Information operations · Information Warfare · Russia

Russian General Pitches ‘Information’ Operations as a Form of War


Gen. Valery V. Gerasimov, the chief of the Russian general staff, yesterday, published an article that has pundits scrambling to explain how the modern Russian military operates. 

My interpretation is that Russia, as a nation, uses Information Warfare during peace and war.  The difference is the intensity and acerbity. This is being applied to the situation in Venezuela by Russia, their propaganda machine has reoriented, using Venezuela as a leverage point against the West, mostly towards the United States as being Russia’s great external enemy and the instigator of everything that goes wrong in Venezuela. 

The only other codification appears to be that warfare is a whole-of-nation effort in Russia, the difference is which tools are used. Classic, conventional military weapons will be used to threaten nations like Ukraine, but are only actively engaged in a more conventional conflict like Syria or a more conventional invasion that is being threatened across Eastern Europe. 

Gerasimov’s article introduces nothing new, it only appears to codify what Russia has been doing since shortly before their 2014 invasion of Crimea. 

</end editorial>



By Andrew E. Kramer

MOSCOW — The chief of Russia’s armed forces endorsed on Saturday the kind of tactics used by his country to intervene abroad, repeating a philosophy of so-called hybrid war that has earned him notoriety in the West, especially among American officials who have accused Russia of election meddling in 2016.

At a conference on the future of Russian military strategy, Gen. Valery V. Gerasimov, the chief of the general staff, said countries bring a blend of political, economic and military power to bear against adversaries.

The speech outlined what some Western analysts consider the signature strategy of Russia under President Vladimir V. Putin — and what other experts call a simple recognition of modern war and politics.

General Gerasimov said Russia’s armed forces must maintain both “classical” and “asymmetrical” potential, using jargon for the mix of combat, intelligence and propaganda tools that the Kremlin has deployed in conflicts such as Syria and Ukraine.

And he cited the Syrian civil war an example of successful Russian intervention abroad. The combination of a small expeditionary force with “information” operations had provided lessons that could be expanded to “defend and advance national interests beyond the borders of Russia,” he said.

The speech was noteworthy for echoing themes General Gerasimov laid out in an article published in 2013 in The Military-Industrial Courier, a Russian army journal, and which many now see as a foreshadowing of the country’s embrace of “hybrid war” in Ukraine, where Russia has backed separatist rebels and used soldiers in unmarked uniforms to seize Crimea.

Though definitions of the term vary, some analysts see a progression from the blend of subversion and propaganda used in Ukraine to the tactics later directed against Western nations, including the United States, where Russia’s military intelligence agency hacked into Democratic Party computers during the 2016 election. Russia denies interfering in the election.

An American interagency report on the Russian election meddling blamed the intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U. and at least formally subordinate to General Gerasimov, for hacking the Democratic National Committee servers and releasing documents to damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton and support her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

Russian soldiers with no insignia on their uniforms in Crimea in 2014. General Gerasimov said Russia’s armed forces must maintain a mix of combat, intelligence and propaganda tools. CreditSergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

In the 2013 article, General Gerasimov wrote that there were no clear borders between war and peace in the modern world. Militaries fight in peacetime, he said, and political and economic means are deployed in war.

That article prompted some Western analysts to call the Russian approach the “Gerasimov Doctrine,” though other experts object to crediting the general or the Kremlin alone.

“The idea that the Russians have discovered some new art of war is wrong,” Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute and the author of “Russian Political War,” said of the general’s latest speech. “This is basically the Russians trying to grapple with the modern world.”

Hybrid war has long been a Western military term of art, analysts say, especially in the context of counterterrorism. The phrase has been adopted in discussion of Israel’s security and the United States’ occupation of Iraq, for instance, and in 2005 it appeared in the title of an article co-authored by James N. Mattis, then an American lieutenant general and later President Trump’s secretary of defense.

When discussing a blend of military, political and information operations, Russian strategists use the terms “complex approach” or “new generation war,” according to Ivan Konovalov, a military analyst and director of the Center for Studies of Strategic Trends.

In both The Military-Industrial Courier article and the speech, General Gerasimov emphasized the importance of mixed tactics by blaming Russia’s adversaries for using them.

“The Pentagon set about developing a new principle and strategy of military action already called a ‘Trojan horse,’” he said on Saturday. “The essence is active use of protest potential in a ‘fifth column’ in the interest of destabilizing the situation, simultaneously with airstrikes on the most important objects.”

Sputnik, a Russian state news service, suggested the general’s comments were in part an analysis of the crisis in Venezuela, where Russia has accused the United States of trying to oust President Nicolás Maduro. The 2013 article expressed similar concerns, laying out ideas to counter what General Gerasimov called Western intervention in the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011.

The article and speech may also have a message for rivals at home. Pavel Felgenhauer, a military analyst and columnist in Moscow for the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, said military hard-liners often promote the idea of Russia being in a limbo between war and peace because it helps them in internal government disputes, giving them greater sway over foreign policy.

Promoting the idea is also consistent, he said, with using the G.R.U. to target Western countries. The message, he said, is “we don’t care what the West thinks, we are enemies.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/world/europe/russia-hybrid-war-gerasimov.html

2 thoughts on “Russian General Pitches ‘Information’ Operations as a Form of War

  1. I’ve always found it fascinating how there is both a legitimate argument from the perspective of defending an unjustly attacked victim, and an illegitimate/misdirected argument for this same case. It is clear from world history, that someone being a victim is both the cause of just wars, and of unjust wars. It’s distinguishing between these cases that is the field of operations for information warfare? Who is defending whom, and against whom? It’s all “who, whom”; as Vladimir Lenin phrased it more succinctly at the 1921 meeting of the Communist party: “The question is – who will overtake whom?”
    For me, this question boils down to the “who” part: If the power currently ruling a geographic space is unjustified, it is unjustified based upon it’s internal lack of republican democracy, it’s internal corruption, and the necessarily following aggression and blame towards minorities and/or other nations for internal problems. This lashing out by the autocracy, to disguise internal corruption which is causing decay, tends to endanger other nations, which then need to intervene in either a defensive, physical-military, or cyber-military capacity.
    For instance, Hitler used claims of victimhood to “rescue” the Sudetenland Germans, as well as “defensive aggression” to invade Poland. Putin has does something similar with the Ukrainian Russians in the Donbas and with the “Defensive aggression” in the invasion of Crimea. In both cases, falsified and misdirected victimhood was used in the information warfare space of both the 1930s and 2010s to freeze and weaken the response of republican democracies. Look, Putin’s regime still has a hold on territory of another sovereign nation, seized under pretext of “defensive” action.
    Therefore, the propaganda seeks to portray aggressive actions as defensive for foreign state audiences, while domestic audiences are given more understanding of the state as aggressive, and justified in being so.
    The notion of a power vacuum does not compute for many Americans, because we have such a large, safe country. However, wherever tyranny rears its ugly head, unfortunately it does not stop on its own: tyranny is a self-destructive and others-destructive human machine, that does not stop unless forced into a controlled zone, or completely defeated. That’s why the US-military and NATO is so important.

Comments are closed.