Sosnovskiy: "Realnost sderzhivaniia” (A Reality
of Deterrence: Algorithms for Nuclear Weapon Use Should Become a Component
Part of Military Doctrine), Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozreniie, October 22, 1999,
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/1999-10-22/reality.html.
138
James T. Quinlivan and Olga Oliker, “Nuclear Deterrence in Europe – Russian
Approaches to a New Environment and Implications for the United States.”
139
Matvei Kozhukin, “Iadernoe oruzhie – factor sderzhivaniia,” (Nuclear weapons –
a factor of deterrence), Krasnaya Zvezda, February 10, 2010,
http://old.redstar.ru/2010/02/10_02/1_03.html.
140
Jakob Hedenskog, Gudrun Persson and Carolina Vendil Pallin, ”Russia’s Armed
Forces in 2016,” in Russian Military Capability in a Ten-Year Perspective – 2016
(Gudrun Persson, ed.), The Swedish Defence Research Establishment (FOI),
December 2016, p. 112,
(https://www.foi.se/rapportsammanfattning?reportNo=FOI-R--4326--SE.
141
Russia Maritime Studies Institute (Translation by Anna Davis), “Fundamentals of
the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Naval Operations for the
Period Until 2030,” Russia Maritime Studies Institute, U.S. Naval War College,
Newport, Rhode Island, 2017,
http://dnnlgwick.blob.core.windows.net/portals/0/RMSI_RusNavyFundamentalsEN
Russian Nuclear Policy, Doctrine and Strategy | 249
G_FINAL%20(1).pdf?sr=b&si=DNNFileManagerPolicy&sig=i110Z1rxZVzKbB%2B
dHJ1CZuTxvwL3N7W34%2FLpksgT1Bs%3D, original in
http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/42117/page/2.
142
Ministry of Defense RF, “Remarks by Chief of General Staff of the Russian
Federation General of the Army Valery Gerasimov at the Russian Defence
Ministry’s board session (November 7, 2017).”
143
Ilya Kramnik, “Nedopustim dazhe vzryv odnoi bomby” (Even the explosion of
one bomb is inadmissible), Izvestia, October 16, 2017,
https://iz.ru/658069/nedopustim-dazhe-vzryv-odnoi-bomby.
144
U.S. Department of State, “Treaty Between The United States Of America And
The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Elimination Of Their
Intermediate-Range And Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).”
145
Mark B. Schneider, “Will Russia Build 8,000 Nuclear Weapons by 2026?”
RealClear Defense, January 26, 2018,
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/01/26/will_russia_build_8000_nucl
ear_weapons_by_2026_112963.html.
146
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the RF, “Foreign Ministry statement,”
February 5, 2018, http://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/maps/us/-
/asset_publisher/unVXBbj4Z6e8/content/id/3054864.
147
Anton Troianovski, “Putin ally warns of arms race as Russia considers response
to U.S. nuclear stance,” Washington Post, February 10, 2018,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-ally-warns-of-arms-race-as-russia-
considers-response-to-us-nuclear-stance/2018/02/10/23dd3cf2-0cf2-11e8-baf5-
e629fc1cd21e_story.html.
148
Dmitry Suslov, “Militarizing the Confrontation: Risks of the New US Nuclear
Posture Review,” Valdai Discussion Club, February 9, 2018,
http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/militarizing-the-confrontation-risks/.
149
Munich Security Conference 2018 Panel Discussion, “Nuclear Security: Out of
(Arms) Control?” February 17, 2018, https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-
library/munich-security-conference-2018/video/panel-discussion-nuclear-security-
out-of-arms-control/filter/video/. Referring to the new “U.S. Nuclear Posture
Review,” ambassador Kislyak actually accused the US of adopting this posture. He
also said that Russia is not going to change its position regarding negative security
guarantees.
250 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
150
Mark B. Schneider, “Russian Air-Delivered Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons,”
RealClear Defense, June 15, 2018,
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/06/15/russian_air-delivered_non-
strategic_nuclear_weapons_113537.html.
151
Stefan Forss, “Extending the New START Treaty – Problems to consider,” The
Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences Blog, August 14, 2018,
http://kkrva.se/extending-the-new-start-treaty-problems-to-consider/.
152
Bryan Bender, “Leaked document: Putin lobbied Trump on arms control,”
Politico, August 7, 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/07/putin-trump-
arms-control-russia-724718?cid=apn.
7. Putin’s ‘Asymmetric Strategy’:
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons in
Russian Defense Policy
Stephen Blank
Introduction
Vladimir Putin has been at war with the United States and the West
for over a decade.1 Already, on January 18, 2005, Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov told the Academy of Military Sciences,
Let us face it, there is a war against Russia under way, and it has
been going on for quite a few years. No one declared war on us.
There is not one country that would be in a state of war with
Russia. But there are people and organizations in various
countries who take part in hostilities against the Russian
Federation.2
More recently, Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Moscow office of the
Carnegie Endowment, observed that, for some time, “the Kremlin has
been de facto operating in a war mode.”3
The radical changes that have occurred since the end of the Cold
War in international relations and the considerable reduction of
the threat that a large-scale war, even more so a nuclear one, could
be unleashed, have contributed to the fact that, in the system of
views on the role of nuclear arms both in Russia and the US, a
political rather than military function has begun to prevail. In
relation to this, besides the traditional forms and methods in the
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 253
Since the late 1990s, Russia has developed and deployed: two new
types of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), including a
new road-mobile missile and a silo-based variant (Topol-M
Variant 2 and Yars); a new type of sea-launched ballistic missile
(SLBM), the Bulava-30, and two upgraded versions of an existing
SLBM (Sineva and Liner); a new class of ballistic missile
submarine (Borey); modernized heavy bombers, including the
Tu-160 (Blackjack) and Tu-95 (Bear); and a new long-range
strategic cruise missile (Raduga). Russia is also developing
additional strategic nuclear weapons systems, including: a new
road-mobile ICBM (Rubezh) and a new rail-mobile ICBM
(Barguzin); a new heavy ICBM (Sarmat) with multiple
independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs); a new “fifth
generation” missile submarine to carry ballistic and cruise
missiles; and a new stealthy heavy bomber to carry cruise missiles
and reportedly hypersonic missiles.12
new generation of ICBMs that “can beat US defense systems” and hold
the United States and Europe at risk. The new Sarmat (Satan-2) RS-
28 ICBM can allegedly destroy an area the size of Texas or France,
evade missile defenses and do so using hypersonic Multiple
Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) that are now permitted under
the New START treaty. The hypersonic missiles that allegedly can be
fitted to this system are currently in development under the title
Project 4202, a label that evidently refers to the hypersonic glide
vehicle (HGV), the Yu-71.15 Russian sources claim an 11,000-
kilometer range and up to 15 warheads for this weapon, a yield of up
to 760 kilotons and the building of launch silos that could withstand
seven nuclear strikes.16
Putin has repeatedly insisted that Russia focus on new and novel types
of weapons.27 Moreover, from Putin on down, Russian writers almost
unanimously see the US threatening both Russia and, more broadly,
the concept of strategic stability. Russia chides the US for
simultaneously building BMD systems in Europe and Asia as well as
for developing the capabilities to launch a Conventional Prompt
Global Strike (CPGS) using high-precision conventional weapons,
mainly delivered by air. Therefore, the aerospace attack is threat
number one. These new Russian weapons under construction
comprise nuclear, space, hypersonic weapons, and drones (unmanned
aerial vehicles—UAV) many of which are intended to rebuff just such
an attack, e.g. by using UAVs to counter UAVs.28
that it believes the former deter not only nuclear but also conventional
attacks. This mode of strategizing and thinking directly rebuts the
complacent and groundless notion that nuclear weapons only deter
other nuclear weapons. For Moscow, both sets of weapons are
intended to deter the US and/or NATO aerospace attacks (as Russia
calls it), thereby allowing Russia to operate offensively within the
umbrella of its potent integrated air defense system (IADS).
For example, in both the Black and Baltic Sea theaters, NATO and US
officials admit that Russia has created a combined-arms formation or
network of land, sea, air and electronic weapons that can bar NATO
entry to those “inland” seas.31 Professionals call this an A2/AD
strategy to bar NATO’s access to those seas and to Russian territory—
if not also the so-called near abroad. And in both cases, Russia’s
A2/AD posture is backed up by what appear to be credible threats of
first-strike nuclear weapons use in defense of Russia.32 In fact, Russia
has openly deployed nuclear-capable weapons to both theaters and
constantly talked of deploying the dual-use Iskander missile in
Kaliningrad before deploying these nuclear-capable weapons there in
2016.33
Since Putin cannot and will not offer Russians “bread”, i.e. economic
reform, he must instead provide imperial circuses to solidify his
domestic standing. And since the “war party” is ascendant in Russia,
it too must orient policy toward repeated probes, if not
confrontations, with the West.41 Finally, as the chairman of the Center
for Liberal Strategies, Ivan Krastev, has observed in fall 2017,
If we calculate all the programs for both new and incoming weapons
as well as life extension of exiting platforms we could see, by 2022, a
minimum of 2,976 warheads, and a maximum of 6,670 warheads, plus
another 800+ bomber warheads. These capabilities could allow Russia
a range of nuclear options from major nuclear war, where state
survival is at risk, down to limited nuclear war being conducted to
achieve vital national interests. For limited nuclear warfare scenarios,
the forces needed for attacks on adversary military forces/bases, fleets
and critical infrastructure to achieve conflict objectives could consist
of:
Boldyrev’s remarks, like those on armored vehicles, show that he, and
presumably his colleagues, fully expected that Russia if not both sides
will use nuclear weapons as strike weapons in combat operations.59
Ostkraft analysts emphasize that the Yu-74 gliders would not only
evade NATO’s missile defense systems but will also be capable of
penetrating through the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) shield. The analysts argue that while the THAAD
system is effective in intercepting outdated R-17 Elbrus tactical
ballistic missiles, it is potentially vulnerable to the threat posed by
advanced missile systems. 78
Of course, if that is really the truth and Moscow can breach THAAD,
then it remains a mystery why Moscow, if not Beijing, are so upset
that South Korea, which clearly faces a serious missile and nuclear
threat from North Korea, opted to join the US THAAD network.79
Similarly, and in keeping with the idea that nuclear and futuristic
weapons are valued as much for their power to intimidate as for their
actual capabilities, it is not unusual to encounter statements of this
kind in the Russian media even as Moscow endlessly fulminates that
it is under threat from the US and its allies. Indeed, the following
statement tangibly manifests the combination of overcompensation
and groundless boasting to intimidate on the one hand, with
ingrained paranoia of the Russian leadership on the other:
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 273
The Russian military are about to test the first prototypes of the
S-500 Prometey air and missile defense system also known as
55R6M Triumfator M—capable of destroying ICBMs, hypersonic
cruise missiles, and planes at over Mach 5 speeds; and capable of
detecting and simultaneously attacking up to ten ballistic missile
warheads at a range of 1,300 km. This means the S-500 can smash
ballistic missiles before their warheads re-enter the atmosphere.
So […] the S-500 would totally eliminate all NATO air power over
the Baltic States—while the advanced Kornet missile would
destroy all NATO armored vehicles. And that’s not even
considering conventional weapon hell [Russian thermobaric
weapons].
If push came to nuclear shove, the S-400 and especially the S-500
anti-missile missiles would block all incoming US ICBMs, cruise
missiles, and stealth aircraft. Offensive drones would be blocked
by drone defenses. The S-500 practically consigns into the dustbin
stealth warplanes such as the F-22, F-35, and the B-2.
Nuclear Strategy
In other words, the most likely use (at least intended use before a war)
of Russian nuclear weapons has until recently been for what would be
considered a limited or local or regional war (the latter being the
Russian terminology). Indeed, Russian writings on nuclear strategies
distinguish between strategic deterrence contingencies and more
localized or regional deterrence scenarios. The first could involve a
“superpower” exchange of nuclear strikes with Washington, with
ICBMs and SLBMs figuring prominently. Whereas, in the second,
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 281
This strategy goes far beyond the misconceived US idea that the
strategy is “escalate to deescalate.” That concept only applies in the
context of Russia losing a regional war. In fact these weapons are to be
brandished from the outset to deter and dissuade its rival from
reacting at all in the first place. Russia’s nuclear weapons would be
deployed to prevent any kind of NATO reaction to war or to deter
China from attacking in the East (though China’s threat is rarely
commented upon publicly in Moscow). Official or quasi-official
statements make this point openly. For example, Deputy Foreign
Minister Sergei Ryabkov has written that,
This strategy makes considerable sense for Russia from its perspective.
As Williams points out,
Further adding to the risks on the Russian side is the fact that,
throughout Russian history, protracted war, often arising from such a
misperception of a quick and decisive victory, invariably put the
Russian state’s or political system’s survival at risk. Those conditions
are explicitly identified in Russia’s national security and defense
doctrines as justifying nuclear use.110 This is especially true when the
successful conduct of such supposedly quick and decisive wars and
conflicts is a (if not the) precondition of the system’s survival.
Therefore, the nuclear threat does not come into play after having
achieved strategic success but throughout all phases of the conflict,
including pre-military ones. This makes that attainment of decisive
strategic success in the initial or early phase/s of the war by
conventional and so-called “hybrid” (New Generation Warfare)
means all the more demanding a requirement—which is therefore
more susceptible to deterrence if Russia encounters a determined
conventional resistance.
Some Russian generals and leaders have already called for placing
language in the defense doctrine or in the classified nuclear annex that
would spell out the conditions under which Russia might launch a
preemptive nuclear strike.112 Similarly, in 2009, Russian National
Security Council Secretary Sergei Patrushev revealed that Russian
nuclear doctrine provided for the first and even preemptive use of
nuclear weapons in local and regional wars, something not evident on
its face.113 It also appears that Russia has simulated such operations—
for example, in a 2013 aerial exercise that practiced a nuclear attack
on neutral Sweden.114 And there are calls in the military literature for
launching preventive or preemptive nuclear strikes against NATO in
the event of a war in Europe. In a limited war, these strikes might aim
to deescalate the war; but they also could be used in a bigger conflict,
apparently and presumably to escalate the war.115 Nevertheless, recent
official statements expressly say that Russia regards the kinds of
weapons that could be used in a preemptive attack—like TNW or low-
yield high-precision nuclear weapons—as destabilizing because they
inherently lower the threshold for nuclear strikes. Commenting on
the recent announcement that the US is developing the B61-12 TNW,
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that,
Conclusions
Much more could and has been said about Russian nuclear strategy.
And based on the evidence of Zapad 2017, Moscow may be
reconsidering the possibility of having to fight a major theater
conventional war as a possible contingency that could quickly escalate
to the nuclear level.118 But in reality, a nuclear exchange would only
occur if Moscow triggers actual combat hostilities (not IW as is now
the case). Russia’s most recent doctrinal statements all evince a
preference for non-nuclear deterrence because it knows all too well
what nuclear war means.119 Nevertheless, as we have seen, Russia’s
nuclear procurements point toward first use rather early on,
suggesting that Dmitry Adamsky is correct in postulating a serious
disconnect between writings on nuclear war and Moscow’s actual
strategy, much as occurred under the Soviet Union.120 This is
disquieting and obliges us to take both doctrine and procurement, not
to mention exercises, with utmost seriousness.
Notes
1
“Putin’s Revenge,” Frontline, PBS, October 25 and November 1, 2017,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-revenge/.
2
M.A. Gareyev, Srazheniya na Voenno-Istoricheskom Fronte, Moscow: ISAN Press,
2010, p. 729 cited in MG I.N. Vorob’ev (RET) and Col. V.A. Kisel’ev (Ret),
“Strategies of Destruction and Attrition,” Moscow, Military Thought, in English,
NO. 1, 2014, January 1-2014-March 31, 2014, accessed, June 2, 2014.
3
Trenin quoted in Ivo H. Daalder, “Responding to Russia’s Resurgence
Not Quiet on the Eastern Front,” Foreign Affairs, October 16, 2017,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2017-10-16/responding-russias-
resurgence.
4
Text of Russian Defense Doctrine,
www.carnegieendowment.org/files/2010russia_militarydoctrine.pdf; “Military
Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” February 5, 2010, www.kremlin.ru, Open
Source Center, Foreign Broadcast Information Service, Central Eurasia, (Henceforth
FBIS SOV), February 9, 2010; Voyennaia Doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii, December
26, 2014, www.kremlin.ru; Natsional’naya Strategiya Bezopasnosti Rossii, do 2020
Goda, Moscow, Security Council of the Russian Federation, May 12, 2009,
www.scrf.gov.ru, in English it is available from FBIS SOV, May 15, 2009, in a
translation from the Security Council website (Henceforth NSS); Natsional’naya
Strategiya Bezopasnosti Rossii, www.kremlin.ru, December 31, 2015.
5
Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, “The Myth of Russia’s Lowered Nuclear Threshold,” War
On the Rocks, https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/the-myth-of-russias-lowered-
nuclear-threshold/, September 22, 2017.
6
Bildt Plays Down Russian Nuclear Threat,” The Local, August 18, 2008,”
http://www.thelocal.se/13780/20080818; Mark Franchetti, “Russia’s New Nuclear
Challenge to Europe,” The Times Online, August 17, 2008,
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russias-new-nuclear-challenge-to-europe-
5kngpw8vj6q.
7
Ilya Kedrov, “An Expert Evaluation: A universal Armored Vehicle; The Infantry
Needs a Fundamentally New Combat Vehicle and Not a Taxi to the Forward Edge
of the Battle Area,” Moscow, Voyenno-Promyshlennyi Kuryer Online, in Russian,
May 26, 2010, FBIS SOV, June 4, 2010.
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 289
8
FBIS SOV, October 19, 2008.
9
“Russia RVSN Military Academy Discussing Strategic Deterrence,” ITAR-TASS,
September 22, 2008, Johnson’s Russia List, No. 173, September 22, 2008,
ww.worldsecurityinstitute.org.
10
National Institute For Public Policy, Foreign Nuclear Developments: a Gathering
Storm, Fairfax, VA, National Institute For Public Policy, 2015, pp. 2-9; Dmitry
Adamsky, “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking about “Regional Nuclear
Deterrence,” Mark B. Schneider, “Russian Nuclear Weapons Policy and Programs,
the European Security Crisis, and the Threat to NATO,” James R. Howe, “Future
Russian Strategic Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Forces: 2022,” All Forthcoming in
Stephen J. Blank, Ed., The Russian Military In Contemporary Perspective, Carlisle
Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2018.
11
“Corridors of Power; Head of Federation Council Defense Committee sees
no threat in U.S. nuclear exercise, Interfax-America, October 30, 2017, as made
available to the author by Mark Schneider.
12
National Institute for Public Policy, Foreign Nuclear Developments: a Gathering
Storm, Fairfax, VA, 2015, pp. 2–9.
13
“Barguzin Rail-Mobile Project Is Cancelled (Again),” Russian Strategic Nuclear
Forces Blog, December 4, 2017, http://russianforces.org/blog/2017/12/barguzin_rail-
mobile_icbm_is_c.shtml.
14
Dave Majumdar, “Russia’s Just Tested Its New ICBM Armed With “Experimental
Warheads”, www.nationalinterest.org, September 23, 2017.
15
Franz-Stefan Gady, “Russia To Test Deadliest Nuke Twice Before Year’s End,”
www.thediplomat.com, October 25, 2017.
16
Ibid; Jon Sharman, “Russia to Test New Generation Of Intercontinental Missile
That Can’ Beat US Defense Systems,” www.independent.co,uk, October 24, 2017.
17
“Vladimir Putin Took Part In Strategic Nuclear Forces’ Training,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55929, October 27, 2017; Franz-Stefan
Gady, “Russia Test Fires 4 Intercontinental-Range Ballistic Missiles,’
www.thediplomat.com, October 27, 2017.
18
“Presentation Of Officers Appointed To Senior Command Posts,”
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55923, October 27, 2017.
290 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
19
Ibidem.
20
Michael Kofman, “Zapad 2017: Beyond the Hype, Important Lessons for the US
and NATO,” https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/zapad-
2017-beyond-the-hype-important-lessons-for-the-us-and-nato/, October 27, 2017;
https://www.diplomaatia.ee/en/article/zapad-2017-what-did-these-military-
exercises-reveal/; Roger McDermott, “Zapad 2017 and the Initial Period Of War,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 14, Issue 115, The Jamestown Foundation,
September 20, 2017, https://jamestown.org/program/zapad-2017-and-the-initial-
period-of-war/; Pavel K. Baev, “Militarization and Nuclearization,”: The Key
Features Of the Russian Arctic,”
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/11/01/militarization_and_nucleariz
ation_the_key_features_of_the_russian_arctic_112562.html, November 1, 2017;
https://forwardobserver.com/2017/10/recent-russian-nuclear-forces-exercises-
larger-than-first-believed/; Lukas Andriukaitis, #Military Matters: Russia’s Big Guns
On the Move: Analyzing Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces In Novosibirsk Oblast,”
www.medium.com, October 24, 2017.
21
Stephen Blank, What Do the Zapad-2013 Exercises Reveal?” Liudas Zdanavicius
and Matthew Czekaj Eds., Russia’s 2013 Zapad Military Exercise: Lessons For Baltic
Regional Security, Washington, D.C.: The Jamestown Foundation, 2015, pp. 8–13.
22
“Presidential Address To the Federal Assembly,” December 4, 2014,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/47173.
23
Quoted in Tor Bukkvoll, “Iron Cannot Fight-The Role of Technology in Current
Russian Military Theory,” Journal of Strategic Studies, XXXIV, NO. 5,2011, p. 690.
24
Ibid. pp. 690–691.
25
Denis Telmanov, “Polite But Formidable,’ Vladimir Putin Has Declared That the
Country Will Not Get Bogged Down In Costly Rivalry With the West,” Moscow,
Gazeta.ru, in Russian, December 4, 2014, FBIS SOV, December 4, 2014.
26
Zasedanie Mezhdunarodnogo Diskussionnogo Kluyba “Valdai,” October 19, 2017,
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/55882.
27
“Putin: Russia Not Going To Join New Arms Race But Will Develop Modern
Nuclear Arms,” Interfax, July 26, 2012, available at
http://search.proquest.com/professional/login; “Meeting of the Military-Industrial
Commission, “ www.en.kremlin.ru, June 28, 2016; “Meeting of Russian Federation
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 291
28
“Russian Military to Get “Drone-Killer UAV,” Izvestia, October 23, 2017,
Retrieved From BBC Monitoring, October 27, 2017.
29
“Putin Says, Russia Will Build New Weapons but Avoid Arms Race.” Yahoo!
News, www.yahoo.com, January 20, 2015.
30
“Meeting on Defense Industry Development,” May 13, 2016,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51911.
31
Andrew Fink, “Russia, Iran, and Inland Seas,” The American Interest, April 15,
2016, http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/15/russia-iran-and-inland-
seas/.
32
Captain Steven Horrell (USN), speech at the event, “The Changing Military
Balance in the Black Sea,” Atlantic Council of the US, Washington, D.C., June 15,
2016, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/events/past-events/black-sea-energy-and-
security-conference.
33
Jens Stoltenberg, “Adapting to a Changed Security Environment,” Speech, Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, May 27, 2015, available at
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_120166.htm (accessed October 14,
2015); “Russia To Respond to NATO Black Sea Force By Deploying New Weapons
– Report,” https://www.rt.com/politics/329414-russia-to-respond-to-nato/, January
19, 2016; “Russia Deploys Nuclear-Capable Missiles In Kaliningrad,”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37597075, October 9, 2016.
34
Kristen Ven Bruusgard, “Russian Strategic Deterrence, Lecture at Lawrence
Livermore Nuclear Laboratory, February 10, 2016, www.youtube.com.
35
Dmitry Adamsky, “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking about “Regional
Nuclear Deterrence,” Forthcoming in Stephen J. Blank, Ed., The Russian Military In
Contemporary Perspective, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US
Army War College, 2018.
36
Mark B. Schneider, “Russian Nuclear Weapons Policy and Programs, the
European Security Crisis, and the Threat to NATO,” James R. Howe, “Future
Russian Strategic Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Forces: 2022,” All Forthcoming in
292 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
37
“Russian Defense Analyst” Russia’s Being Drawn Into a New Arms Race With the
U.S. and NATO Countries,” www.memri.org, Special Dispatch No. 6449, May 26,
2016.
38
As stated in the remarks of Pavel Podvig and Nikolai Sokov a the Program,
“Russian Nuclear Strategy,” Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2016, https://www.csis.org/events/russian-nuclear-
strategy.
39
Ibid.; and for the Soviet period, Peter Almquist, Red Forge: Soviet Military
Industry Since 1965, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.
40
Adamsky, “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking about “Regional Nuclear
Deterrence.”
41
Pavel Felgenhauer, “‘Party Of War’ Triumphs In Moscow,” Eurasia Daily
Monitor, Volume 14, Issue 137, October 26, 2017, The Jamestown Foundation,
https://jamestown.org/program/party-war-triumphs-moscow/.
42
Ivan Krastev, “Robert Mueller Will Never Get to the Bottom of Russia’s
Meddling,” The New York Times, November 1, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/opinion/mueller-election-meddling-
russia.html.
43
Ibid.
44
Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Russian Nuclear Forces, 2015,”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 24, 2015, p. 85, available at
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/71/3/84.full.pdf+html (accessed October 14, 2015).
45
Schneider, Russian Nuclear Weapons Policy and Programs, the European Security
Crisis, and the Threat to NATO,” Howe, “Future Russian Strategic Nuclear and
Non-Nuclear Forces: 2022, Forthcoming in Stephen J. Blank, Ed., The Russian
Military In Contemporary Perspective, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies
Institute, US Army War College, 2018.
46
U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Defense, National Security
and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century, September 2008, p. 8, available at
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popareports/upload/nuclear-weapons.pdf
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 293
(accessed October 14, 2015). “Military Dominance Over Russia Impossible, Nuclear
Deterrent Top Priority – Defense Ministry,” RT, January 30, 2015, available at
http://rt.com/news/227811-russia-military-supremacy-modernization (accessed
October 14, 2015); “New Heavy ICBM To Be Put Into Service in 2018—Karakayev,”
Sputnik News, May 5, 2011, available at
http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2012_12_14/Russia-to-build-new-heavy-
ICBM-by- 2018-Karakayev/ (accessed October 14, 2015); and Steve Gutterman,
“Russia Plans New ICBM to Replace Cold War ‘Satan’ Missile,” Reuters, December
17, 2013, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/us-russia-missiles-
idUSBRE9BG0SH20131217 (accessed October 14, 2015); “Russia to Revive Nuclear
Missile Trains—RVSN Commander,” Interfax, December 16, 2014, available at
http://search.proquest.com/Professional/login (accessed October 14, 2015);
“Deployment of First Regiment With New Strategic Missile Complex Will Begin in
2014 -- General Staff,” Interfax-AVN, June 7, 2013 (transcribed by World News
Connection); Mark B. Schneider, “Russia’s Noncompliance with Arms Control
Obligations,” Gatestone Institute, July 31, 2013, available at
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3906/russia-arms-control (accessed October 14,
2015); National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Ballistic and Cruise Missile
Threat, 2013, available at http://www.afisr.af.mil/shared/media/ (accessed October
14, 2015); Vitaly Ankov, “Russian 5G Subs to Be Equipped with Ballistic, Cruise
missiles—Source,” RIA Novosti, March 19, 2011, available at
http://en.ria.ru/militar_news/20110319/1630910 53.htm (accessed October 14,
2015); “Russia Goes Ahead with 5G Submarine Project,” RIA Novosti, March 8,
2013, available at http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130318/180092698/Russia-
Goes-Ahead-with-5G-Submarine-Project.html (accessed October 14, 2015); “Russia
Speeds Up Development of New Strategic Bomber,” RIA Novosti, November 28,
2013, available at http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131128/185110769/Russia-
Speeds-Up-Development-of-New-Strategic-Bomber.html (accessed October 14,
2015).; “Russia’s New Bomber to Carry Hypersonic Weapons – Source,” Sputnik
News, August 30, 2013, available at
http://sputniknews.com/military/20130830/183062128/Russias-New-Bomber-to-
Carry-Hypersonic-Weapons--Source.html (accessed October 14, 2015); “Meeting
with Members of Political Parties Represented in the State Duma,” The Kremlin,
August 14, 2014, available at http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/22820 (accessed
October 14, 2015);“Russia to Produce Successor of Tu-160 Strategic Bomber After
2023,” Sputnik News, June 4, 2015, available at
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150604/1022954769.html; “The Kremlin,
Meeting with Members of Political Parties Represented in the State Duma,” August
14, 2014, available at http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/22820 (accessed October 14,
2015); “Russia to Produce Successor of Tu-160 Strategic Bomber After 2023,”
Sputnik News, June 4, 2015, available at
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150604/1022954769.html (accessed October 14,
294 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
47
Schneider, “Russian Nuclear Weapons Policy and Programs, the European
Security Crisis, and the Threat to NATO,” Forthcoming in Stephen J. Blank, Ed.,
The Russian Military In Contemporary Perspective, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic
Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2018.
48
Pavel Lisitcin, “Army; Russia sets Up Delivery Vehicles.”
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
Pavel Felgenhauer, “Russia Seeks to Impose New ABM Treaty On the US by
Developing BMD,” Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume 7, Issue 136, July 16, 2010, The
Jamestown Foundation, https://jamestown.org/program/russia-seeks-to-impose-
new-abm-treaty-on-the-us-by-developing-bmd/.
53
Schneider, “Russian Nuclear Weapons Policy and Programs, the European
Security Crisis, and the Threat to NATO,” Forthcoming in Stephen J. Blank, Ed.,
The Russian Military In Contemporary Perspective, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic
Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2018.
54
Howe, “Future Russian Strategic Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Forces: 2022,
Forthcoming in Stephen J. Blank, Ed., The Russian Military In Contemporary
Perspective, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College,
2018.
55
Ibid.
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 295
56
Lester Grau and Timothy Smith, “A 'Crushing' Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and
Grozny 2000, http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fuelair/fuelair.htm,
2001; Angela Dewan, “Reports of Chemical Gas Attacks in 2 Syrian cities,”
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/02/middleeast/syria-aleppo/index.html, August 2,
2016.
57
Igor Sutyagin, “Russia Confronts NATO” Confidence-Destruction Measures,”
RUSI, Royal United Services Institute, Briefing Paper, 2016, p. 7.
58
Artem Troitsky, “Interview With CINC Ground Troops General of the Army
Vladimir Anatolyevich Boldyrev,” Moscow, Voyenno-Promyshlennyi Kuryer, in
Russian, October 1, 2008, FBIS SOV, October 19, 2008.
59
Kedrov, FBIS SOV, June 4, 2010.
60
“Russia Developing Chemical Warfare Robots,” The Moscow Times, August 4,
2014, https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russia-developing-robots-for-military-
use-54858.
61
Karen De Young, “Russia, China veto At U.N. On Syria Chemical Weapons Is
‘Outrageous,’ U.S. Says,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/russia-china-veto-at-un-on-syria-chemical-weapons-is-outrageous-us-
says/2017/02/28/c69adcf4-fdeb-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html, February 28,
2017.
62
Zilinskas, p. 44.
63
Vladimir Putin, “Being Strong: We Should Not Tempt Anyone By Allowing
Ourselves to Be Weak,” Government of the Russian Federation, February 20, 2012,
http://archive.premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18185/.
64
Milton Leitenberg, “The Biological Weapons Program of the Soviet Union,”
Statement to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, May 7, 2014; Zilinskas, p. 45.
65
Ibid., pp. 46-49; Leitenberg, “The Biological Weapons Program of the Soviet
Union.”
66
“Expert Tells Congress He ’Presumes’ Russia Has Biolo9igcal Arms Program,”
www.nti.org, May 9, 2014.
296 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
67
Alexei Ivanov, “Electromagnetic Bombs Created In Russia,” Rossiyskaya Gazeta,
September 28, 2017, retrieved from BBC Monitoring, September 28, 2017.
68
John Keller, “New Russian Directed Energy Weapon Could Complicate U.S.
Military Strategic Planning, www.militaryaerospace.com, July 7, 2015.
69
“Flight Test Of a New Project 4202 Vehicle,” www.russianforces.org, March 3,
2015.
70
Sharman, “Russia to Test New Generation Of Intercontinental Missile That Can’
Beat US Defense Systems.”
71
“Russian Top Secret Hypersonic Glider Can Penetrate Any Missile Defense,”
Sputnik News, June 13, 2016,
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201606111041185729-russia-hypersonic-glider/.
72
Olga Bozhyeva, “Sources: Russia Successfully Tested New Missile Super weapon:
Developers Called Launch of Sarmat ICBM Warhead a ‘Fantastic Success,’”
Moskovsky Komsomolets, April 20, 2016, BBC Monitoring, April 20, 2016.
73
“Russian Top Secret Hypersonic Glider Can Penetrate Any Missile Defense,”
Sputnik News.
74
Ibid.
75
Olga Bozhyeva, “The ‘Stiletto’ Is In the Drawer – Russia is Testing Warheads On
ancient Missiles From Penetrating American Missile Defenses,” Moscow, Moskovsky
Komsomolets, in Russian, October 22, 2011, FBIS SOV, October 22, 2011.
76
Alexander G. Savelyev, “Russian Defense and Arms Control Policy and its
Prospects After the Presidential Elections,” UNISCI Discussion Papers, BNO. 17,
May, 2008, p. 104 www.unisci.es.
77
“Russian Top Secret Hypersonic Glider Can Penetrate Any Missile Defense,”
Sputnik News.
78
Ibid. Ostkraft refers to the website www.ostkraft.ru.
79
Stephen Blank,” Missile Defense in Korea Further Roils US-Russian Relations,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 13, Issue 133, The Jamestown Foundation, July 22,
2016, https://jamestown.org/program/missile-defense-in-korea-further-roils-us-
russian-relations/.
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 297
80
Pepe Escobar, “Beware What You Wish For: Russia is Ready For War,” RT, May
22, 2016, https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/.
81
Pavel Felgenhauer, “Russia’s Imperial General Staff,” Perspective, XVI, NO. 1,
October-November, 2005, www.bu.ed./iscip/vol16/felgenhauer.
82
Matt Bodner and Aaron Mehta “How a Pentagon Research Project Convinced
Vladimir Putin Of a coming Biowar,” Air Force Times, November 2, 2017,
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/11/02/how-a-
pentagon-research-project-convinced-vladimir-putin-of-a-coming-biowar/.
83
Kirk Bennett, “Russia’s Virtual Reality,” The American Interest, November 1,
2017, https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/01/russias-virtual-reality/.
84
“The U.S. and Russia Plan For conflict,” Stratfor, May 25, 2016,
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/us-and-russia-plan-conflict.
85
Sergei Karaganov, “A Cold War: A Forecast For Tomorrow,” Rossiyskaya Gazeta,
October 22, 2017, retrieved from Johnson’s Russia List, October 22, 2017.
86
Quoted in Rumer, pp. 19–20.
87
For descriptions of many of these programs see Amy F. Woolf, Conventional
Prompt Global Strike and Long-range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues,
Congressional Research Service, August 26, 2014.
88
Ilyas Gilzatudinov, “Russian Work on Defense Against Hypersonic Weapons
Systems In Full Swing,” Sputnik, Military and Intelligence, July 3, 2016,
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160703/1042360880/russian-anti-hypersonic-
capabilities-development.html.
89
Andrei Soldatov and Irina Bogoran, The Red Web: the Struggle Between Russia’s
Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries, New York: Public Affairs,
2015, p. 314.
90
Robert Nalbandov, Not By Bread Alone: Russian Foreign Policy Under Putin,
Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2016, pp. 19–116; Jacek Durkalec, “Russia’s
Evolving Nuclear Strategy and What It Means For Europe,” European Council on
Foreign Relations, July 5, 2016,
https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_russias_evolving_nuclear_strategy_and_w
hat_it_means_for_europe.
298 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
91
Marcel H. Van Herpen, Russia’s Nuclear Threats and the Security Of the Baltic
States, Cicero Foundation Great Debate Paper, No. 16/05, 2016, pp. 3–6.
92
Timothy L. Thomas, Recasting the Red Star: Russia Forges Tradition and
Technology through Toughness, Ft. Leavenworth, KS: Foreign Military Studies office,
US Army, 2011.
93
Marvin Kalb, Imperial Gamble: Putin, Ukraine, and the New Cold War,
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2015, p. 233.
94
Col. Thomas C. Kirkham, (USAF), “Modernizing the Nuclear Bomber Force: a
National Security Imperative”; Lt. Col. Donald M. Neff (USAF); and Stephen J.
Cimbala, “Nuclear Arms Reductions After NEW START: Obstacles and Options,”
all in Stephen J. Cimbala and Adam Lowther, Eds., Defending the Arsenal: Why the
Nuclear Triad Still Matters, Forthcoming, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company.
95
Charlie Cooper, “NATO Risks Nuclear War With Russia ‘Within a Year,’ Warns
Senior General,” The Independent, May 18, 2016,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-risks-nuclear-war-with-
russia-within-a-year-senior-general-warns-a7035141.html.
96
Mark B. Schneider, “Escalate To Deescalate” Proceedings of the US Naval Institute,
February 2017, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-02/escalate-de-
escalate.
97
Margarete Klein, Russia’s Military; On the Rise? Transatlantic Academy, 2015–
2016 Paper Series, German Marshall Fund, 2016, pp. 8–9.
98
Stephen Blank, “No Need to Threaten Us, We Are Frightened of Ourselves:
Russia’s Blueprint for a Police State,” in The Russian Military Today and Tomorrow:
Essays in Memory of Mary Fitzgerald, Stephen J. Blank and Richard Weitz eds.,
Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College, 2010, 19–
150; Andrew Monaghan, “Defibrillating the Vertikal: Putin and Russian Grand
Strategy,” Chatham House, 2014; Andrew Monaghan, Russian State Mobilization:
Moving the Country on to a War Footing – Chatham Hose, 2016,
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/dr-andrew-
monaghan#sthash.9Uf8wgVx.dpuf.
99
Adamsky, “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking about “Regional Nuclear
Deterrence.”
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 299
100
Since little or no modernization of US nuclear weapons has taken place, this
perfectly exemplifies the fictitious or mendacious, but certainly overwrought, nature
of Russian threat perceptions.
101
Sergey Ryabkov, “Changing Priorities in International Security,” Security Index,
XX, NO. 1, 2014, p. 23.
102
David S. Yost, “NATO’s Deterrence and Defense Posture After the Chicago
Summit,” U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Center on Contemporary Conflict, 2012,
p. 21.
103
Heather W. Williams, “Uncertainty in Escalation: Russian Strategy Interests and
Avoiding Nuclear Coercion,” unpublished paper, 2016.
104
Ibid.; Schneider; Prezident Rossii, Voyennaya Doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii, The
Kremlin, February 5, 2010; Voyennaya Doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii,” The Kremlin,
December 26, 2014; Natsional’naya Strategiya Bezopasnosti Rossii, do 2020 Goda,
Moscow, Security Council of the Russian Federation, May 12, 2009, in English it is
available from FBIS SOV, May 15, 2009, in a translation from the Security Council
website (Henceforth NSS); Natsional’naya Strategiya Bezopasnosti Rossii, The
Kremlin, December 31, 2015.
105
Heather W. Williams, “Uncertainty in Escalation: Russian Strategy Interests and
Avoiding Nuclear Coercion,” unpublished paper, 2016. Williams implies this but
does not say so outright; this is also based on the author’s conversations with high-
ranking US officials in Washington, DC, during 2016.
106
Nikolai Sokov, “Assessing Russian Attitudes Toward Phased, Deep Nuclear
Reductions,” The Nonproliferation Review, XX, NO. 2, 2013, pp. 251–252.
107
Williams, “Uncertainty in Escalation: Russian Strategy Interests and Avoiding
Nuclear Coercion.”
108
Gustav Gressel, “The Dangerous Decade: Russia-NATO Relations 2014 To 2024,”
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 5, 2016,
https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_dangerous_decade_russia_nato_relati
ons_2014_to_2024.
109
Ibid.
110
Voyennaya Doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii, The Kremlin, February 5, 2010;
Voyennaya Doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii, The Kremlin, December 26, 2014;
300 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
111
Ibid.
112
“Russian General Calls For Preemptive Nuclear Strike Doctrine Against NATO,”
The Moscow Times, September 3, 2014,
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russian-general-calls-for-preemptive-nuclear-
strike-doctrine-against-nato-39016.
113
“Russia to Broaden Nuclear Strike Options,” RT, October 14, 2009,
http://rt.com/news/russia-broaden-nuclear-strike/; Schneider, The Nuclear Doctrine
and Forces of the Russian Federation, op. cit., p. 21.
114
Armin Rosen, “NATO Report: A 2013 Russian Aerial Exercise Was Actually a
‘Simulated Nuclear Attack’ On Sweden,” Business Insider, February 3, 2016,
https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-report-russia-sweden-nuclear-2016-2.
115
Eugene Rumer, Russia and the Security of Europe, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Washington, DC, 2016,
https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CP_276_Rumer_Russia_Final.pdf, p. 21.
116
“Russia Says New US Nuclear bomb “Destabilizes Situation” RIA Novosti, August
3, 2016, retrieved from BBC Monitoring.
117
Lora Saalman, Gu Guoliang, Zou Yunhua, Wu Riqiang, Jian Zhang, “China and
Russia’s Nuclear Relations,” Carnegie-Tsinghua, July 7, 2013,
https://carnegietsinghua.org/2013/07/07/china-s-and-russia-s-nuclear-relations-
event-4167.
118
“Presentation Of Officers Appointed To Senior Command Posts,” October 27,
2017.
119
Voyennaya Doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii, The Kremlin, December 26, 2014;
Natsional’naya Strategiya Bezopasnosti Rossii, do 2020 Goda, Moscow, Security
Council of the Russian Federation, May 12, 2009, in English it is available from FBIS
SOV, May 15, 2009, in a translation from the Security Council website (Henceforth
NSS); Natsional’naya Strategiya Bezopasnosti Rossii, The Kremlin, December 31,
2015; Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, “The Myth of Russia’s Lowered Nuclear Threshold,”
Nuclear and New-Type Weapons | 301
120
Adamsky, “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking about “Regional Nuclear
Deterrence.”
8. Russia’s Offensive and Defensive Use
of Information Security
Sergey Sukhankin
Introduction
Over the last decade and a half, Russian policies in the domain of
information security have undergone a profound evolution in scope,
complexity and sophistication. Moscow has traditionally viewed the
information domain as a strategically crucial asset that allows it to
effectively control the domestic population and project influence
abroad. Yet, despite recent technological achievements, Russian
information security policy continues to retain many classical Soviet
traits that can be traced back to the writings of Vladimir Lenin and
Joseph Stalin.1 Russia’s attitude toward information security in many
ways dramatically differs from the Western approach. In the Russian
reading, it is practice that plays a dominant role; whereas, theory
(theoretical reflections) frequently appears post-factum, making
Russian moves difficult to forecast and/or pre-empt.
302
Offensive and Defensive Use of Information Security | 303
This chapter engages with both primary sources (with the text of the
Doctrine forming the central pillar) as well as authoritative writings
of prominent Russian thinkers and theoreticians in the information
security domain. This approach enables an exploration of the issue
from different angles and a discussion of Russia’s information and
cyber security doctrines from an interdisciplinary prospective.
The period from 2010 to 2016 had a decisive meaning for the
development of Russian information security thinking, and owed to
both internal and external developments. Rapid technological
progress,16 which transformed new media and the Internet into
weapons of diplomacy and effective tools of foreign policymaking,
pushed Moscow to re-consider a broad range of aspects related to
information security.
Internet resources do not belong to us, they are located over the hill
[‘za bugrom’] or, to be more accurate, on the other side of the ocean.
This allows some special services to use these resources for their own
purposes.”17 As a result, many Russian theorists and practitioners
stressed the need to make Russia’s section of the Internet more
autonomous from the rest of the global network;
Acoustic warfare;
Offensive and Defensive Use of Information Security | 309
Consciousness;
State ideology;
National consciousness.
Indeed, the Ukraine crisis was a turning point that allowed Russia to
merge theoretical achievements with practice and to test the offensive
side of its information security domain. The variety of measures
introduced by Moscow between 2013 and 2016 highlights the
“information/cyber revolution” that commenced in Russia within this
period.
The external factor must also not be downplayed. In late April 2015,
the United States adopted a new Cyber Strategy, triggering an outcry
of discontent from Russia, where the document was construed as an
anti-Russian project.26 Additionally, ongoing Russian disinformation
Offensive and Defensive Use of Information Security | 313
New Concepts
National defense;
Economic sphere;
2. In the field of state and public security, the key objectives are the
need “to protect the sovereignty, maintain the political and social
stability, and [defend the] territorial integrity of the Russian
Federation” as well as “to protect the critical information
infrastructure” of the state.62
The prioritization of this field was not only shaped by sanctions, but
clearly stemmed from Russian experience gained during the Ukraine
crisis. The success of Russian information-technology warfare in the
Ukrainian theater (leveled both against military and civilian targets)
was secured by Ukraine’s dependence on Russian-produced IT
products, Internet search tools (such as Yandex) and gadgets that
rendered Ukrainian information/cyber security susceptible to Russian
actions.
Offensive and Defensive Use of Information Security | 325
Telecommunication operators;
It is worth noticing that the document does not clarify the role/status
of “cyber-squads” (kiberdryzhiny), an initiative launched in 2011
(which now involves 20,000 “volunteers” in 36 regions of the Russian
Federation).78 Nor does it address the Russian National Guard
(Rosgvardia), which has been given additional powers in the realm of
information security. For the rest, the Doctrine presents a
sophisticated and all-encompassing framework comprised of bodies,
institutions and agencies acting on a hierarchical principle. It also
argues for “maintaining a balance between citizens’ demands for the
free exchange of information and restrictions related to national
security.”79 In effect, this means that individual rights and freedoms
can (and will) be limited/abridged for the purpose of maintaining
information security.
The Doctrine also outlines the tasks and functions80 that the above-
mentioned institutions and agencies are expected to perform on a
routine basis. These include a broad range of responsibilities:
assessing the actual state of information security,
forecasting/detecting information threats, overcoming their adverse
effects, coordinating activities between various information security
forces (including legal, organizational, operative investigative,
intelligence, counter-intelligence, scientific and technical,
informational and analytical tasks), as well as calculating state-
sponsored support for non-state organizations operating in the
domain of information security.
The document does not explicitly identify the time frame the above-
mentioned steps are to be implemented. Although, it is stated that “in
order to keep these documents updated, the Security Council of the
Russian Federation shall compile a list of medium-term priority areas
of information security.”82 However, given the pace of technological
progress in the domain of information security as well as worsening
political relations with Western counterparts, and the growing fear of
internal destabilization (which can be precipitated with the help of
new media), objectives set for a “mid-term” prospect might be
implemented within a short-term period. In this regard, it would be
worthwhile to study the quick progress attained by the EW segment
of Russia’s Armed Forces.
Indeed, since the end of 2013, this viewpoint (though subjective and
containing questionable points) clearly reflects Russia’s official
posture on information security. The document contains a number of
general trends that offer insight into how the Russian information
domain will continue to develop over the next 3–5 years.
Detection Capabilities;
Reaction Capabilities.
Conclusions
Throughout the course of its post-1917 history, the Soviet Union (and
contemporary Russia, although to a lesser extent) repeatedly
demonstrated high proficiency in tactical operations thanks to its
ability to effectively concentrate/divert and use the required resources
for specific goals/objectives. Yet, despite this string of successes, the
cumulative effect did not necessarily bring lasting victories.
334 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Notes
1
For more information see: Igor Panarin, Pervaya mirovaya informatsionnaya
voyna. Razval SSSR, (Saint Petersburg: Piter, 2010).
2
The text is available here (in Russian): Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federacii ot
05.12.2016 № 646 “Ob utverzhdenii Doktriny informatsionnoy bezopasnosti
Rossiyskoy Federacii,” December 6, 2016, Moscow, Kremlin,
http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201612060002.
3
Mariya Vasilyeva, “Informatsionnaya bezopasnost Rossii v usloviyah globalizatsii,”
Vestnik MGLU 25, 604 (2010): 31.
4
“Munkhenskaya rech Putina,” YouTube, accessed June 18, 2018,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMnVVuoQiUo.
336 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
5
Incidentally, it was due to terrible performance of Russian media during this
conflict that made President Yeltsin to publicly (and for the first time in Russia’s
post-1991 history) admit that nuclear deterrence along with measures in terms of
information warfare were two prime tasks of Russian national security. For more
information see: Igor Panarin, “Sistema vneshnepoliticheskoy propagandy Rossii,”
Panarin.com, accessed November 17, 2017, http://panarin.com/info_voina/88-
sistema-vneshnepoliticheskoy-propagandy-rossii.html.
6
Yuliy Nisnevich, “Gosudarstvennaya informatsionnaya politika Rossii segodnya I
zavtra,” Informatsionnoe obshchestvo 2 (1999): 4-9,
http://emag.iis.ru/arc/infosoc/emag.nsf/BPA/8f09435324753a65c32568ba004420d3.
7
Lev Roytman, “Informatsionnaya bezopasnost: ne v krasote, a v polnote,” Radio
Svoboda, September 19, 2000, https://www.svoboda.org/a/24202675.html.
8
Doktrina informacionnoy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federacii (utverzhdennaya
Prezidentom RF September 9, 2000, N Pr-1895), For more information see:
http://base.garant.ru/182535/.
9
Ekaterina Mikhaylovskaya, “Besplatnoe RIA byvaet tolko…” Grani.ru, December
17, 2000, https://graniru.org/Society/Media/Freepress/m.2820.html.
10
“V Rossii sozdan propagandistskiy telekanal dlya inostrantsev,” Lenta.ru, June 7,
2005, https://lenta.ru/news/2005/06/07/channel/.
11
Igor Panarin, Informatsionnaya voyna i Rossiya, (Moscow: Mir bezopasnosti,
2000), 160.
12
L. Polskikh, “O primenenii globalnoy kompyuternoy seti internet v interesakh
informatsionnogo protivoborstva,” Zarubezhnoe voennoe obozrenie, № 7 (2005).
13
A. Manoylo, A. Petrenko, D. Frolov, Gosudarstvennaya informatsionnaya politika
v usloviyakh informatsionno-psikhologicheskoy voyny, (Moscow: MIFI, 2003).
14
Andrey Manoylo, Gosudarstvennaya informatsionnaya politika v osobykh
usloviyakh, (Moscow: MIFI, 2003), 246.
15
Irina Vasilenko, “Informatsionnaya voyna kak faktor mirovoy politiki,”
Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba, № 3, (2009): 81.
Offensive and Defensive Use of Information Security | 337
16
For example, by 2014 the pool of Internet users in Russia reached 80 million
people, whereas Russia occupied 6th global position (and 1st in Europe) in terms of
number of active Internet users.
17
“Doktrina informatsionnoy bezopasnosti RF. Dosie,” TASS, December 6, 2016,
http://tass.ru/info/3845810.
18
Alexei Maruev, “Informatsionnaya bezopasnost Rossii i osnovy organizatsii
informatsionnogo protivoborstva,” Problemny Analiz i Gosudarstvenno-
Upravlencheskoe Proektirovanie, №1, Т.3 (2010): 49.
19
Ibid.
20
Evgeniy Kulikov, “Stikhiynye protsessy internet-kommunikatsy kak faktor ugrozy
informatsionnoy bezopasnosti Rossii,” Usloviya i perspektivy natsionalnoy
bezopasnosti sovremennoy Rossii, (Moscow, 2011): 132.
21
E. Andreev, V. Sergeev, “Problemy formirovaniya kulturnoy bezopasnosti v
sovremennykh usloviyakh sotsialnykh izmeneniy,” Usloviya i perspektivy
natsionalnoy bezopasnosti sovremennoy Rossii, (Moscow, 2011): 132.
22
Valeri Gerasimov, “Tsennost nauki v predvidenii,” Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier,
№ 8 (476), February 27, 2013, https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/14632.
23
Sergey Sukhankin, “Russia Playing Catch-Up in Cyber Security,” Eurasia Daily
Monitor, Volume: 13, Issue: 172, October 26, 2016,
https://jamestown.org/program/russia-playing-catch-cyber-security/.
24
“Putin zastupilsya za Internet,” Tvzvezda.ru, October 1, 2014,
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201410011040-fucn.htm.
25
“Voennaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii,” Rossiyskaya gazeta, Federalny vypusk
№6570 (298), paragraph 12, December 30, 2014, https://rg.ru/2014/12/30/doktrina-
dok.html.
26
Elena Chernenko, “SSHA opredelilis s virtualnymi vragami,” Kommersant.ru,
April 30, 2015 https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2720392.
27
“Rossiya zanyala pervoe mesto v mire po gosudarstvennym zatratam na
propaganda,” Pravda-tv.ru, September 14, 2013, http://www.pravda-
tv.ru/2013/09/14/26749/rossiya-zanyala-pervoe-mesto-v-mire-po-gosudarstvenny-
m-zatratam-na-propagandu.
338 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
28
“Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii, December 31, 2015, № 683 “O strategii
natsionalnoy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii,” point 12, Rossiyskaya gazeta,
December 31, 2015, https://rg.ru/2015/12/31/nac-bezopasnost-site-dok.html.
29
“European Parliament resolution of 23 November 2016 on EU strategic
communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties
(2016/2030(INI)),” EU strategic communication to counteract anti-EU propaganda
by third parties, (Brussels, November 23, 2016), accessed December 1, 2017,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2016-
0441&format=XML&language=EN.
30
“Putin o rezolyutsii Evroparlamenta: khochu pozdravit zhurnalistov RT i
Sputnik,” RIA novosti, November 23, 2016,
https://ria.ru/society/20161123/1482009865.html.
31
Poslanie Prezidenta Federalnomu Sobraniyu, December 1, 2016, Moscow, Kremlin.
Available at: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53379.
32
Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 30.11.2016 № 640 “Ob utverzhdenii
Kontsepcii vneshney politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii,” December 1, 2016, Moscow,
Kremlin. Available at:
http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201612010045.
33
Federalnaya Sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii, Inostrannye spetssluzhby
gotovyat kiberataki, napravlennye na destabilizatsiyu finansovoy sistemy Rossii,
December 2, 2016,
http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/press/message/single.htm%21id%3D10438041%40fsbMessage
.html.
34
“Doktrina informatsionnoy bezopasnosti RF. Dosie,” TASS, December 6, 2016:
http://tass.ru/info/3845810.
35
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 1, December 5,
2016, Moscow, Kremlin, http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/official_documents/-
/asset_publisher/CptICkB6BZ29/content/id/2563163.
36
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 2, sub-point a.
37
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 8.
38
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point a.
Offensive and Defensive Use of Information Security | 339
39
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point c.
40
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point e.
41
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point d.
42
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point b.
43
“Pochemu v rossiyskikh gorodakh sutki – massovye evakuatsii (eto ne ucheniya),”
Ura.ru, September 12, 2017, https://ura.news/articles/1036272216?story_id=390.
44
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 2, sub-point b.
45
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 2, sub-point c.
46
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 2, sub-points d–
g.
47
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point h.
48
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 11.
49
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 15.
50
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, points 12–13.
51
In accordance with the “Yarovaya Package” (two pieces of legislation introduced
on July 6, 2016) the dividing line between such notions as “terrorism” and
“extremism,” as well as the way these concepts are construed in Russia, has been
blurred, leaving room for various readings and interpretations that could be used by
the state in a manner deemed appropriate.
52
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, points 17, 18, 19.
53
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 12.
54
Best-known examples are: The “Russian World” Foundation (2007),
Rossotrudnichestvo (2008), The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund
(2010).
55
Alexei Zakvasin, Anastasiya Shlyakhtina,“Pentagon odoleli pentabaytami: kak
rabotaet noveyshaya rossiyskaya Sistema upravleniya oboronoy,” RT, December 1,
2016, https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/337564-armiya-oborona-upravlenie-
340 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
56
“Natsionalny tsentr upravleniya oboronoy RF budet rabotat dlya vsekh stran
ODKB,” Tvzvezda.ru, December 23, 2015,
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201412232053-sdcf.htm.
57
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 20.
58
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 21.
59
Sergey Sukhankin, “Russia Introduces EW Spetsnaz to Western Military District,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume: 14, Issue: 143, November 7, 2017,
https://jamestown.org/program/russia-introduces-ew-spetsnaz-western-military-
district/.
60
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point e.
61
Sergey Sukhankin, “Russia’s ‘Youth Army’: Sovietization, Militarization or
Radicalization?” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume: 13, Issue: 180, November 9, 2016,
https://jamestown.org/program/russias-youth-army-sovietization-militarization-
radicalization/.
62
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 22.
63
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 23.
64
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point a.
65
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point j.
66
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-points b–d.
67
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point e.
68
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 24.
69
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 27.
70
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, sub-point e.
Offensive and Defensive Use of Information Security | 341
71
“Master-klass po kiber-bezopasnosti proshel v shkole № 1770,” Nagatinsky zaton,
September 27, 2017, http://gazeta-nagatinsky-zaton.ru/2017/09/27/32936/.
72
“RBK-TV potrollil Yandex, Kaspersky Lab I kiber-druzhyny kazakov,” Roem.ru,
November 25, 2016, https://roem.ru/25-11-2016/237089/rbc-kazachiy-yandex/.
73
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, points 28–29.
74
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 29, sub-point e.
75
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 30.
76
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 32.
77
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 33.
78
For more information see: “Kiberdruzhyna” Liga Bezopasngo Interneta, accessed
November 6, 2017, http://www.ligainternet.ru/liga/activity-cyber.php.
79
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 34, sub-point c.
80
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 35.
81
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 36.
82
Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation, point 37.
83
“Novaya doktrina informatsionnoy bezopasnosti RF: borba s vcherashnimi
ugrozami,” BBC, December 7, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/russian/features-
38225725.
84
“Putin ogorazhyvaetsya ot mira `informatsionnoy bezopasnostyu`,” Vestnik
CIVITAS, December 7, 2016, http://vestnikcivitas.ru/news/4024.
85
“Ekspert: Doktrina informbezopasnosti pomozhet uprezhdat kiberataki na
Rossiyu,” RIA novosti, December 6, 2016,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20161206/1482968882.html.
86
“V Gosdume rasskazali o preimushchestvah novoy doktriny,” RIA novosti,
December 6, 2016, https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20161206/1482931915.html.
342 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
87
Sovet Federatsii, Kontseptsiya strategii kiberbezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii
(Proekt), accessed November 20, 2017,
http://council.gov.ru/media/files/41d4b3dfbdb25cea8a73.pdf.
88
Valeri Gerasimov, “Po opytu Sirii”, Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier № 9 (624),
March 9, 2016, https://vpk-news.ru/articles/29579.
89
See: Sergey Sukhankin, “From “Bridge of Cooperation” to A2/AD “Bubble”:
Dangerous Transformation of Kaliningrad Oblast,” The Journal of Slavic Military
Studies, Taylor & Francis. February 9, 2018, pp. 15–36,
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/RBBXE9ajSWR9ZeEzdtTe/full.
90
Nikiforov: Doktrina informbezopasnosti potrebuet vnesti popravki v zakony, RIA
Novosti, December 6, 2016, https://ria.ru/politics/20161206/1482957170.html.
91
Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 09.05.2017 № 203 “O Strategii razvitiya
informatsionnogo obshchestva v Rossiyskoy Federatsii na 2017 - 2030 gody,” May 10,
2017, Moscow, Kremlin. Available at:
http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201705100002?index=0&rang
eSize=1.
92
Federalny zakon ot 26.07.2017 № 187-ФЗ “O bezopasnosti kriticheskoy
informatsionnoy infrastruktury Rossiyskoy Federatsii,” July 26, 2017, Moscow,
Kremlin. Available at:
http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201707260023.
93
Henry R. Lieberman, “Soviet Devising a Computer Net for State Planning,” New
York Times, December 13, 1973,
http://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/13/archives/soviet-devising-a-computer-net-for-
state-planning-big-network-in-us.html.
Part III
Lessons Learned and
Domestic Implications
9. Deciphering the Lessons Learned by
the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine,
2014–2017
Roger N. McDermott
Introduction
345
346 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Launching the reform so soon after the Five Day War in August 2008
certainly implied pre-planning, but does not testify to the quality of
such planning. Initial official statements outlining the reform
indicated broad designs and some specific aims, but it required a great
deal of piecing together to assemble a larger picture of what the
defense ministry intended. The then-president, Dmitry Medvedev,
attempted such an outline during his visit to the Donguz training
range, in Orenburg, on September 26, 2008. Medvedev had earlier
approved Perspektivny oblik Vooruzhennykh Sil RF i pervoocherednye
mery po ego formirovaniu na 2009–2020 gody (The Future Outlook of
the Russian Federation Armed Forces and Priorities for its Creation
in the period 2009–2020). However, the presidential summary of the
impending reform, which he linked to the war with Georgia, arguing
that future conflicts could erupt suddenly, was by no means a
complete statement. Medvedev told military district commanders that
the future capability of the Armed Forces would be determined by five
factors: improving the organizational structure by transforming the
divisions into brigades, abandoning the “mass mobilization” principle
and adopting instead “permanent readiness” status; enhancing C2,
including reducing the number of tiers to three (joint strategic
command/military district, army, brigade), thus cutting the number
of billets; reforming the system of personnel training as well as the
military education system; equipping the Armed Forces with the latest
Lessons Learned by Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine | 349
More detail, though again only partial, was offered on October 14,
2008, by then–defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov. Following a
briefing delivered by the defense minister to a closed session of the
ministry’s collegium, Serdyukov discussed the reform with a select
group of journalists and spoke for a few minutes on Zvezda TV. He
characterized this initiative as giving the military a “new look,” which
he stated involved speeding up the reduction of the overall strength of
the Armed Forces to “one million,” decreasing officer posts from
355,000 to 150,000, expanding the number of junior officers, carrying
out major cuts in the defense ministry’s central administrative staff,
abolishing mass mobilization and divisions to form instead
permanent readiness brigades, moving to a three-tiered command
structure, drastically cutting the number of units, especially in the
Ground Forces, as well as reforming military education. The Strategic
Rocket Forces (Raketnyye Voyska Strategicheskogo Naznacheniya—
RVSN) would be left largely unaffected, while some organizational
change was envisaged for the Airborne Forces (Vozdushno Desantnye
Voiska—VDV)—though they successfully preserved the division-
based system in the VDV.11
navy, air force and air defense forces. Moreover, these forces would be
directly, not operationally, subordinate to the commanders.” Part of
the justification for this change was to place all military and security
formations on these territories under a single command; in theory,
during operations, such formations—extending to emergency and
interior ministries or the Federal Security Service (FSB)—would be
subordinate to the OSK. By September 2011 the operational-strategic
exercise Tsentr 2011 rehearsed and refined such inter-agency
coordination, though not without its peculiar problems, as these
structures often used widely differing communications systems.
Meanwhile, the VDV continued to be subordinate to the General
Staff. This theme intensified under Shoigu and Gerasimov, as defense
planners sought to improve C2.17
Military Manpower
reflecting the fact that many were bullied into signing contracts and
simply wished to leave the Armed Forces.22
Equally, many Russian analysts were sheltered from the full extent to
which Moscow had interfered in Donbas. But the professional
military journals are also largely silent in assessing the numerous
challenges and experiments that emerged during the varied course of
the conflict. Considerable cross-fertilization is apparent between the
“lessons learned” approach based on the experience of Syria and
Ukraine: both are important, and the Syria operations have clearly
boosted both Russian combat readiness and, more importantly,
operational experience.30 Nonetheless, the experience drawn from
Ukraine has served to influence Russia’s force posture and the
organizational structure of the Ground Forces.
Lessons Learned by Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine | 359
Combat operations
Among the more significant lessons drawn from the Ukraine conflict,
from Moscow’s perspective, are the return to armor or promoting the
interests of the Ground Forces in the ongoing military modernization
and the issue of structural reorganization in the Ground Forces, with
the formation of units closer to the Ukrainian border. Despite the
Lessons Learned by Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine | 365
In February 2016 Salyukov noted that all brigades and divisions in the
Ground Forces had formed BTGs. Chief of the General Staff
Gerasimov later clarified that 66 BTGs in the Ground Forces were
fully manned by kontraktniki, with a target set to achieve 125 BTGs by
2018.42 These units are now also referred to as “strike” forces, in
support of high-readiness formations such as the VDV; and more
pointedly they constitute the backbone of unit training and
evaluations.43
During the early phase of the Ukraine crisis, in March 2014, Russia’s
Armed Forces deployed comparatively large forces near the Ukrainian
border. This included ten brigades, four regiments, and several dozen
BTGs. After the bulk of these forces withdrew from these positions in
late April 2014, several BTGs from the MDs remained in place and
were rotated every three or four months.45 Interestingly, by way of
illustrating the manning problems encountered at this point, in late
2014 a BTG was formed, subordinate to the 5th Tank Brigade in the
36th Combined-Arms Army and exclusively manned by kontraktniki.
Yet, to achieve this, large parts of the manpower forming the BTG
were reportedly forced to sign contracts. The 5th Tank Brigade was
unable to secure enough professional troops from subordinate
battalions for the BTG and was required to secure sufficient personnel
and assets from the 37th Motorized Rifle Brigade, a sister unit also
under the 36th Army.46
Russian General Staff sources suggest the 1st Tank Army and the
20th CAA in the Western MD upgraded to divisional status would
contain four maneuver regiments like their earlier Soviet versions.
The new divisions in the Western MD will be headquartered in Yelnya
and Boguchar. Two Motorized Rifle Divisions (MRD) will form the
basis of the 20th CAA by the end of 2016: these are located in Smolensk
and Vorenezh, each MRD will have a personnel strength of 10,000.
“Now, as it was in Soviet times, each tank division will have three tank
regiments, a motorized rifle regiment, a self-propelled artillery
regiment and an anti-aircraft missile regiment; and each motorized
rifle division includes three motorized rifle regiments, a tank
regiment, a self-propelled artillery regiment and an anti-aircraft
missile regiment,” noted a General Staff source. The division will
include supporting units: intelligence, communications, logistics,
electronic warfare, nuclear-biological-chemical (NBC) units, and
others. These formations will be the first in the Ground Forces to
procure T-14 Armata platforms and new Kurganets combat vehicles.53
Conclusion
The main “lessons” from the conflict are the rediscovery of the
importance of armor and the likely higher priority for re-equipping
the Ground Forces in the continuing military modernization. The
reorganization of some elements of the Ground Forces, including
developing a divisional capability and creating supporting
infrastructure near the Ukraine border, is less in response to NATO
than it is rooted in aspects of the Ukraine conflict.58 While the
discussion concerning the need for divisions as well as brigades since
the reform of 2008 was largely theoretical, the force build-up periods
assembling tens of thousands of troops revealed in practical terms that
the divisional C2 can prove to be quite useful. Moreover, the BTGs
were a familiar feature of the Russian military in conducting its
operations; and now many of these are permanent structures.59
Notes
1
See: Mikhail Barabanov, Novaya Armiya Rossii. Moscow, Tsentr analiza strategiy i
tekhnologiy, 2010; B. Nygren, R. McDermott and C. Pallin (editors), The Russian
Armed Forces in Transition: economic, geopolitical and institutional uncertainties,
Routledge, 2012.
2
D. R. Herspring, “Is Military Reform in Russia for ‘Real’? Yes, But...,” in S. Blank
and R. Weitz (eds) The Russian Military Today and Tomorrow: Essays in Memory of
Mary Fitzgerald, Carlisle, PA: US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute,
2010; V. Shlykov, “Tainy blitskriga Serdiukova,” Rossiya v globalnoy politike, No 6,
December 2009; V. Shamanov, Interview in Bratishka magazine for Russian special
forces, Moscow, May 2009.
3
“Shoygu anonsiroval stroitel’stvo 1740 voyennykh ob’yektov v 2018–2025 godakh,”
Moskovskiy Komsomolets, April 21, 2017.
4
Mikhail Ivanov, Amaliya Zatari, “Mest v armii stanovitsya vse men’she,” Gazeta.ru,
April 21, 2017, http://www.mk.ru/politics/2017/04/21/shoygu-anonsiroval-
stroitelstvo-1740-voennykh-obektov-v-20182025-godakh.html.
5
Aleksey Ramm, “Proverka Ukrainoy,” Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, April 29,
2015, http://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/25027.
6
Carolina Vendil-Pallin, Fredrik Westerlund, “Russia’s War in Georgia: Lessons
and Consequences,” Small Wars & Insurgencies, Volume 20, Issue 2, 2009, pp. 400–
424.
7
Oleg Vladykin, “1848 Hours and You are a Soldier,” Nezavisimoye Voyennoye
Obozreniye, July 1, 2011, http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2011-07-01/1_soldier.html; Richard
Weitz, “The State of the Russian Military,” RIA Novosti, May 27, 2011.
372 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
8
See: Soviet Military Power, US Department of Defense, Washington, 1983. The
tendency to exaggerate Russian military power resurfaced in a report issued by
Finland’s National Defense University in September 2011, entitled: “Russian
Politico-Military Development and Finland.”
9
For further detail see: Roger N. McDermott, The Reform of Russia’s Conventional
Armed Forces: Problems, Challenges and Policy Implications, Washington: The
Jamestown Foundation, 2011; Dr. Lester W. Grau. Charles K. Bartles,
The Russian Way of War. Force Structure, Tactics, and Modernization of
the Russian Ground Forces, Foreign Military Studies Office, 2016,
http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot%20Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-
07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf.
10
Viktor Baranets, “The Army Will Be Getting the Latest Weapons and Lodgings
and Will Be Rid of Hazing: Dmitry Medvedev Has Formulated Five Principles of
Development of the Armed Forces,” Komsomolskaya Pravda, October 1, 2008;
Nikolay Poroskov, “Military Arrangements,” Vremya Novostey, October 8, 2008.
11
“Russian Defense Minister Announces Overhaul of the Armed Forces Structure,”
Zvezda Television, 14 October, 2008.
12
“Expanded Meeting of the Defense Ministry Board,” Kremlin.ru, March 18, 2011.
13
”Transcript of Meeting With Participants in the Assembly of Officers
Commanding Force Groupings of the Armed Forces,” Presidential website,
November 25, 2010, http://kremlin.ru/transcripts/9609.
14
”V VDV staklo na tri desantno-shturmovykh brigad bolshe,” Ministry of Defense,
October 21, 2013,
http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11859469@egNews.
15
These dilemmas were also reflected in updated versions of Russia’s security
documents, see: Zatsepin, V. ‘On a new version of the national security strategy of
the Russian Federation’, Russian Economic Developments, No. 2, 2016, pp. 82–85.
16
Grigoriy Maslov, ‘They Will Divide the Russian Armed Forces by the Compass,’
www.infox.ru, April, 30, 2010.
17
”Russian Army to Form Four Strategic Commands,” Interfax, April 29, 2010;
Viktor Litovkin, ”Parade of Reforms Shows No Sign of Breaking: Russian Army
Proceeds to New Stage of Modernization,” Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye,
May 14, 2010, http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2010-05-14/1_parad.html; ”Organization of
Lessons Learned by Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine | 373
18
Victor Litovkin, ‘The Examination for the Seven Test Sites,” Nezavisimoye
Voyennoye Obozreniye, September 23, 2011, http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2011-09-
23/1_exam.html.
19
Interview with Lieutenant-General Nikolai Ignatov, Ekho Moskvy, July 30, 2011.
20
Roger N. McDermott, ”Is Anybody There? Russian Military Command and
Control,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 8, Issue 182, October 4, 2011.
21
Roger N. McDermott, ‘Russian Military Command and Control: A Giant Leap of
Faith?’ Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 8, Issue 158, August 16, 2011; Dmitry
Kandaurov, ”Tanks Do Not Wash,” Zavtra, August 3, 2011,
http://www.zavtra.ru/cgi/veil/data/zavtra/11/924/print41.html; Dmitry Litovkin,
”Defense Programme Failed the Internet War,” August 1, 2011,
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/496152Izvstia.
22
”Medvedev Opens Discussion on Conscription Changes,” July 23, 2010,
http://kremlin.ru/news/8404; Valery Astanin, ”New Look Soldiers,” Nezavisimoye
Voyennoye Obozreniye, January 21, 2011 http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2011-01-
21/3_new_face.html.
23
Vitaliy Shlykov, “Conscript, Contractor or Citizen in the Form,” Voyenno
Promyshlennyy Kuryer, December 1, 2010, http://vpk-news.ru/articles/6964;
Aleksandr Belkin, “And Still an Unsolved Problem. Who Could Protect the Country
From Military Attack: Conscript or Contractor?” Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer,
November 10, 2010, http://vpk-news.ru/articles/6919.
24
“Doktrina informatsionnoi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Information
seurity doctrine of the Russian Federation],”
http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/6/5.html; “Kontseptsiia obshchestvennoi
bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Concept for the security of the society of the
Russian Federation],” http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/16/117.html; “Voennaia
doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Military doctrine of the Russian Federation],”
http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/18/-129.html.
25
“NATO: Russian Troops Dying In ‘Large Numbers’ In Eastern Ukraine,” RFE/RL,
March 5, 2015, http://www.rferl.org/content/nato-russian-troops-dying-large-
numbers-ukraine/26884296.html; James Kanter, Martin Fackler, “NATO Says
Russia Pulled Some Troops From Ukraine,” New York Times, September 24, 2014,
374 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/europe/ukraine-russia-nato-
withdrawal.html?_r=0; Author interviews with SMEs and officials, Rome,
September 8, 2014.
26
“Lidery Ukrainskikh opolchentsev vychislili donskikh kazakov-predatelei,
planirovavshikh sdat Lugansk natsgvardii,” Bloknot News Agency, Rostov na-Donu,
June 10, 2014, http://bloknot-rostov.ru/news/more/lidery-ukrainskih-opolchencev-
zapodozrila-donskih-kazakov-pod-predvoditelstvom-atamana-kozicyna-v-
predatelstve-20140610; “Control of Donbas,” The Economist, October 1, 2014,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart; “Aleksej
Zhuravlyov: Ukrainu nuzhno osvobodit ot fashizma i razgula rusofobii,” Rodina
Party Website, February 5, 2014, http://rodina.ru/novosti/aleksej-zhuravlyov-
ukrainu-nuzhno-osvobodit-ot-fashizma-i-razgula-rusofobii; Vladimir Mukhin,
“Rossia gotovitsa k mashtabnoi mirotvorcheskoi operatsii,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta,
August 25, 2014, http://www.ng.ru/armies/2014-08-25/1_peacemakers.html.
27
Rimma Akhmirova, “Kto iz Rossii voyuyet protiv Kieva ha yugo-vostoke
Ukrainy,” Sobessednik.ru, July 16, 2014,
http://sobesednik.ru/rassledovanie/20140716-kto-iz-rossii-i-pochemu-voyuet-
protiv-kieva-na-yugo-vostoke; Ilya Barabanov, “Samovooruzhennaia respublika,”
Kommersant Vlast, June 2, 2014; Oleg Falichev, “Spetsnaz byl i ostaetsa elitoi,”
Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 26, 2014, http://vpk-
news.ru/articles/19280.
28
Valeriy Gerasimov, “Tsennost’ nauki v predvidenii,” Voyenno Promyshlennyy
Kuryer, February 26, 2013, http://vpk-news.ru/articles/14632; For a detailed
examination of some of the historical antecedents of the Gerasimov article see:
Steven J. Main, “You Cannot Generate Ideas by Orders: The Continuing
Importance of Studying Soviet Military History—G. S. Isserson and Russia’s
Current Geo-Political Stance,” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1,
2016, pp. 48–72; Jacob Kipp, The Methodology of Foresight and Forecasting in
Soviet Military Affairs (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Soviet Army Studies Office, 1988),
http://www.dtic. mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a196677.pdf; and N. V. Ogarkov, Ed.,
Military Encyclopedic Dictionary, Moscow: Military Publishing House, 1983, p. 585.
29
See: Aleksandr Golts, Heidi Reisinger, “Russia’s Hybrid Warfare: Waging War
Below the Radar of Traditional Collective Defense,” Research Paper, NATO Defense
College, Rome, November 2014; Marc Galeotti, “The ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’ and
Russian Non-Linear War,” In Moscow’s Shadows Blog, July 6, 2014,
http://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-gerasimov-doctrine-and-
russian-non-linear-war/; US Government, State Department, White House,
Department of Defense, CRS, Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence
Lessons Learned by Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine | 375
Agency (CIA), 2014 Essential Guide to the Ukraine and the Crisis with Russia.
published by Progressive Management, 2014. Wilson, Andrew, Ukraine Crisis:
What It Means for the West. Yale University Press, 2014; John Mearsheimer, “The
Liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014;
Michael McFaul, Stephen Sestanovick, John Mearsheimer, “Faulty Powers: Who
Started the Ukraine Crisis?” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2014.
30
Vladimir Mukhin, ‘Rossiya gotovitsya k masshtabnoy mirotvorcheskoy operatsii,’
Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, August 25, 2014,
http://www.ng.ru/armies/2014-08-25/1_peacemakers.html; For an excellent Russian
analysis of the course of the conflict in Ukraine see: Mikhail Barabanov,
‘Prinuzhdeniye k miru-2: blizhayshaya perspektiva Rossii na Ukraine,’ Odnako,
December 2014–January 2015, http://periscope2.ru/2015/01/19/8298/.
31
Aleksandr Tikhonov, “Where Threats to Peace Come From,” Kraznaya Zvezda,
May 27, 2014, http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/newspaper/item/16298-otkuda-
iskhodyat-ugrozy-miru; Yury Gavrilov, “Games With Zero Outcome,” Rossiyskaya
Gazeta, May 26, 2014, www.rg.ru/2014/05/23/konferenciya-site.html; “Veroyatnoye
budushcheye voyny za Novorossiyu,” Voyennoye Obozreniye, August 29, 2014,
http://topwar.ru/57093-veroyatnoe-buduschee-voyny-za-novorossiyu.html; Oleg
Odnokolenko, “Vostochno-ukrainskiy front snova v ogne,” Nezavisimoye
Voyennoye Obozreniye, January 30, 2015, http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2015-01-
30/1_front.html.
32
See section three below.
33
Anton Lavrov, “Russian Again: The Military Operation for Crimea,” Colby
Howard and Ruslan Pukhov, eds. Brothers Armed: Military Aspects of the Crisis in
Ukraine, (East View Press, 2014), pp. 157–186.
34
Claire Bigg, “Vostok Battalion, A Powerful New Player in Eastern Ukraine,”
RFE/RL, May 30, 2014, http://www.rferl.org/content/vostok-battalion-a-powerful-
new-player-in-eastern-ukraine/25404785.html; Konstantin Bogdanov, “Russia May
Consider Establishing Private Military Companies,” RIA News Agency, April 13,
2012, http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120413/172789099.html; Enerud, Per (2013) “Can
the Kremlin Control the Cossacks?” RUFS Briefing No. 18, Swedish Defence
Research Agency, March 2013,
http://www.foi.se/Global/V%c3%a5r%20kunskap/S%c3%a4kerhetspolitiska%20stud
ier/Ryssland/%c3%96vriga%20filer/RUFS%20Briefing%20No.%2018%20.pdf.
35
“V SNBO razyasnili pravovoj status rossiyan, prinimayuschich uchastie v
konflikte ha Donbasse,” Inforesist, September 8, 2014, http://inforesist.org/v-snbo-
376 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
razyasnili-pravovoj-status-rossiyan-prinimayushhix-uchastie-v-konflikte-na-
donbasse/; Irek Murtazin, “Ustav. Otpravilis v otpusk,” Novaya Gazeta, September
8, 2014, http://www.novayagazeta.ru/comments/65137.html.
36
Kofman, Michael, and Matthew Rojansky, “A Closer Look at Russia’s ‘Hybrid
War,’ ” KennanCable, No.7, Washington, DC: The Wilson Center, April 2015,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/7-KENNAN%20CABLE-
ROJANSKY%20KOFMAN.pdf, Korotchenko, Igor, “Nachalos Formirovaniye
Otradov Armi Samoobrony Yugo-Vostochnoy Ukrainy,” LiveJournal.com, March
23, 2014, http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/844693.html.
37
Aleksei Ramm, “Pervyye pobedy rossiyskikh instruktorov — chast’ I,” Voyenno
Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 3, 2016, http://vpk-news.ru/articles/28995; Aleksei
Ramm, “Pervyye pobedy rossiyskikh instruktorov — chast’ II,” Voyenno
Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 17, 2016, http://vpknews.ru/articles/29213.
38
Based on a review of Russian and Western analyses of the conflict and discussions
with defense specialists.
39
See: T. Thomas, “Russia’s military strategy and Ukraine. Indirect, asymmetric and
Putin led,” The Journal of Slavic Military Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2015; F. Westerlund
and J. Norberg, “Military means for non-military measures: the Russian approach to
the use of armed force as seen in Ukraine,” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies
Volume 29, Issue 4, 2016; A. Rácz, “Russia’s hybrid war in Ukraine: breaking the
enemy’s ability to resist,” FIIA Report 43, The Finnish Institute of International
Affairs.
40
Based on a review of Russian and Western analyses of the conflict and discussions
with defense specialists.
41
Oleg Salyukov, “Ratniki idut,” Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 22, 2017,
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/35285; Aleksandr Tikhonov, “S pritselom na
budushcheye,” Krasnaya Zvezda, , January 24, 2016,
http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/component/k2/item/27444-s-pritselom-na-
budushchee.
42
Oleg Salyukov, Oleg Falichev, “Vozvrashcheniye diviziy,” Voyenno Promyshlennyy
Kuryer, http://vpk-news.ru/articles/29096, February 10, 2016; “Chislo batal’onnykh
grupp, sostoyashchikh iz kontraktnikov, v rossiyskoy armii cherez dva goda
dostignet 125 – nachal’nik Genshtaba VS RF,” Interfax-AVN,
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=425709, September 14, 2016.
Lessons Learned by Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine | 377
43
“V Vozdushno-desantnykh voyskakh poyavilis’ podrazdeleniya so statusom
udarnyye,” Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, May 19, 2017,
http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12124043@egNews.
44
Olga Shilova, Pavel Popovskikh, “Razvedka VDV na smene epokh,”
Natsional’naya Oborona, December 1, 2010,
http://old.nationaldefense.ru/284/112/index.shtml?id=3618.
45
Aleksey Ramm, “Proverka Ukrainoy,” Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, April 29,
2015, http://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/25027; Aleksey Chuykov, “Severnyye mechty
Minoborony,” Argumenty Nedeli, September 27, 2012,
http://argumenti.ru/army/n358/204451.
46
“My vse znali, na chto idem i chto mozhet byt,” Novaya Gazeta, March 2, 2015,
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html.
47
“My vse znali, na chto idem i chto mozhet byt,” Op. Cit; Yuriy Belousov, “Matritsa
dlya lichnogo sostava,” Krasnaya Zvezda, September 1, 2015,
http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/component/k2/item/25548-matritsa-dlya-
lichnogo-sostava.
48
“Proverka Ukrainoy,” Op. Cit.
49
Igor Popov, “Divizii protiv brigad, brigady protiv diviziy,” Nezavisimoye
Voyennoye Obozreniye, July 12, 2013,
http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/34809412.
50
“S pritselom na budushcheye,” Op. Cit; “Vozvrashcheniye diviziy,” Op. Cit.
51
Vladimir Gundarov, “Pyat milliardov dlya novoy divizii,” Nezavisimoye
Voyennoye Obozreniye, April 1, 2016, http://nvo.ng.ru/nvoevents/2016-04-
01/2_mlrd.html.
52
“Shoygu: Minoborony RF v 2016 godu sformiruyet tri novyye divizii na zapadnom
napravlenii,” TASS, January 12, 2016, http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2579480.
53
“Istochnik: divizii 1-y tankovoy i 20-y armiy na zapade Rossii budut imet’ po
shest’ polkov,” TASS, April 1, 2016, http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3169104.
54
Vladimir Gundarov, “Pyat milliardov dlya novoy divizii,” Nezavisimoye
Voyennoye Obozreniye, April 1, 2016, http://nvo.ng.ru/nvoevents/2016-04-
01/2_mlrd.html.
378 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
55
Nikolay Surkov, Aleksey Ramm, and Yevgeniy Andreyev, “Severnyy Kavkaz
ukrepili diviziyami,” Izvestia, February 16, 2018, https://iz.ru/705714/nikolai-
surkov-aleksei-ramm-evgenii-andreev/severnyi-kavkaz-ukrepili-diviziiami.
56
Oleg Salyukov, Oleg Falichev, “Vospreshcheniye diviziy,” Voyenno Promyshlennyy
Kuryer, February 8, 2016, https://vpk-news.ru/articles/29096.
57
Aleksei Ramm, “Pervyye pobedy rossiyskikh instruktorov — chast’ I,” Voyenno
Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 3, 2016, http://vpk-news.ru/articles/28995; Aleksei
Ramm, “Pervyye pobedy rossiyskikh instruktorov — chast’ II,” Voyenno
Promyshlennyy Kuryer, February 17, 2016, http://vpknews.ru/articles/29213.
58
“S pritselom na budushcheye,” Op. Cit; “Vozvrashcheniye diviziy,” Op. Cit;
“Istochnik: divizii 1-y tankovoy i 20-y armiy,” Op. Cit.
59
Salyukov, “Vospreshcheniye diviziy,” Op. Cit.
60
Based on a review of Russian and Western analyses of the conflict and discussions
with defense specialists.
10. Russian Lessons Learned From the
Operation in Syria: A Preliminary
Assessment
Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky
Introduction
This chapter deals with the lessons that the Russian strategic
community and Russian experts have distilled from the operation in
Syria and that can be traced to Russian sources. The main interest is
in the lessons that will impact the three main components of
prospective Russian military innovations: transforming the concept of
operations, force buildup and organization structures.
This research contends with two major limitations to. First, it is still
too early to talk about specific lessons, since the Russian experts
themselves are in the process of exploring their own experience.
Knowledge development, which started only recently, is an ongoing
process, and will generate refined and deep insights only in the
coming months and years. As of now, not even enough time has
passed for the Russian strategic community to come out with anything
beyond preliminary lessons. Moreover, while this chapter is based on
open sources, the major portion of Russia’s lesson-learning process is
classified. The reliability of available sources is questionable, and their
number is still too limited to offer any definite arguments. It will take
379
380 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
The chapter consists of three sections. The first outlines the innovative
conceptual climate, which fosters the lesson-learning process. The
second section focuses on the reconnaissance-strike complex and its
segments (intelligence, command and strike capabilities), which is the
main leitmotif and frame of reference in the Russian process of
learning. The third part covers other issues pertaining to operational
art and strategy that already loom large in Russian knowledge
development. Presumably, this way of addressing the subject matter
reflects the Russian holistic mentality and complex approach to
conceptualizing military innovations and the changing character of
war.
from 2008, however, that military reform with tangible changes began
gathering momentum. The main flaws of the Russian military, which
the war in Georgia highlighted, were in fact the pivots of the IT-RMA:
the deficit of the PGMs and standoff weapons; an inability to wage
NCW operations due to the low level of command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (C4ISR); and the low quality of ground forces,
incapable of waging combined-arms warfare or functioning as
reconnaissance-strike complexes. The main aim of the subsequent
force modernization was to rebuild the conventional military after
almost 20 years of decay, specifically focusing on the above three
components, and thus to advance it as close as possible toward the
ideal type of reconnaissance-strike complex. Modernizations
implemented towards the operation in Crimea, then in Donbas but
especially in Syria demonstrated a slow but steady improvement in
this regard.
Russian experts argue that Syria represents the first instance that the
Russian military has put into practice the ideas outlined by Marshall
Ogarkov and fielded reconnaissance-strike complexes on the ground.
The GS saw the operation in Syria as a testing ground for almost all
types of modern Russian weaponry from each of the branches and
services of the Armed Forces, and specifically the systemic use of ISR,
C2 and fire systems integrated into unified reconnaissance-strike
complexes.10 Unsurprisingly, the Russian professional discourses and
the lexicon of the senior officials with regard to the Syrian operation
are saturated with the terms “reconnaissance-strike complex” (RSC)
and “reconnaissance-fire complex” (RFC). Gerasimov’s euphemism
“Russia realized in Syria the principle of ‘one target, one bomb’ ” is the
most laconic expression of the IT-RMA warfare era—to be seen is to
be shot, and to be shot is to be killed.11 Accordingly, the following
three sections focus on the lessons learned about the three main
components of the complex—ISR, C2 and Strike—and what lies
between them. This division is quite general and is mainly for the
Russian Lessons From the Operation in Syria | 385
For the KSO, a new branch in the Russian military, Syria became a
period of professional and organizational establishment. The KSO
forces in the theater of operations interchangeably took responsibility
over the ISR, C2 and Strike elements of the RSC. When functioning as
the ISR segment, the KSO played the most central role in the
acquisition and designation of targets of strategic operational
importance, such as leadership and C2 centers, for a strike by the
artillery and air force (navedenie I korrektsia udarov).12 Given the
Syrian experience, it seems that the ISR responsibilities of the KSO as
an organic part of the reconnaissance-strike (RS) and reconnaissance-
fire (RF) complexes will continue to increase and become
institutionalized.
Since 2012, the Russian Armed Forces have taken a huge leap forward
in the quality and quantity of the UAV fleet. As part of the
modernization in this field, the military established 38 new UAV units
and detachments, which together operated more than 1,800 drones of
various types. The aim was to improve the ability of the forces to
conduct ISR missions to a tactical-operational depth of up to 500
386 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
All the ISR missions of the UAV fleet in Syria, as well as the
subsequent feeding of the targets bank to precision weapons systems,
sea and air cruise and ground ballistic missiles, as well as precision-
guided bombs and the C2 architecture, were based on the GLONASS
system. In 2011, the Russian MoD received for trial this satellite
constellation, which provides navigation services, PGM satellite
guidance and automated C2. In the subsequent years it entered
service, both the space and ground segments of the system have been
constantly improved. However, despite persistent upgrades and
investments, it still falls short of satisfying “the most demanding
applications, from mapping to high-precision weapons.” In Syria,
Russia field-tested all three abovementioned functions of the system.
Despite losing several satellites in failed launches throughout the
Syrian campaign, Russia had between 21 and 27 satellites in orbit. This
was sufficient to provide 95 percent of the system’s global availability
to conduct its three main missions for most of the time.16
The Syrian operation was a baptism by fire for the National Defense
Management Center (NTsUO), which, in the words of the CGS and
the MoD, fundamentally changed the Russian approach to the
command, control and management of the armed forces and
operations, and which is today the “key link in the system of state
military management.”22 The establishment of the center in 2013 was
probably one of the pivotal events in the realm of Russian C2
architecture and modus operandi. The NTsUO merges into one
unified interagency system analogous centers at all the levels of
management and in all the federal entities involved in national
security—158 federal and regional state organs, and 1,320 state
corporations and companies of the military-industrial complex. The
intra-net, which supports the NTsUO, established a unified
informational space for all the entities at all the levels. The daily
combat duty shift of the NTsUO with representatives on the strategic,
operational and tactical levels consists of 10,000 officers. It covers the
entire range of subjects, from early warning on nuclear-missile attack,
nuclear retaliation, air and missile defense, to managing actual combat
activities in a given theater of operation.23
Russian wartime supreme command (Stavka) and the GS. The CGS
and MoD observed in real time all activities on the ground, including
air, artillery, missile and long-range PGM strikes. The Command Post
in Khmeimim waged the operation and did the staff work supporting
it; however, it was fully and uninterruptedly accessible to the supreme
military leadership in Moscow.28 One may, thus, consider it the
tactical-operational equivalents of the Stavka representatives during
the war.
The ground forces’ bid to enable their commanders to turn the forces
under their command into RS and RF complexes is not novel. For
example, in 2014, this was exactly the message of the RviA branch
commander.41 However, as the commander of the Russian Airborne
Troop (VDV) forces put it in 2017, the Syrian experience enabled his
and other branches of the general-purpose forces to train
commanders to have under their authority and to employ the entire
spectrum of ISR and fire capabilities. This sounds like the main
takeaway from the Syrian operation and one of the main emphases
that his branch and other services received from the CGS and MoD
during a recent gathering of the Armed Forces high command. He did
not envision this as a given skill, but as something that commanders
should learn to employ.42 Indeed, the annual gathering of the high
394 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
command in July 2017 used the Syrian experience as the basis for
further military modernization. That gathering, along with several
military exercises that followed, emphasized, among other topics, the
employment of RS and RF complexes.43 The expectation of the
Ground Forces from the State Armaments Program (GPV) is
similar—to sustain highly mobile and self-sufficient brigades, capable
of functioning as mini-RFCs thanks to their fire, ISR and C2
capabilities.44
part and parcel of all operations of the Russian Armed Forces.47 With
regard to the navy, according to the deputy chief of the General Staff,
the effectiveness of the strike potentially enables long blue-water raids
and patrols and affords the ability to conduct autonomous or joint
strikes according to operational needs.48
Syria became the testing ground for new weapons and technologies in
general as well as for cruise missiles, PGMs and UAVs in particular.
Thus, just as the lessons from Georgia shaped the force buildup and
modernization, Russian experts expect the lessons learned from Syria
to leave an even more significant imprint on the State Armaments
Program and force buildup.49 Russian military experts Roger N.
McDermott and Dmitry Gorenburg assumed that, in light of the
Syrian lessons, the next GPV and military modernization plans will
emphasize high-technology C4ISR assets and stand-off strike
capabilities.50 Indeed, one of the top priorities of the Russian force
buildup is to produce a “new-generation military”; another is to create
“self-sufficient, effective groupings of forces on the key directions for
state security.”51 Providing guidance toward the new GPV, President
Vladimir Putin urged that special emphasis be placed on equipping
forces with sea-, air- and land-based PGMs, reconnaissance-strike
UAVs, modern C4ISR and REB capabilities, as well as individual
equipment for soldiers, such as Ratnik.52 The next GPV, based on the
lessons learned from Syria, pays special attention to the quality and
quantity of the PGM arsenal and the C4ISR systems supporting it,
including UAVs and space satellites as its main enablers in all the
branches.53 Russian officials and experts commenting on the next
GPV see this as the strongest emphasis of the program, second only
to the modernization of the nuclear triad.54
Strategic Mobility
Radio-Electronic Struggle
Notes
1
For example, see: Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky, “From Moscow with Coercion:
Russian Deterrence Theory and Strategic Culture,” Journal of Strategic Studies 41,
no. 1, 2018.
Russian Lessons From the Operation in Syria | 403
2
Viktor Baranets, “Mi Slomali Khrebet Udarnym Silam Terrorizma,” KZ, December
29, 2017.
3
See: Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky and Kejell Inge Bjerga, Contemporary Military
Innovation: Between Anticipation and Adaptation (London” Routledge, 2013).
4
Viktor Baranets, “Mi Slomali Khrebet Udarnym Silam Terrorizma.”
5
Viktor Baranets and Iurii Avdeev, “Piatiletka Preobrazovanii,” KZ, October 31,
2017; Editorial, “Itogi Spetsial’noi Operatsii v Sirii,” KZ, December 24, 2017;
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, Mil.ru, November 7, 2017.
6
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossi;” “Voennaia priemka. Aviatsiia v Sirii. Samolety. Chast’ 2,” TV
Zvezda, August 14, 2017.
7
Ibid.
8
Viktor Baranets and Iurii Avdeev, “Piatiletka; Editorial, “Itogi Spetsial’noi
Operatsii v Sirii”; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na
Otkrytom Zasedanii.”
9
See discussion: Dima Adamsky, The Culture of Military Innovation: IT-RMA in
Russia, the US and Israel (Pale Alto: Stanford UP, 2010).
10
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii.”
11
Editorial, “Genshtab: Rossiia v Sirii realizovala printsip odna tsel – odna bomba,”
RIA Novosti, November 7, 2017.
12
Sergei Rudstkoi, “Osnovnye Etapy Operatsii VS RF v SAR i Osobennosti
Organizatsii Sistemy Upravlenija,” Arsenal Otechestva, no. 5(31), 2017, p. 25. Viktor
Baranets Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; Also see: Aleksandr Tikhonov,
“Siriiskaia Proverka Boem,” KZ, August 27, 2017.
13
Generally known in the Western military professional lexicon as “Electronic
Warfare” (EW).
14
The work underway aims to provide the ability to conduct the entire range of
missions to a depth of up to 3,000 km. “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
404 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
15
Viktor Baranets, “Mi Slomali Khrebet Udarnym Silam Terrorizma.”
16
Anton Lavrov, “Russia’s GLONASS Satellite Constellation,” Moscow Defense Brief,
no. 4, 2017.
17
Ibid.
18
Paul Iddon, “For the Russian Military in Syria, Old Habits Die Hard,” War Is
Boring Blog, December 9, 2017.
19
Anton Lavrov, “Russia’s GLONASS Satellite Constellation.”
20
Ibid.
21
Also, the work is underway to develop satellite-guided shells for RViA; Ibid.
22
Viktor Baranets, “Doklad pervogo zamestitelia MO RF Ruslana Tsalikova na
Otrkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, mil.ru, November 7, 2017.
23
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin, “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, Mil.ru,
November 7, 2017. In that way, it further turned the GS and MoD into primus inter
pares within the strategic community on matters of national security. See Golts, pp.
184–185.
24
For the logic and essence of the reforms, see: Alexander Golts, Military Reform
and Militarism in Russia (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2017).
25
Sergei Rudstkoi, “Osnovnye Etapy Operatsii VS RF v SAR i Osobennosti
Organizatsii Sistemy Upravlenija.”
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Viktor Baranets, “Doklad pervogo zamestitelia MO RF Ruslana Tsalikova na
Otrkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.”
Russian Lessons From the Operation in Syria | 405
29
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, Mil.ru, November 7, 2017.
30
Anton Lavrov, “Russia’s GLONASS Satellite Constellation.”
31
Also, for the first time ever Russian forces used a new method of secured and
secret communication, utilizing the capacities of the local foreign operators’
networks. Rudskoi, p. 26; Khalil Arsalanov, “Osobennosti Organizatsi Sviazi v
Khode Boevykh Desitvii v SAR,” Arsenal Otechestva, no. 5(31), 2017, pp. 27–30.
32
Baranets.
33
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.”
34
Ibid.
35
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, Mil.ru, November 7, 2017.
36
Aleksandr Tikhonov, “Siriiskaia Proverka Boem,” KZ, September 12, 2017. Also
see: Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid. For additional discussion of the artillery systems, see: Iurii Liamin and Vitalii
Moiseev, “Siriiskie Bogi Voiny,” Arsenal Otechestva 31, no. 5, 2017; Leonid Kariakin,
“Proverennye Boem,” Arsenal Otechestva 30, no. 4, 2017.
39
Rudstkoi, p. 25; Baranets; Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin, “Vystuplenie
Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO
Rossii.”
40
Nikolai Surkov, “Siriiskaia shkola sovremennnoi voiny,” Izvestia, December 29,
2017.
41
Viktor Khudoleev, “Kursom k Razvedovatel’no-Ognevoi Sisteme,” KZ, November
20, 2014.
42
Editorial, “Udarnye i razvedpodrazdelenija VDV objedeniat pod odnim
komandovaniem,” TASS, July 31, 2017.
406 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
43
Khairemdinov. The ability of the C2 organs to plan and conduct a joint combined
arms ground operation was another major emphasis. “MO Sergei Shoigu v ramkakh
sbora rukovodiashego sostava VS proveril gotovnost’ organov voennogo upravleniia
k boevomu primeneniju,” MO RF, milru, July 19. 2017; “MO v ramkakh
operativnogo sbora rukovodiashcego sostava VS pribyl vo Vladimirskuju oblast,”
MO RF, mil.ru, July 20, 2017.
44
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.”
45
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, Mil.ru, November 7, 2017.
46
For example, see: Morgan Paglia, “The Role of Access-Denial in Coercive
Diplomacy,” Asia Focus, no. 55, IRIS, December 2017.
47
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii.”
48
Aleksandr Tikhonov, “Siriiskaia Proverka Boem,” KZ, September 12, 2017. Also
see: Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.” The jury is still
out regarding the lessons related to the Russian air carrier Kuznetsov. Available
comments by Russian experts suggest that the main directions for further
modernization might be enhancement of the PGM and REB capabilities, and the
ability to integrate itself into the RSC operating in the theater of operations by
improvements of its own C4ISR capabilities. This would also further improve its
ability to function as a self-sufficient RSC. Editorial, “Siriiskii opyt Kuznetsova,”
TASS, February 8, 2017. Also see: Roger McDermott, “Shoigu Promotes Russia’s
Effective Army Plans to 2025,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 14, Issue 54, April
25, 2017.
49
M. Iu. Shepovalenko, Siriiskeii Rubezh (Moscow: CAST, 2016), pp. 119–120.
50
Roger McDermott, “High Technology Set to Dominate Russia’s Rearmament
Program,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 14, Issue 154, November 29, 2017;
Dmitry Gorenburg, “Russia’s Military Modernization Plans: 2018–2027,” PONARIS,
no. 495, November 2017.
51
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.”
Russian Lessons From the Operation in Syria | 407
52
Given the very high estimate of the Ratnik individual equipment kit and frequent
references to it by the Russian political and military leaders, it seems that massive
acquisition is likely to turn into one of the main procurement trends. This is more
than just a tactical issue; according to the Ground Forces commander, “the units
equipped with this third-generation individual equipment will be autonomous and
self-sufficient for the wide range of combat activities and capable of integrating
themselves into RSCs.” Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin. As the KSO experience
suggests, the integration equally relates to the ISR, C2 and Strikes components of the
complexes.
53
Avdeev.
54
Editorial, “Iadernye sily – glavnyi element sderzhivaniia,” NVO, December 8,
2017.
55
McDermott, “High Technology.” Western scholars question, however, the move
in this direction due to the potential obstacles from the military-industrial complex
entities driven by parochial considerations. For example, see: John Grady, “Experts:
Syrian War Prompting Russians to Expand Unmanned Systems,” The US Naval
Institute, October 9, 2017.
56
Baranets. In the Gerasimov-Shoigu reforms, VDV troops have been developed as
the basis of the rapid reaction forces, capable of swiftly regrouping, deploying and
employing their battalion tactical groups in any strategic direction; “Vystuplenie
Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO
Rossii.”
57
“Doklad pervogo zamestitelia MO RF Ruslana Tsalikova na Otrkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, mil.ru, 7 November 2017. For Serdiukov-Shoigu
reforms see Golts, pp.185-194.
58
See Golts, pp.185–194. “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova
na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii,” MO RF, Mil.ru, November 7, 2017;
Surkov.
59
Ibid.
60
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii.” Khmeimim was launching around 100 sorties daily.
61
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.”
408 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
62
For detailed discussion of the MTO and primary sources on the subject, see: Roger
McDermott, “Zapad 2017: Myth and Reality,” Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume 14,
Issue 126, The Jamestown Foundation October 10, 2017.
63
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.”
64
Surkov.
65
Baranets.
66
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii.”
67
Shepovalenko, p. 129–131. Also see: M.L. Abramov, “Commentary,” in
Shepovalenko, p. 132.
68
Sergey Sukhanin, “Syrian Lessons and Russia’s Asymmetric Response to the US,”
EDM 14, no. 118, September 26, 2017.
69
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii.”
70
Iu.I. Lastochkin Iu.L. Koziratskii, Iu.E. Donskov, A.L. Moraresku, “Boevoe
primenenie voisk REB kak sostavnaia chast’ operativnogo iskusstva ob’edeneniia
SV,” Voennaia Mysl’, no. 9, 2017, pp. 18–26; Editorial, “Russia’s upgraded Mig-29
fighter jets to test new aircraft armament in Syria,” TASS, December 7, 2017.
71
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii.”
72
Ibid.
73
Michael Kofman, “What Actually Happened During Zapad 2017,” Russian
Military Analysis Blog, December 22, 2017.
74
Roger McDermott, “Zapad 2017 and the Initial Period of War,” Eurasia Daily
Monitor, Volume 14, Issue 115, September 20, 2017.
75
Andrei Khokhlov, “V Voiska Vnedriaetsia pobednyi Siriiskii opyt,” Vecherniaia
Moskva, December 13, 2017.
76
Andrei Kartapalov, “Okrug Udarnykh Zadach,” KZ, December 6, 2017.
Russian Lessons From the Operation in Syria | 409
77
Andrei Bondarenko, “Pod pritselom – dzhihad mobili,” KZ, July 9, 2017.
78
Surkov.
79
Solomatin, page 32. Among the counterintuitive tactical insights that have
emerged so far is the notion that tanks in this type of operations were not used in
the canonical massive manner, maneuvering while supported by aviation and
artillery deep into the operational depth to encircle, along the lines of 20th century
tactics, but rather as standalone pieces of the offensive and defensive fire support
and as multipliers of tactical effectiveness of the limited forces. It seems that in the
course of a hundred years, the armor has come full circle and reacquired its early
historical responsibility of providing support to the infantry. Iurii Liamin and Vitalii
Moiseev, “Ural’skie tanki v Sirii,” Arsenal Otechestva 27, no. 1, 2017.
80
Nikolai Moiseenko, “Glavnaia Auditoriia – Poligon,” KZ, December 14, 2017;
Editorial, “MosVOKU vzialo na vooruzhenie Siriiskii opyt,” Voennoe Obozrenie,
December 15, 2017.
81
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii.”
82
Editorial, “General Gerasimov: Siriiskii Opyt – Bestsennaia shkola dlia Rossiiskikh
voisk,” POLITROSSIA, 5 Febraury 2017; “V Voennoi akademii GSh VS RF proshlo
ocherednoe zaniatie kursa Armiia I Obschestvo,” MO RF, mil.ru, Febraury 3, 2017;
“Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii
Kollegii MO Rossii.”
83
Despite the very important contribution of the VKS to the victory, eventually,
according to Gerasimov, it was forged on the ground. This, in his view, further
underscores the importance of the general-purpose ground commanders. Editorial,
“General Gerasimov: Siriiskii Opyt – Bestsennaia shkola dlia Rossiiskikh voisk.”
84
Leonid Khairemdinov, “Siriiskii Opyt Kak Osnova,” KZ, July 18, 2017.
85
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii”; This strongly
corresponds with his emphasis in previous years on the asymmetrical competitive
strategies that Russia should adopt.
86
Golts, pp. 180–182.
87
Gavrilenko, Tikhonov, and Biriulin; “Vystuplenie Nachialnika GSh VS RF
Valeriia Gerasimova na Otkrytom Zasedanii Kollegii MO Rossii”; “Vystuplenie
410 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Introduction
By the end of Peter I’s reign, the Russian army was 210,000 strong;3
yet, more than 50 drafts were conducted between 1705 and 1725,
which together gave the Armed Forces a reserve of 400,000 men4—in
effect, it was mass mobilization. A steady adherence to this concept
provided Russian tsars and generals with the ultimate weapon—
constant numerical superiority over the enemy in an era when,
according to Napoleon Bonaparte, God was “on the side of the big
battalions.” During the 1870s, Russian War Minister Dmitry Milyutin
completed his reforms, which radically changed the system of
staffing—from one based on recruitment to a conscript service. As
such, the government transformed Russia’s high birth rate—which
was typical for a peasant country—into a renewable resource of
military power. Decades later, the ability to carry out a mass
mobilization and to throw millions of poorly trained men into battle
was key to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) winning the
Second World War.
of skeleton divisions. These were made up of only 500 officers and 200
regular privates; the vast majority of remaining open positions were
to be filled by incoming reservists. In war time, once a skeleton
division accepted reservists, it was to be deployed to the battlefield,
where the bulk of the troops were—according to the main military
concept—likely to die in the opening exchange with the enemy. Soviet
military planning was guided by the country’s experience in the
Second World War, in which a brigade would generally “fade” within
three days. So these destroyed divisions had to be constantly replaced
by fresh units made up of new reservists.
The most important factors of social life and the economy on which
the system of mass mobilization was based simply disappeared as the
USSR fell apart. First of all, mass mobilization required a steady
growth in the population: the population needed to be sufficient not
only for the formation of a multi-million-strong military force, but
also to provide the Armed Forces with weapons, equipment and all
necessary resources. However, today’s Russian Federation is heading
into a demographic slump: in the year 2017, 570,000 young men were
estimated to reach the age of 18, in 2018—600,000. And in 2019,
568,000 will reach conscription age.10 As such, Russia will find it
impossible to fully fill the ranks of a one-million-strong military,
which will require a draft of around 700,000 people each year.
The degradation of the Russian military during the nearly two decades
following the collapse of the Soviet Union was further demonstrated
during the war with Georgia, in August 2008. Military equipment that
had been stockpiled for years in order to be used in war suffered from
critically substandard quality. According to General Vladimir
Shamanov, half of the tanks and armored vehicles of the 19th
Motorized Rifle Division broke during the march on Georgia and did
not reach Tskhinvali. The officer corps to lead Russia’s various
skeleton units was not ready either. “When those commanders were
given troops and equipment, they were just confused, and some even
refused to carry out their orders,” the former chief of the General Staff,
Nikolai Makarov, reflected in December 2008.14
The reformers tried to answer the criticism. They insisted that future
military conflicts would be short-term wars, which is why a multi-
million-man mobilization reserve was simply not needed. After a
closed meeting of the then-chief of the General Staff, Nikolai
Makarov, with members of the State Duma, it became known that in
The Concept of Mass Mobilization Returns | 419
Useless Experiments
And for this purpose we will create worthy training centers. You
will spend one day a week on theoretical education—it is not that
The Concept of Mass Mobilization Returns | 421
hard. After the theoretical course, you will have to pass a three-
month-long training regimen. We have enough units, training
grounds and equipment to do this. And believe me, we will try to
do all this under humane conditions. But, of course, we will
require complete output. We expect to recruit 80,000–100,000
people a year into the reserves.23
Predictably, the military top brass did not like this idea. Specifically,
the enrollment of all students with military training into a
mobilization reserve force would deprive supporters of a mass
mobilization army of their main argument that only universal
conscription is able to provide the Armed Forces with sufficient
reserves. The Russian military annually calls up (with great difficulty)
about 280,000–300,000 conscripts. And 10–15 percent of these
draftees are university graduates; thus, the military did not want to
lose them to a newly structured reserve force. As a result, the
presidential initiative from 2013 was obstructed and delayed by the
military leadership tasked with carrying it out. According to initial
plans then announced by Shoigu, military training was supposed to be
mandatory for all male students in the country by 2016. But that year,
only 22,000 students were permitted to participate in the training
422 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Mobilization Training
stood as the main goal of the exercise. The snap exercise was held
across all Russian military districts—that is, throughout the entire
country. Within the framework of the exercise, mobile command
centers were deployed in all districts. This, most likely, means that the
inspection itself was rehearsing a so-called “threat period,” during
which time a war against a global adversary appears inevitable.
The fact that such specific exercises were held in the form of a snap
inspection—and not as maneuvers announced in advance—was, of
course, provocative. Russia announced a mobilization on the territory
of the whole country and did not mention the number of participating
reservists. It is appropriate to recall that the First World War started
after opposing powers began mobilizing to scare and intimidate one
another. Moreover, a “snap inspection” of troops announced by
President Vladimir Putin on February 26, 2014, ended with the
annexation of Crimea and the beginning of the “secret war” in the
eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas. But as for the June 2016 snap
inspection, the Russian Ministry of Defense considered it sufficient to
only inform foreign military attachés present in Moscow—and only
after it already started. The director of the Russian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs’ Department of European Cooperation, Andrey Kelin, tried to
legitimize the snap exercise by noting: “[Such a] drill is not found in
documents relating to confidence-building measures and arms
control. Well, this is actually a new form [of exercise] and nothing
more. There is absolutely no violation of existing agreements here.”26
Though the June snap inspection was carried out in all four military
districts and professed to cover the whole of Russian territory, it was
in fact a bit more limited. According to defense ministry statements,
only units located in Leningrad and Omsk oblasts as well as Primorsky
and Krasnodar krais took part. A unit of the Western MD artillery
brigade, manned with reserve servicemen, practiced firing Msta-B
152-milimeter howitzers at the Luga range, Leningrad oblast. In the
Southern MD, a signal company formed from reservists received
equipment at their base and then marched 200 kilometers to Molkino,
424 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
At first, Moscow repeatedly argued that the scale of Zapad 2017 was
restricted to only 12,700 regular Russian troops, and no mention was
ever officially made about practicing for a mass mobilization of
reservists. However, two months later, in November 2017, President
Putin suddenly revealed during a meeting with leaders of the Armed
Forces and chiefs the defense industry that one of the main goals of
that year’s Zapad drills was to check “our mobilization readiness and
ability to use local resources to meet troop requirements.” He added,
“Reservists were called up for this exercise, and we also tested the
ability of civilian companies to transfer their vehicles and equipment
to the armed forces and provide technical protection to transport
communications.”27
This aspect of the Zapad 2017 strategic exercise had only been
featured occasionally, in fragmentary reports. Local press reported
about mobilization being done in complete secrecy in the Kaliningrad
region—reservists had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Some hazy
reporting on “mobilization actions” in Kursk region also appeared.
The call-up of reservists was supposed to replace the need to transfer
troops from elsewhere in the country. However, while addressing the
defense ministry, Putin additionally noted that these mobilization
activities during the 2017 Zapad exercise were unsuccessful and will
need to be corrected.
426 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
gaps. In particular, reserve officers who left the Armed Forces were
recruited again. It is worth noting that, on February 22, 2017, while
speaking before the State Duma, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu
clarified that due to shortages of personnel in 2015, 15,000 troops
previously dismissed had been returned to service.30 Obviously this
practice continued in 2016 and 2017.
At first glance, blame for these chronic shortages in the officer corps
might be attributed to former minister of defense Anatoly Serdyukov.
As part of his important package of military reforms, Serdyukov had
ordered a halt to any new cadets being accepted to military academies
during 2009–2011. However, it should be recalled that his decision
428 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
was triggered by the fact that, three years earlier, the Armed Forces
were overwhelmed by a tremendous surplus of officers. At that time,
open positions for lieutenants were virtually nonexistent, while
graduates of military schools were appointed to positions usually
occupied by sergeants. But suddenly, today, a monstrous deficit has
appeared. Consequently, the number of uncommitted officers waiting
for either dismissal or appointment has decreased by almost 20 times
compared to those years. In 2012, Serdyukov’s subordinates believed
that an annual output of at 8,500 new lieutenants would thoroughly
cover the military’s staffing needs.32 Now defense ministry leaders
insist they need 16,000 new graduates each year. In contrast, the
number of Russian troops has not doubled. Therefore, the only
eхplanation for this sudden need to recruit twice as many officers is
the excess number of lieutenants required to fill out the Russian
military’s new skeleton units. In fact, the staff of these divisions
consists mostly of officers. These types of divisions are appropriate if
one’s goal is to report to the president about the increasing power of
the Russian army. To establish such new “paper” divisions, one needs
only several thousand officers, not hundreds of thousands of
additional privates.
Staffing Problems
has not been growing but is, in fact, shrinking. At an October 2017
meeting of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense, Colonel
General Michael Mizintsev mentioned a sensational figure: according
to him, the number of Russian contract soldiers that year amounted
to 354,000.36 Mizintsev, as the chief of Russia’s National Defense
Management Center, is reportedly privy, in real time, to all possible
data on the status of the Armed Forces, which adds credence to his
cited lower number of contract soldiers.
If Putin is not bluffing, these statements show that he and his military
advisers are ignoring reality. The domestic defense industry arguably
cannot cope with the tasks set by the Kremlin due to evident
difficulties with the mass production of weapons. In attempting to
realize these tasks, the authorities risk further damaging the Russian
economy. Nevertheless, to try to achieve the mobilization
benchmarks, the government will likely first resort to “administrative”
methods: using threats of criminal punishment to try to force
businesses to produce military products. But participation in military
production does not bring profits. And because of US sanctions, the
participation in military production could destroy the civilian part of
the business. Thus, if threats fail to increase military production, the
Russian government might try to nationalize the industry—which
could easily spiral into general autarky and systemic shortages,
including of food. The idea of mobilizing industry contradicts Putin’s
remarks that the government would be moving away from a conscript
army. After all, if the number of reservists is to be significantly
The Concept of Mass Mobilization Returns | 431
Conclusion
Notes
1
This chapter draws heavily on some of the author’s previously published articles
(between 2016 and 2017) in The Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor,
432 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
namely: “New Divisions May Reduce Russian Army’s Combat Readiness” (Volume
13, Issue: 97), “Implementing Reserve System an Uphill Battle for Russia” (Volume
13, Issue 115), “Russia Returning to Concept of Mass Mobilization (Volume 13,
Issue 157), “Short-Term Personnel Contracts Negate Goals of Russia’s Military
Reforms” (Volume 13, Issue 180), “The Russian Army Suffers Deficit in Officers”
(Volume 14, Issue 25), “How Many Soldiers Does Russia Have?” (Volume 14, Issue
144), “Russian Military Mass Mobilization: Fact or Bluff?” (Volume 14, Issue 158).
All are available on www.jamestown.org.
2
William C. Fuller, Strategy and Power in Russia: 1600–1914, (Free Press: New
York, 1992), p. 89.
3
Gosudarstvennaia oborona Rossii, Imperativy russkoi voennoi klassiki, (Russkii
put/Voennyi universitet), 2002, p. 490.
4
Istoriia Voyennoi strategii Rossii, (Kuchkovo pole), 2000, p. 47.
5
Ibid., p. 528.
6
Aleksandr Golts, “Rossiskiyi militarism – prepyatstvie modernizatsyii starany”
(“Militarism in Russia as obstacle to modernization”), Liberalnaya missiya, 2005
p.45.
7
Ibid., p. 46.
8
Viktor Litovkin, “Genshtab menyaet vzglyady na sovremennye i budushchie
vojny” (“The General Staff Is Changing Views on Modern Warfare”), Nezavisimoe
Voennoe Obozrenie, July 10, 2009.
9
“General’skii demarsh” (“General's Demarche”), Nezavisimaia Gazeta. July 5,
2011.
10
Problemyi i praktika perehoda voennoy organizatsii Rossii na novuyu sistemu
komplektovaniya (Problems and practice of transition of military organization of
Russia to new recruitment system) Nauchnyye trudy № 75. M.: Institut ekonomiki
perekhodnogo perioda. 2004. S. 238.
11
Vladimir Putin, “Annual Address to the Federal Assembly,” May 10, 2006,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/23577.
12
“Administrativnaya otvetstvennost' za narushenie polozhenij Federal'nogo zakona
ot 29.12.2012 N 275-FZ ‘O gosudarstvennom oboronnom zakaze,’ ” “Administrative
The Concept of Mass Mobilization Returns | 433
13
Ekaterina Karacheva, “FNS vyyavila khishcheniya milliardov pod predlogom
podgotovki k voyne,” Izvestia, July 30, 2012.
14
Interfax, December 30, 2008.
15
Rossiiskaya Gazeta, May 12, 2009.
16
Vladimir Shamanov, “Neobkhodimost reform podtverdila voyna,” Krasnaya
Zvezda, February 11, 2009.
17
Vladimir Voloshin. Ot Shoygu trebuyut uvelichit srok sluzhby v armii do polutora
let. Izvestiya. November 22, 2012
18
“Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” Kremlin.ru, February 5, 2010,
http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/461.
19
D. Telmanov, “V sleduyushchem godu zarplata leytenantov sostavit 50 tysyach
rubley,” Gazeta, November 14 2008, № 217.
20
Yuri Gavrilov, “8 tysyach – ‘partizanu’ ” (“8 thousands to ‘partisan’ ”), Rossiyskaya
Gazeta, March 22, 2013.
21
“Sozdaniye mobilizatsionnogo lyudskogo rezerva Vooruzhonnykh sil RF
nachnotsya na sistemnoy osnove v 2016 godu, soobshchayut v Gosdume,” Interfax-
AVN, September 11, 2015,
http://www.militarynews.ru/Story.asp?rid=1&nid=388772.
22
Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly, December 12, 2013,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19825.
23
Aleksandr Tikhonov, “Studencheskiy prizyv – v nogu so vremenem,” Krasnaya
Zvezda, December 19, 2013.
24
“Khod uchebno-polevykh sborov so studentami vuzov po programmam voyennoy
podgotovki serzhantov i soldat zapasa,” Ekho Moskvy, July 16, 2016,
https://echo.msk.ru/programs/voensovet/1802316-echo/.
434 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
25
“Surprise combat readiness check begins in Russia,” TASS, June 14, 2016,
http://tass.com/defense/881746.
26
Liza Dubrovskaya, “MID otvetil genseku NATO: obvinivshemu Rossiyu v
nepredskazuyemosti,” Moskovsky Komsomolets, June 15, 2016.
27
“Meeting with Defence Ministry and defence industry senior officials and heads of
ministries and regions,” Kremlin.ru, November 22, 2017,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56150.
28
Nikolay Poroskov, “Nekolokolnyye interesy Rossii,” Nezavisimoye Voyennoye
Obozreniye, February 19, 2016,
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12155960@egNews.
29
Marina Eliseyeva, “S pritselom na perspektivu,” Krasnaya Zvezda, February 5,
2017.
30
“Shoygu: defitsit voyennykh letchikov v VKS v 2016 g. sostavlyal 1300 chelovek,”
TASS, February 22, 2017, http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4045193.
31
“V Moskve proshel spetsial’nyy sbor nachal’nikov kadrovykh organov
Vooruzhennykh Sil Rossii,” Mil.ru, February 2, 2017,
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12110631@egNews.
32
“V Minoborony rasskazali, skol'ko vypusknikov voyennykh vuzov nuzhno armii,”
RIA Novosti, March 23, 2012,
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120523/655876063.html.
33
“Rossiya postepenno ukhodit ot sluzhby po prizyvu. zayavil Putin,” RIA Novosti,
October 24, 2017, https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171024/1507463335.html.
34
“V ystupleniye Ministra oborony Rossi yskoy Federatsii generala armii Sergeya
Shoygu na rasshirennom zasedanii Kollegii Minoborony Rossii,” Mil.ru, December
22, 2016, https://function.mil.ru/files/morf/2016-12-
22_MoD_board_extended_session_RUS.pdf.
35
“Verkhovnyy Glavnokomanduyushchiy Vooruzhennymi Silami Rossii Vladimir
Putin prinyal uchastiye v rabote rasshirennogo zasedaniya Kollegii Minoborony,”
Mil.ru, December 22, 2017,
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12155960@egNews.
The Concept of Mass Mobilization Returns | 435
36
“Sokrashcheniye kolichestva voyennosluzhashchikh po prizyvu pozvolyayet
uluchshit’ kachestvo ikh otbora,” Mil.ru, October 20, 2017,
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12147724@egNews.
37
“Meeting with Defence Ministry and defence industry senior officials and heads of
ministries and regions,” Kremlin.ru, November 22, 2017,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56150.
436
Contributors’ Biographies
Dmitry Adamsky
Pavel K. Baev
Jānis Bērziņš
Dr. Jānis Bērziņš is the director of the Center for Security and Strategic
Research at the National Defense Academy of Latvia. Previously
Bērziņš was a senior fellow at the Potomac Foundation and has
worked as Managing Director and Chief Economist at Lux Sit. He has
held teaching positions at Riga Strandins University and the
Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinesese. He has authored more
than 70 publications and has advised the United Kingdom House of
Commons’ Defence Select Committee as well as the governments of
Sweden, Poland and Singopre. He has also provided expertise on
strategic issues to the private sector. Dr. Bērziņš completed his PhD in
Political Science at Latvijas Universitāte.
438 | RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY AND DOCTRINE
Stephen Blank
Philip M. Breedlove
Joint Staff.
Matthew Czekaj
Jörgen Elfving
Pavel Felgenhauer
Stefan Forss
Aleksandr Golts
currently works as a deputy editor for the website EJ.ru and is a regular
contributor to The Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor,
where he writes on Russian military reform and defense issues.
Glen E. Howard
Ihor Kabanenko
Roger N. McDermott
Sergey Sukhankin
The key questions emphasized by this book include “how Russia fights wars” and “how its
experiences with modern conflicts are shaping the evolution of Russia’s military strategy,
capabilities and doctrine.” The book’s value comes not only from a piecemeal look at
granular Russian strategies in each of the theaters and domains where its Armed Forces
may act, but more importantly this study seeks to present a unifying description of Russia’s
military strategy as a declining but still formidable global power. Russia’s Military Strategy
and Doctrine will be an essential reference for US national security thinkers, NATO defense
planners and policymakers the world over who must deal with the potential military and
security challenges posed by Moscow.
■ ■ ■
“This book is a major addition to the field of Russian military studies and should Glen E. Howard and
be required reading by many of our senior civilian and military policymakers. Its
insights on Russian military strategy in key regions of the world are of great
Matthew Czekaj, Editors
value and will last for years to come. Jamestown is always a pivotal source of
information and a resource I greatly value, both now and since I left the US Army.” Foreword by
—LTG (ret.) Ben Hodges, former Commanding General of US Army Europe, Former NATO SACEUR
The Jamestown Foundation
$24.95
ISBN 978-0-9986660-1-3
52495>
9 780998 666013