Book Review | The Russian Understanding of War: Blurring the Lines Between War and Peace
The Russian Understanding of War: Blurring the Lines Between War and Peace. By Oscar Jonsson. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2019. ISBN 978-1626167339. Maps. Photographs. Glossary. Notes. Sources Cited. Index. Pp. vii, 208. $26.14.
Oscar Jonsson’s The Russian Understanding of War is a well-timed and thought-provoking explanation of how Russian military thinking has developed to integrate non-military state tools—such as information warfare and ideological subversion—into its understanding of war. By systematically exploring this evolution from the Soviet period to today, Jonsson presents a convincing case: Russia no longer sees war solely in terms of armed conflict but views nonviolent actions as part of a continuous spectrum of conflict. This book is a must-read for policymakers, academics, and armed forces members struggling with today’s geopolitical conflicts and the challenges of so-called hybrid warfare.
Oscar Jonsson, a Swedish security analyst and political scientist, presents in this book the core question of whether Russia’s understanding of the nature of war has evolved to incorporate nonmilitary tools into its conception of warfare. Jonsson’s methodology examines Russian military writing, security policy documents, and public declarations of high-level officials, such as General Valery Gerasimov. The book is chronological in format, starting with the Soviet inheritance and concludes with extensive discussions of information warfare and the Color Revolutions. Throughout, Jonsson’s core argument is that Russia’s concept of war has extended beyond traditional armed conflict to include nonmilitary tools, such as propaganda, cyber operations, and political subversion, as essential components of warfare.
The book’s fresh approach is among its strongest points. Instead of merely analyzing Russia’s military capabilities or official doctrine, Jonsson aims to understand how the Russian thinkers themselves frame the nature of war. This closes an important gap in the literature and introduces a new analytical lens to the subject. The depth of Jonsson’s research is matched by its specificity; he relies extensively on Russian primary materials, everything from military journals and doctrinal texts to speeches, many of which remain untranslated or underutilized in Western scholarship. He also clarifies overused and inadequately defined Western concepts like Gerasimov Doctrine and hybrid warfare, explaining how these terms tend to overgeneralize or misrepresent the Russian perspective. Most thoughtfully, Jonsson highlights — much like other well-versed strategic thinkers, such as Lieutenant General (Retired) H.R. McMaster — that “U.S. leaders tend to mirror adversaries and define future war as they might prefer it to be.” Jonsson underscores the strategic dangers of misunderstanding Russia’s expanded understanding of warfare, stressing that such misinterpretations can result in grave Western policy and deterrence mistakes.
While the book does a solid job covering Russian military theory, incorporating opposing views or alternatives from within Russia’s own strategic and academic circles would provide extra valuable information to support its core argument. Although information warfare and Color Revolutions are central to the book’s argument, their repeated discussion in the later chapters begins to feel repetitive, as these themes are revisited without offering much new insight. Last but not least, taking a more comparative approach could make the analysis even more compelling. Looking at how countries like China and Iran are using non-military tools in their strategic planning would offer fresh insight and help clarify which aspects of Russia’s approach are unique and which it shares with others.
In the end, the book is a valuable resource for security and defense experts involved in NATO and European defense policy or shaping U.S. strategic policies, since it offers a deep insight into how Russia conceptualizes conflict. It is also very useful for scholars and students of international relations, security studies, or Russian affairs, offering a well-researched perspective on Russian military thought. Lastly, policymakers and journalists could also benefit from its subtle analysis that goes above the general clichés found in popular media, such as hybrid warfare, a catch-all term that, according to the author, conflates everything from propaganda and subversion to conventional armed conflict. This conflation, Jonsson argues, obscures Russia’s consistent strategic thought.
