NATO Commander Breedlove Discusses Implications of Hybrid War
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, March 23, 2015 – Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove discussed the implications of hybrid war during a presentation to the Brussels Forum over the weekend.
Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, said Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea and continued actions in the rest of Eastern Ukraine is a form of hybrid war.
Russia is using diplomacy, information warfare, and its military and economic means to wage this campaign, he added.
Aspects of Hybrid War
One of the first aspects of the hybrid war is to attack credibility and to try to separate a nation from its support mechanisms, the general said.
“Informationally, this is probably the most impressive new part of this hybrid war, all of the different tools to create a false narrative,” he said. “We begin to talk about the speed and the power of a lie, how to get a false narrative out, and then how to sustain that false narrative through all of the new tools that are out there.”
Military tools remain relatively unchanged, he said. “But how they are used or how they are hidden in their use, is the new part of this hybrid war,” the general said. “How do we recognize, how do we characterize and then how do we attribute this new employment of the military in a way that is built to bring about ambiguity?”
An Across-government Approach
Using the economic tool, he said, hybrid warfare allows a country to bring pressure on economies, but also on energy.
“What the military needs to do is to use those traditional military intelligence tools to develop the truth. The way you attack a lie is with the truth,” Breedlove said. “I think that you have to attack an all of a government approach with an all of government approach. The military needs to be able to do its part, but we need to bring exposure to those diplomatic pressures and return the diplomatic pressure. We need to, as a Western group of nations or as an alliance, engage in this information warfare to … drag the false narrative out into the light and expose it.”
Regarding Western response to Russian actions in Ukraine, no tool should be off the table, Breedlove said.
“In Ukraine, what we see is what we talked about earlier, diplomatic tools being used, informational tools being used, military tools being used, economic tools being used against Ukraine,” he said. “We, I think, in the West, should consider all of our tools in reply. Could it be destabilizing? The answer is yes. Also, inaction could be destabilizing.”
Now we see the Iranian non linear warfare coming into play---
Published: 7/09/2015 01:54 PM
Pro-Hezbollah daily: Russia will close Syria’s skies to Israel
Al-Akhbar boasted that Tel Aviv will face "the predicament of a resistance region in southern Syria that has Russian cover.”
BEIRUT – A pro-Hezbollah daily has boasted that Russia’s widely expected military intervention in Syria will prevent Israel from conducting further airstrikes in the country.
A report in Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar said Monday that Russia’s “participation in fighting in Syria will have an escalatory effect,” especially on the strategic level, where it will be “considered a show of strength to Israel and Turkey.”
“Israel, having understood the message even before receiving it formally, has realized that Syrian skies will be closed to Israeli planes,” the newspaper claimed.
A flurry of reports have emerged in recent weeks that Russia has been dispatching large numbers of military advisors to Syria and is planning to set up an airbase in the Latakia province to conduct airstrikes on behalf of the Bashar al-Assad regime.
An unnamed US official told Reuters over the weekend that Washington has detected “worrisome preparatory steps” by the Russians that could signal the country “is readying deployment of heavy military assets” in Syria.
Al-Akhbar—which firmly supports Hezbollah—further said that Tel Aviv “will face the predicament of a resistance region in southern Syria that has Russian cover.”
Israel has conducted a number of airstrikes in the Golan in recent months, most recently on August 21 following a rocket attack on Israel. Hezbollah, meanwhile, has repeatedly vowed that it has been developing a “resistance front” in the border region to confront Israel.
Israel’s Haaretz newspaper also tackled the effect of Moscow’s expected intervention on Tel Aviv’s policymaking regarding Syria, where the Jewish State has conducted a number of reported strikes against shipments of advances weapons headed for Hezbollah in Lebanon.
“The entry of Russia into the Syrian arena changes the rules of this game,” Haaretz’s defense and military analyst Amos Harel wrote in an article published Sunday.
The leading Israeli military journalist added that “if Russia is dispatching its jet fighters and establishing a new military base in Syria, Israel will have to deal with new and different kinds of constraints, especially if the aircraft are equipped with Russian air-to-air missiles.”
“Increased Russian military presence in the region may demand that Israel’s military intelligence undertake more forceful efforts to deal with this development.”
Last week, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported that Russia would begin dispatching thousands of military personnel to Syria, adding that that Moscow’s aerial operations on behalf of the Bashar al-Assad regime would “represent a challenge to the Israeli Air Force's freedom of operation in the skies above the Middle East.”
Israel’s government has yet to make any official comment regarding the growing reports of Russia’s impending military intervention in Syria.
Are we in fact seeing a convergence of Russian, Iranian and IS non linear warfare in Syria???
STOLYPIN: Can Putin really be Syrious?
Mark Galeotti of New York University
September 7, 2015
While Russian forces remain bogged down in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, prop up unrecognized regimes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Trasnistria, and wander (and occasionally shell) the uplands of the North Caucasus, can the Kremlin really be committing itself to a substantive military deployment to Syria? Common sense would seem to say no, but the facts on the ground are beginning to suggest the answer is a – conditional – yes. Is there a rationale to such a move, or is this simply a piece of knee-jerk international posturing? And what might it portend?
Boots on the sand
Russia has long had a limited commitment in Syria – one of its last real allies, after all, alongside such equally threadbare assets as Nicaragua, Venezuela and some grudging Central Asian “’stans.” It has a very small naval installation at Tartus, not the “naval base” some allege but a limited logistical point amounting to a pier and some warehouses. More generally, though, it is clear that Russian advisers and technical personnel have been present, especially in providing intelligence support, through flying drones – probably from Latakia air base – and manning radio-electronic interception stations. Beyond that, as Assad continues to buy Russian kit, technicians have come to train Syrians to use it, and military advisers have helped plan operations.
So far, so (relatively) limited. However, there are not clear and compelling indicators that Russia is upping the stakes. At the very time that Moscow is showing growing real concern about the scope for Islamic State (IS) to penetrate and galvanize the insurgency in the North Caucasus, it is also talking up its own role fighting jihad in the Middle East. Putin recently, while noting that Russia is “already giving Syria quite serious help with equipment and training soldiers, with our weapons” dismissed as “premature” any talk of a deeper military presence. Rather, he talked up the creation of “some kind of an international coalition to fight terrorism and extremism”.
Meanwhile, a variety of news outlets and other sources have shown Russian Naval Infantry in squad and platoon strength in Damascus, Homs and Latakia, and recordings suggest Russians crewing brand-new BTR-82A combat vehicles, a scarce sight so far even in the Motherland’s forces. Other, less open sources have whispered of teams of elite commandos in Damascus, possibly army Spetsnaz, maybe the shadowy Zaslon unit of the Foreign Intelligence Service.
Latakia, with its port and air base, appears to be one of the foci of Russia’s increasingly muscular presence, but talk of “thousands” of troops being deployed appears premature. First of all, assuming Moscow wants to retain a surge capacity in the Donbas, its expeditionary forces – the paratroopers, Naval Infantry marines and Spetsnaz – are operating at close to capacity.
The Black Sea Fleet’s Ropucha-class landing ship Tsezar Kunikov appears to have set sail for Syria, with a complement of at least 300 marines from the 810th Independent Naval Infantry Brigade (based in Crimea). Recently the Alligator-class Nikolai Filchenkov likewise travelled to Latakia, albeit with a load of trucks, materiel and combat vehicles rather than personnel, and the Ropucha-class Azov with materiel. Although it would be possible to airlift in men and vehicles, this is expensive and would tie up a large proportion of Russia’s air fleet. Instead, then, we are talking about a shift from perhaps a few hundred technical personnel and advisers – including officers from GRU military intelligence and the FSB security service – to fewer than a thousand, but including well-trained, frontline combat troops.
A Quixotic Deployment?
Why go in now, arguably at the very time the Syrian regime’s prospects appear gloomiest? Perhaps that is the point, but when it comes down to it, what is Assad to Putin? There is no evidence of a particular personal tie, and while it would embarrass Moscow if an ally fell, it is hard to regard this as more than a 24-hour wonder. There are no strategic assets to be lost – Tartus is hardly worth mentioning – and nor is Damascus’s fate central to the Kremlin’s narrative of Russia’s national interests. Indeed, given that Syria is likely to be a roiling mess for years to come, would common sense not suggest extrication more than escalation?
The answer is, of course, yes.
If Moscow wants to look like a loyal patron, at least it could offer the Assads a nice McDacha mansion in the upscale Barvikha gated community and a chance to get out before the collapse. If Moscow wants to keep a friendly regime in place, it could even try to broker some suitable “everyone-against-IS” coalition to replace Assad. Of course, to do that it needs leverage – and here the logic, such as it is, of any escalation emerges.
The first and most basic point to remember is this: the Middle East doesn’t matter to Moscow. Nor, for that matter, does Africa or Latin America. China just about does. But essentially, all of the Kremlin’s policies are directed towards the West. Even policy towards China is really meant to fill in the gaps in credits and exports left and hopefully make the West jealous enough to reopen relations. It may sound arrogant and be uncomfortable come from a Westerner, but yes: it really is ‘All About Us’.
Putin is coming to the UN General Assembly in September, itself a big deal given that his last attendance was in 2005. With the prospects of an acceptable deal over the conflict in Donbas receding, with the Russian economy expected to continue to decline, he’s looking for his own “reset” and sees it in some civilizational anti-jihadist coalition.
For some time, Moscow has hoped that cooperation against IS and terrorism in general could be the leverage point to get the West to relax its tough line over Ukraine. The appointment in March of former FSB deputy director Oleg Syromolotov to a new deputy foreign minister for counter-terrorism cooperation position was an early indication, one which has borne little fruit.
So the Russians seem to be upping the ante, making Syria a battleground not so much for the preservation of an ally – though they will hardly mind if they also manage to save Assad – but instead the formation of an anti-jihadist coalition. That way Moscow does its best to wipe out IS militants in the Middle East, before they manage also to infiltrate the North Caucasus, and also makes its case to be the West’s ally against a common enemy.
It is unlikely to work. The West will gladly take what intelligence cooperation Russia offers – even while treating the fruits with a certain skepticism – and will hardly mourn any IS fighters killed by Russian bombs or Russian guns. Just as the US and Iran have an arm’s length understanding in Iraq against IS without becoming friends, so too a Russian role in Syria is not going to create any deep or lasting amity.
Nonetheless, that this is the Kremlin’s game plan says two things. First, that it is desperate to break out of its current impasse, for all its bullish claims. Second, that it does not understand the West, that it thinks everything is for sale, and that if only it can find the right offer, the sovereignty of Ukraine, the integrity of the global international order and justice for the dead of MH17 are all on the table.
Appears more and more that this administration absolutely does not understand UW strategy especially that being played by the Russians.
The Israeli's are usually quite in touch within the ME--NOW they are openly stating the US has no intentions in toppling Assad--IS that not the same foreign policy as Putin???
So does this in fact verify all rumors in the Ukraine and the EU that really Obama has thrown the Ukraine under the bus just to get a win for the Obama legacy??????
Putin's Military Build-up in Syria Could Be a Game-changer for Israel
Now that the U.S. isn't aiming to topple him, and Russia and Iran are increasing their support, Assad has better chances of stabilizing his defense.
Sept 06, 2015 5:15 PM
Several media reports over the last week have indicated a significant increase in the military aid that Russia is offering Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, including even the use of air crews and Russian fighter jets – all as part of efforts by Russia to sustain that regime. Although the latest efforts are drawing some feeble criticism from the United States, it seems more like lip service...
Continued.......behind a pay wall-have access but did not want to copy entire article into comments due to the pay wall.
Appears that in fact the current Obama strategy for countering IS is to kill more Syrians creating even more refugees in the name of placating Putin and Assad.
Does anyone fully understand any more just what US foreign policy is and or is not???
There are two extremely important corner stones to a successful non linear war;
1. informational warfare
2. cyber warfare/cyber crime
This has all but disappeared from the face of mainstream media and yet no one seems to have an answer for it.
Typical for the Ukraine where it is ongoing daily in the Russia media/Russian trolls.
"Special status" talks Minsk, 8 Sept: EU too distracted by Syrian Refugees, US too distracted by Syria to help Ukraine. Russia behind it all
Seems that Kremlin preparations for next Minsk agreement talks (8 Sept) involve making lie that Ukraine prepares to attack Mother Russia!
Same line from DPR, Russian Army TV, LieNews, 'Salvation Committee' (all Kremlin): Ukraine gets ready to attack Russia (In their dreams!)
Russia attacks, invades, occupies. Now every mention of UA Armed Forces is twisted by Kremlin as "Ukraine prepares for war with Russia
Mykola Azarov, former Ukrainian PM, head of 'Salvation Committee', wanted by Interpol, busy in Moscow saying UA prepares for war with Russia
The debate on the Russia UW strategic strategy non linear warfare or what they called themselves "New Generational Warfare" really does need to be relooked at in view of the Russian efforts in swinging it now to Syria and joining in some aspects the Iranian UW and the IS UW strategy as well.
Especially now with a years worth of non linear experiences out of the eastern Ukraine--meaning what has worked for the Russians and what has actually failed as a lessons learned exercise.
IMHO even I did not see the potential for a combined merging of multiple different nation state/non state UW strategies into a single UW strategy driven by multiple players.
Talk about the "perfect storm".
The current US administration appeared to be totally caught off guard by the Russian swing---BUT they should not have if they fully understood the Russian use of informational warfare which signaled this shift three months ago.
WHAT is a major question mark for this administration IS just why is it that social media keeps outing the US intelligence community with usable intelligence indicators from open sources that has been verified??
WHEN social media broke the Russian swing to Syria--US response was initially "we have no firm indicators"--THEN social media swamps them with photo and video evidence to include sat imagery THEN the administration "takes it seriously".
As long as any form of strategic UW strategy is in play against the US AND it is not vigorously pushed back on by this administration we are in serious trouble.
Remember now in some aspects the Russian, Iranian and now even IS UW is designed to attack the position of the US in the ME and to in fact disconnect it from the ME as a major player.
IS that any different than the Russian UW in the Ukraine that is driving three geo political goals that actually are in parallel in trying to totally disconnect the US from European.
Non action ie talking and only talking by this administration is making the problem worse. There are times when the threatened use of hard power plays exceptionally well--we have reached that point.
The Russian moves in Syria now prove we are now long past the talking stage.
And we wonder why this administration is not interested in the least bit in developing a strategic level strategy against the Russian non linear warfare--it would disturb his drive for his legacy as one would then have to confront Putin at some point.
And we wonder why our allies seem to not fully understand just where we are headed these days--we do not know ourselves.
Why is it that I hate to say it but this President and his NSC has more in common with Putin than against Putin--both drive for their legacies
Silence over the massive Russian shellings and constant ground attacks on the Ukrainian Army and massive US unilateral appeasement pressure on the Ukraine to "comply" with Putin's demands for a "sign of good faith" that has cost the UA wounded and killed and the Russians have not stopped attacking through their own proposed DMZ.
NOW this----something I have pointed out on a number of occasions since the beginning of the Russian Crimea adventure.
White House Blocks Pentagon Report on Russian Treaty Breach
House chairman urges fast U.S. response to Moscow’s INF missile breach
BY: Bill Gertz
August 11, 2015 5:00 am
The White House is blocking the release of a Pentagon risk assessment of Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, according to a senior House leader.
Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, disclosed the existence of the Pentagon assessment last month and said the report is needed for Congress’ efforts to address the problem in legislation.
“As we look to the near-term future, we need to consider how we’re going to respond to Russia’s INF violations,” Rogers said in an Air Force Association breakfast July 8. “Congress will not continue to tolerate the administration dithering on this issue.”
Rogers said the assessment was conducted by chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, and noted that it outlines potential responses to the treaty breach.
However, Rogers noted that the assessment “seems to stay tied up in the White House.”
At the Pentagon, spokesman Capt. Greg Hicks said: “The Chairman’s assessment of Russia’s Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty violation is classified and not releasable to the public.”
Hicks said, however, that steps are being taking “across the government to address Russia’s violation of the treaty, including preserving military response options—but no decision has been made with regard to the type of response, if any.”
At the White House, a senior administration official said: “The United States continues to consider diplomatic, economic, and military responses to Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty.”
Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said in Omaha recently that a range of options is being studied.
“Clearly as a nation, we have options and we explore those options,” Haney told the Washington Free Beacon, declining to provide details.
The four-star admiral who is in charge of U.S. nuclear and other strategic forces said he hopes the INF breach can be solved diplomatically.
“But clearly there are other options involving economics and as well as militarily that are considered,” he said July 29.
Haney said Russia has “walked away” from international norms and treaties and “that is very problematic.”
“While at the same time I get to see and witness [Russia’s] very forthright execution that is occurring with the New START treaty that they are adhering to completely, this piece on the INF treaty is very problematic and we have to continue to encourage Russia to get back into compliance with the treaty,” Haney said.
The treaty violation was first disclosed by the State Department last year and details remain shrouded in secrecy.
The Pentagon assessment likely reflects the sentiments of NATO commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who has stated that the INF violations “can’t go unanswered.”
“We need to first and foremost signal that we cannot accept this change and that, if this change is continued, that we will have to change the cost calculus for Russia in order to help them to find their way to a less bellicose position,” Breedlove said in April 2014.
Critics in Congress have charged that the administration covered up the violation for several years, including during debate on the 2010 New START arms treaty with Russia.
A department arms compliance report stated that the breach involved a new missile that violates the limits set by the treaty. The treaty bans holding, producing, or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges of between 310 miles and 3,418 miles.
Rogers was asked what steps Congress should take if the administration continues to ignore the treaty violation.
“Well, the fact is we haven’t been doing enough so far,” he said. “It was only about a year and a half ago that the administration finally acknowledged that Russia has been violating the INF Treaty. But we know they’ve been violating it for several years.”
Rogers said President Obama has stated “in his normal dilatory fashion,” that he has directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to consider options for U.S. response.
“Those were given to him last December,” Rogers said. “The president is still pondering what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs told him we should do.”
The current defense authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2016 contains a requirement for the Pentagon to include anti-cruise missile defenses at bases built for that purpose in Poland and Romania, in response to the Russian violation.
The current bill would authorize $220.2 million for the missile defense base in Poland.
“What we are trying to do this year is put money in the budget for DoD to come up with some consequences that the Congress can implement to force some pain as a result of those actions,” Rogers said of the INF violation.
A House Armed Services Committee spokesman said the counter-INF violation provisions, including a requirement to protect the Polish and Romanian bases from Russian cruise missile attacks, is currently being debated in the House-Senate conference on the final bill.
The House report on the bill states that the defenses are needed to “provide defense against Russian aircraft and cruise missile attacks.”
“Russia has repeatedly threatened to attack these sites and the U.S. personnel who man them, and the Committee believes we have a moral obligation to defend our personnel against any threat,” the report said.
Additionally, the bill would direct the Pentagon to undertake research and development for responses to the INF violation.
The current legislation calls on the president to begin developing military capabilities that include unspecified “counterforce” weapons that would “prevent intermediate-range ground-launched ballistic missile and cruise missile attacks.
Also, the bill calls for building “countervailing strike capabilities” that also were not specified.
The bill states that the secretary of defense may use funds for research, development, testing, and evaluating responses recommended by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs that could be deployed in two years.
The legislation also would require a report to Congress within six months on the Pentagon’s plans for deploying new forces to counter the Russian INF violation.
Has anyone noticed a total lack of political will on the part of Obama, Hollande and Merkel after these massive violations of Minsk 2 --the agreement they all supported---to call a spade a spade.
Outside of a rather lame comment by the US DoS --absolutely nothing but total silence.
This was the DoS statement concerning the massive Russian shellings and large ground attack.
.@StateDept Spokesperson Kirby on 10 August: we are deeply troubled by a sharp rise in attacks in eastern #Ukraine
On 10 August, the Ukrainians reported 127 different separatist attacks - most since the Debaltseve offensive in Feb 2015 - @statedeptspox
Ukrainian blogger's response to the somewhat lame statement---
"Deeply troubled". Damn. I've lost a few bucks. My bet was on "seriously concerned". https://twitter.com/UnitedforUkr/status/631018520164306944
Seriously--is this the best the DoS can come up with??--really does confirm Obama has thrown the Ukraine under the bus as there is no other reason for such a lame excuse especially in light of actual public statements made by Obama since 2014.
So now we can assume that all Obama utters is really public and private support for Putin and the Russian position on hybrid warfare.
I've never seen such a news drought on Ukraine since war started. The fate of a European country not sexy enough to cover?
Thomas Gibbons-Neff @Tmgneff
Just got off the front in E. Ukraine. Received more fire on the first night than the first week of the biggest op of the Afghan war (Marjah)
Notice that Breedlove has become extremely quiet after the new incoming JCoS got his feathers ruffled by the Obama Press Secretary for openly in front of Congress stating "Russia is an existential threat to the US".
Well last night the Russian Federation troops and her mercenaries carried out a what is known in Russian attack doctrine as a OMB tactical attack using heavy artillery strikes followed by equally heavy tank/APC infantry assaults.
This Russian attack across the Minsk 2 front lines indicates that a summer offensive is about to happen.
From today's NYTs Editorial sums up the lack of leadership by Obama and his extremely weak 700 person NSC towards Russian in which he together with Hollande and Merkel last month pressured the Ukraine into two major unilateral appeasement moves that actually are now responsible for the assaults last night.
FROM TODAY'S NYTs EDITORIAL
"But if we force the Ukraine to surrender, rather than sacrifice lives in a fight for which we have no stomach, then we must accept too that is a surrender, too, for NATO, and for liberal democracy, and for American global leadership. That is the choice before us."
REMEMBER I have stated here countless times here in this Ukraine war thread—Putin has three geo political goals out of the Ukraine adventure of his.
1. discredit and damage NATO
2. discredit and damage the EU
3. completely disconnect the US from Europe
We the US are at a cross roads in the coming hybrid wars of the 21st century and the WH better start realizing unilateral appeasement simply will not work and at times force and or the threat of force gets the desired attention from the other side ie Putin.
BUT when a US President is strictly focused on his "legacy" we the US will pay a heavy foreign policy price to correct that in the coming years.
Remember what his President has publicly stated;
1. 2014---"we will judge Putin on his actions not his words"
2. 2015---"if the fighting gets serious we will increase the pain so it hurts badly".
Either the President now eats his own words as rhetoric or he stands by them.
Very good article on a serious question by a great Russian speaking specialist who understands Russia and Putin very well and their drivers.
Well worth reading..............
Time to Think About “Hybrid Defense”
July 30, 2015
Russia is moving to a full phase eight of their UW strategy--open state on state war is about to begin in the Ukraine if it has not already started via the Russian artillery prep and ever increasing Spetsnaz missions over the last three weeks.
Putin signed decree on mobilization in Russian Federation
http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001201507170019 … http://liveuamap.com/en/2015/18-july-putin-signed-decree-on-mobilizatio… … pic.twitter.com/3hkeRkamiX
ALL reservists, all men btw 18 and 60!
Russia was quick to define their "mobilization". The question remains WHY now??? Answer --he is signaling his clear intent to attack if necessary if he does not get his way in the Ukraine.
Full mobilization was one of the Cold War indicators that had military planners on edge as the Russian military can go immediately on the attack knowing their reserves forces are coming online and can backfill attack units.
Putin signed decree on manpower mobilization of Russian Armed Forces (part of new system of training of reservists)
'Full mobilization' turns out to be a call to 5000 soldiers from the reserve + more information here:
not necessary that they will go to war, but everyone must update/add their records in new database
they changing system of reserves, so men who are in "reserve" must go to their enlistment office and join "mobilization reserve"
Why is it that this President feels that "his legacy" is a "strategy"??????
He has no strategy for IS or Russia and under his leadership there is nothing in the way of a national strategy to counter the UW strategies of China, Russia, or Iran.
AND now he gives away virtually all of the points he "claimed were his red lines in the sand for an agreement with Iran simply for what "his legacy"????
We have had red lines all over the map in Iraq, Syria and actually two in the Ukraine that have been run over literally by tanks and chemical barrel bombs AND yet he says nothing.
This is the weakest national level US/NSC leadership in actually over now 55 years.
HOW is it possible that the DoS declares this Friday that Russia is not a threat AND YET the incoming new JCoS declares Russia to be the single critical threat against the US--NEVER has there been this much of a disconnect between the civilian leadership and the senior military leadership.
Iran deal ‘done,’ Israeli report says, after major US concessions
By David Kohn on July 12, 2015
A deal has been reached between the world powers and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program after a series of major American concessions, Ehud Yaari, the Middle East affairs commentator for Israel’s Channel 2 television, said Friday night. “It is done. It is done,” he said, and will be signed “early next week.”
The aim of the agreement is to put a negotiated end to a 13-year standoff with Iran over its suspect nuclear program and to block its pathway to developing a nuclear bomb in exchange for lifting biting global sanctions. Israel’s leadership has relentlessly opposed the emerging agreement, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning that it will pave Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal.
US Secretary of State John Kerry (C) and State Department Chief of Staff Jon Finer (L) meet with members of the US delegation at the garden of the Palais Coburg hotel where the Iran nuclear talks are being held in Vienna, Austria July 10, 2015. (AFP/Pool/Carlos Barria)
According to Yaari, Israel’s most respected Middle East analyst, the deal was reached because the Americans “have made a series of capitulations over the past two to three weeks in almost every key aspect that was being debated.”
Yaari said that even those in the US who had supported the agreement with Iran “admit that it is worse than they thought.” Now, he said, the ball is in the court of Democratic lawmakers who have to decide whether to support their president as he seeks to secure Congressional approval, or to join the vocal Republican opposition to an agreement.
We can talk about hybrid warfare until we are all blue in the face BUT until the national command authority clearly defines a strategy it is going nowhere fast.
This President does not want to define his strategy as that would lock him into action if something countered it---plain and simple.
So until 2017 pray there is no national emergency as this President is "on his legacy run" and he does not care about the rest of the US or for that matter, Syria and or the Ukraine.
We had here in several SWJ articles a debate as to whether the IS or the Russians were the most serious threat to the US--I have always from the Crimea stated it was Russia.
Appears the new incoming JCoS states it is now Russia--seems they only woke up in the last couple of months to the Russian threat---maybe they just needed a year to figure it out.
Russia -- not Islamic State -- is greatest threat to U.S. security, @GenDunford testifies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/09/russia-is-… … pic.twitter.com/o3QBMMj0Yd
Appears that the ACoF finally gets the concept of SF cross training SF--ONLY one year to late. A key to defeating Russian non linear warfare at the UW level.
The Ukrainian SF and their elite airmobile/armored units have been carrying the fight for over a year now and have growth into a rather aggressive group and come to the table with a wealth of combat knowledge on how to fight the Russian Army whereas our SF and US infantry/amor have never faced massive artillery/MRLS strikes, direct tank assaults and Spetsnaz the way the Ukrainians have.
And this is the interesting point the Ukrainians have been actually winning a majority of the fighting since Feb and right now without a major Russian invasion force coming into the Ukraine the Ukrainians have stymied the Russians.
US military wants to expand its training programme in Ukraine to include special forces http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-ukraine-weigh-expansion-of-american-tra… … pic.twitter.com/V74zxKknh4
We talk all the time that cyber warfare is part and parcel is of the new UW strategies of Russia, China and Iran--to a degree IS as well.
Here is a link that depicts in real time the global cyber attacks that are never ending--from where they start and their intended targets.
Visualization seems to be the greatest way to understand the true threat and it is serious if we look at the complete hack of all (8M) clearance holders maintained by OPM and the hack of the personnel records of the FBI.
Appears AFP was positioning a story that had half truths--the question is for who?
Regardless the report it is extremely interesting as Russia has never given ground with the Ukraine when a power bill is to be paid--electricity or gas.
This dispute carries into the gas dispute Russia is attempting to charge the Ukraine for the mercenaries Russia supplied--in the 100s of millions which will also not be paid thus massive additional costs to Russian support for her mercenaries--still stand by the first tipping point indicator.
Ukraine Negotiates With Russia To Restructure Electricity Delivery For Separatist 'Republics'
AFP is reporting that Russia has cut electricity to Donetsk and Lugansk, territories controlled by the Russian-backed separatists:
Ukraine's Energy Minister Volodymyr Demchyshyn said Tuesday that energy-rich Russia had recently also stopped supplying electricity to the militia-run regions of Lugansk and Donetsk because bills were not being paid.
"We held fairly productive negotiations with the Russians," Interfax-Ukraine quoted Demchyshyn as telling an energy ministry meeting.
"We have been able to switch off four lines that ran from Russia to territories outside our control."
The energy minister said the cables supplied an allowance of $15 million (14 million euros) of power a month.
"That money was not being paid," Demchyshyn said.
The framing in the AFP article, however, leaves out an important detail -- the Ukrainian government is technically supposed to be paying this bill, and they have refused. This is just one of the disagreements between Russia and Ukraine which are being negotiated in the current round of talks about the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine. In an article published on June 15, Interfax explained the issue:
"There are flows from the Russian Federation to the uncontrolled territories. We see them and we know about them, but they are not taken into account in payments. Russia has been warned that we are not taking these five lines into account and Ukraine will not pay for this electricity," [Yuriy Kasich, acting director at Ukrenergo, the Ukrainian national energy company] said.
The Luhansk thermal power plant has been operating separately from the national power grid in mainland Ukraine since last year and power flows between Starobesheve and Zuyevska thermal power plants and Ukraine's national power grid have been minimal, Kasich also said.
In addition, on May 7, 2015 the Ukrainian Cabinet determined that LEO and DonetskOblEnergo, based in the uncontrolled anti-terrorist operation (ATO) zone, should buy electricity directly from local producers and supply to local consumers without the state company Energorynok. Sale and purchase of electricity between mainland Ukraine and the uncontrolled ATO zone is banned. Only payments for net power flows are allowed. The government has also banned electricity imports through the rebel-held part of Donbas.
This latest development is progress in the negotiations. Vladimir Demchishin, Ukraine's minister of power and the coal industry, told Interfax that he has successfully negotiated with Russia to have Moscow stop supplying electricity to areas of Donetsk and Lugansk region which are not under Ukrainian control (translated by The Interpreter:
"We held fairly successful negotiations with the Russians; we managed to shut off 4 lines which had been running from the Russian side to the zone not controlled by us, and they had been supplying power monthly for 300 million hryvnias. And those bills are not being paid at the present time," he said at an expanded meeting of his ministry in Kiev today.
According to Demchishin, a new plan of work with these territories, approved early by a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, involves payment for overflows only, and enables saving about 800 million hryvnias per month.
Demchishin noted that along with taking into account other measures, this enabled the increase of the level of payment for electric power from 85% in the first quarter to almost 100% in the second.
"We expect that we will be able to maintain this level until the end of the year and that we will manage to buy both nuclear fuel and coal, he said.
This does not mean that these areas will have no electricity, however. It does mean that Russia has accepted the fact that Ukraine will no longer pay for electricity in the Donbass. If the territories controlled by the Russian-backed fighters want power, they will have to either generate it themselves or Moscow will have to pay for it. Either way there have yet to be reports of widespread power outages, beyond the (already terrible) status quo.
As such, the AFP article has misinterpreted a key aspect of this issue -- the electricity is not necessarily being cut, as much as Russia and Ukraine now both agree that Ukraine won't pay for it (they were refusing to do so anyway). AFP also used this article to echo a claim that this was another sign that Russia was cutting support for the separatists. That is not clear at all. In fact, there is no sign that Russian troops or armor in Ukraine have pulled back. The situation remains tense, fighting continues, and the conflict appears to be no closer to a resolution.
-- James Miller, Catherine A. Fitzpatrick
This is the first real indicator that the tipping point has been reached in the Russian non linear war against the Ukraine.
I had posted on the Ukrainian war thread a recent military analysis on Putin's non linear warfare where the author indicated that the longest the Russians could maintain the military pressure was roughly one year.
Meaning they had one year to be successful or their adventure would be a failure.
The Russians openly entered eastern Ukraine with ten of their "lost" soldiers being captured in August 2014 so we are close to the first full year.
Then this today and it is the first indicator next to several military indicators that the Russian non linear warfare may in fact be failing.
I had previously indicated that there were four major single points of failure and now all four have been reached-----yes the fighting might go on for awhile but Putin's eastern Ukraine adventure is over--and I do think he knows it.
Russia cuts off power supplies to Ukraine rebels: Kiev
From <em>Britain, America, and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945-53: The Information Research Department </em> by Andrew Defty
<blockquote>British attempts to exert a moderating influence over U.S. policy were most evident in propaganda behind the Iron Curtain. The emergence of a strategy for intensified psychological operations against the communist bloc was the most significant development in British anti-communist propaganda since the launch of the new propaganda policy in 1948. Up to this point, British offensive operations against the communist bloc had been limited to <strong>covert infiltration of agents into countries, most notably Albania, in the vain hope of fomenting popular unrest.</strong></blockquote> - page 214
Another funny thing on language, if you look at the language of NATO documents from the 90s by some in the British establishment you find the same attitudes expressed by some foreign policy elite and commentators today toward Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. For instance, Owen Bennett Jones (who wrote a widely talked about article on possible Indian ties to MQM, all while the leader of that Pakistan party has lived comfortably in the UK) speaks of the UK as a mature power able to sensibly handle Scotland's desire for independence while chiding the Indians on their immaturity. The language is the same for Russia; the UK as the mature power beyond the power yearnings of the immature nations of the BRICS.
It's quite interesting, really.
From John Jenks book <em>British Propaganda and News Media in the Cold War</em>:
<blockquote>This is a study of the British state's generation, suppression and manipulation of news to further foreign policy goals during the early Cold War. Bribing editors, blackballing "unreliable" journalists, <strong>creating instant media experts through provision of carefully edited "inside information",</strong> and exploiting the global media system to plant propaganda - disguised as news - around the world: these were all methods used by the British to try to convince the international public of Soviet deceit and criminality and thus gain support for anti-Soviet policies at home and abroad.</blockquote>
It's interesting, the language used by NATO today is similar to the Cold War, especially the early Cold War, the language of the West having to engage in political warfare to counter the political warfare of Russia today, the Soviet Union in the past.
I've also found that academic books on American and British Cold War propaganda are useful when considering some aspects of "AfPak" today. The narrative "noise" is so much like the 90's: Kashmir, Pashtuns, Pakistan as a strategic fulcrum, the importance politically of the region from a Pakistan centric viewpoint to the British foreign policy establishment, etc.
Underlying problem sets involving hybrid versus ambiguous warfare (below NATO Article 5 threshold): understanding the overall strategy to reach political objectives and countering deception, denial and confusion in all domains through primarily nonmilitary means (military means are still an option in a lesser role).Russian doctrinal applications of 21st century nonlinear warfare, employ historical "Maskirovka" doctrine involving deception, denial and confusion in all physical domains and the information environment (both are overlapped by cyberspace). This is what needs to be countered through information operations, inform and influence activities and information dissemination in cyberspace for social media security force awareness, civil mobilization and disobedience (early warning, strikes, protests, boycotts, rallies etc.) That is one course of action for an overall strategy to counter unconventional destabilizing operations within a nation.
Since 21st century Nonlinear Warfare favors indirect and nonmilitary means those are the instruments (means) that need to be identified and employed or countered at all levels.
Lithuania for example, employs a national civilian nonviolent defense strategy which integrates civil disobedience plans with state institutions, emergency services, security forces, all source intelligence and population-centric grass roots movements.
If we advance this model further to include a comprehensive approach in all domains with a deliberate emphasis on cyber operations e.g. defensive measures coupled with information collection (offense) and social media related dissemination and mobilization plans, this may prove to be a better strategy overall when compared to the use of military force as a primary course of action.
This model fuses the larger aspects of nonmilitary means in the forms of political, social and information civil disobedience and mobilizations to counter unconventional destabilization efforts and false narratives. In short, the entire population, which includes all institutions, formal and informal networks becomes the resistance or "counter unconventional warfare" force. The leveraging of population centric democratic societies in coordination with civilian and military organizations, may be a viable strategy to deter hybrid aggression primarily using nonmilitary means before vital vulnerabilties are exploited and capitalized on by the adversary.
The US has now gained a years' worth of experience with the Russian UW non linear warfare supporting their political warfare and especially the heavy information conflict piece, a year's worth of experience of interactions with Putin and his FM Lavrov and yet again the question begs to be asked --just what the heck is the US strategy towards Russia??
Has anyone in the DC area realized that the Russian US strategy is built largely on "perception"--block the "perception" or "narrative" and one is a long way down the road in countering their strategy.
After one long week of heavy increased shellings and ground attacks before the Sochi and after the Sochi meetings did we see any indications of Russia changing it's position --not really.
After giving Russia a perceived "win" by the US going to the Sochi and Moscow and talking about the need to involve Russia in Iran, Syria and CT did we see any changes-no not really.
After the actual capture of active duty Russian SF who Russia immediately denied they even existed --did we see any changes-no not really.
So when will the White House, the NSC and the DoS finally admit that the concept of "soft power" is not working as it is not working in Iraq where again they also have no strategy that makes sense to anyone.
Do they really in the quiet halls of the White House actually believe Putin will fully implement Minsk 2--to say yes is being dishonest with the Ukrainians and the US public.
After Ramadi fell did anyone in the White House stand up and say we are not getting this right--all we heave heard until Ramadi is that things are going to plan/strategy--no not really. Did anyone stand up in the White House and say at some point we must lead forcefully in Europe-no not really.
So after these two comments again the simple question in the room is--where are those so called strategies the White House was and or is working on????
Savel'ev Anton, Mamausupov Timur, and Kardapolov Ivan - Russian SOF killed in Ukraine on May 5 via @RuslanLeviev pic.twitter.com/aaCo41h8Ef
Tymchuk: In the last 24h Russian forces dramatically increased attacks on Ukrainian positions. Large Russian arms shipments are pouring in.
Where is the simple acknowledgement that we the US had an unspoken commitment to the Ukraine when we basically convinced them to give up their nuclear power with our signatures on an international document and that we would stand by to defend their territorial integrity with actions not just words of late???
This is probably the worst Presidential era and the worst NSC in over 40 years in the area of foreign policy due to a total lack of a strategy on simply anything other than in the belief that "soft power" is working.
There is currently absolutely no intellectual foresight to define what it is they are trying to achieve other than one's own "legacy" and ditching all problems until 2017 for someone else to take care of.
This seems to be our only known strategy for IS.
Josh Earnest: WH ISIS strategy is dependent on Iraq's ability to govern in multisectarian way.
No wonder Iraq is going down the tubes as that strategy will never work.
Not with Shia militias destroying their way through Sunni villages and towns.
Certainly not with the rehtoric coming out of Iran currently against the "Great Satan".
Iranian anti Saudi rhetoric has not been this heated since 1987.
Sectarian war heats up. Death to Saudi Arabia now joins Death to America in Iranian propaganda
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/yemen-war-heats… … pic.twitter.com/XJDPyNt0GD
Russian FM Lavrov and Putin "played nice" for DoS Kerry in Sochi---"we are seriously intent on implementing Minsk 2" AND THEN today this.
Luhansk militants ordered not to let OSCE mission into border zone http://www.unian.info/war/1079454-luhansk-militants-ordered-not-to-let-… …
BUT wait was it not the US that stated the OSCE must be allowed to monitor ALL occupied zones as written in Minsk 2?? WAs it not Russia who wanted the OSCE involved in the first place and keeps trying to protect OSCE from negative comments because they to a degree actually support Russian efforts in eastern Ukraine.
So we have basically Russia in non compliance with all of Minsk 2 even after "playing nice" and we still somehow think Iran has left the Khomeini path of global jihad against the US.
So again exactly what are our strategies against Russian and Iranian political warfare?
Seems like the White House, NSC and DoS better start pulling out all those "so called" strategies and or foreign policies they claimed to have created--the world just got far more complex in three distinctly different places BUT all tied to UW in support to political warfare---those key words (UW/political warfare) the US does not yet really know how to deal with regardless of the amount of debate over the topic in the last months.
I am a soldier of Russian Federation”. Full translation of the video of #Russian POW here http://lugansk-news.com/i-am-a-soldier-of-russian-federation-full-trans… … pic.twitter.com/zoGImPwbBV
BTW not just some Russia drafted "got lost on vacation" basic recruit--but a true blue professional Spetsnaz soldier alive and well in eastern Ukraine--BUT hey even Russia is denying he is a Russian soldier--wounded and denied you are an elite Russian professional soldier by your own country--wonder what he is thinking about today?? By the way he was told by his unit commander a Russian COL --if you get caught they will harvest your organs--great moral booster before a clandestine combat operation.
Think I would ask for political asylum in the Ukraine after Moscow's statement.
Al Arabiya English ✔ @AlArabiya_Eng
BREAKING: Iranian warships begin escorting Yemen-bound cargo vessel - agency.
AND our Navy is again where??
Mahdi Army militia MP: America is the mother of terrorism. Our Islamic Resistance is more powerful now than ever. pic.twitter.com/q1k5izABPY
AND tell me again Iran is not driving a global Islamist jihad against the US??
AND again just where are those US strategies??--noticed it has gone rather silent about them during the last six months after a massive media campaign of "yes we are working on them".
May have been replaced by a quietly spoken "let's just wait until 2017 and legacy, legacy, legacy". Sure do not see any media comments about it.
Perfect example of ethnic Russian Ukrainian proRussian supporters calling the kettle blacker than black--what a turn of events.
#Luhansk #communists complain about oppression, call LNR leaders fascist, oligarchic http://vlada.io/vlada_news/kommunist...nr-fashistami/ … pic.twitter.com/SyqLpq8tmr
A single point of failure within the Russian non linear warfare--what if the civil population all of a sudden gets "buyers remorse"?
Notice now even ethnic Ukrainian proRussian Communists are recognizing "Russian fascism".
Both Russian tactical and strategic intelligence operations are part and parcel of their UW doctrine non linear warfare and both are interconnected.
Please read this brilliant analysis of why the west is losing the spy war against Russia http://20committee.com/2015/05/15/cant-anybody-here-play-this-game/
We must come to acknowledge, I believe, that it is the recently revealed weakness/failure of our "soft power" (the ability of our way of life, our way of governance, etc., to adequately inspire others to emulation) which gives rise to:
a. Not only Putin's but also
b. Our other enemies' actions today.
Herein to note that our such "soft power" weakness/failure presents itself:
a. Not in a time like the Cold War; wherein, we had both a great power and great ideological rival. (That could, it turns our, hide our such weaknesses?) But, rather, this such weakness/failure occurs:
b. In a time like today; wherein, the lack of appeal/failure of our "soft power" reveals itself within the full 25 year period -- the full quarter century post-the Cold War -- when we have had no such great power/great ideology rival to hide behind.
(Sad endorsement, indeed, re: our soft power?)
Thus, I suggest, it is in clear acknowledgement of -- and in clear response to -- our now-glaringly transparent "soft power" weakness/failure that our enemies (Putin, Iran, China, ISIS, AQ, etc):
a. Feel renewed confidence and, accordingly,
b. Feel free to move forward to challenge us and to take advantage of this, in their eyes, amazingly unexpected, but certainly welcomed and opportune, moment.
It is in this light, I suggest, (to wit: the revelation of the lack of appeal/weakness/failure of our "soft power" -- and the acknowledgement that our enemies see, understand and are taking advantage of same) that we might come understand our need to "compensate" for our such soft power failings today. And this, via such renewed "hard power" approaches as those identified with, for example, "political warfare?"
It is not by "accident" concerning Putin's recent sudden support for the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact as he really wants a "new Yalta agreement with the West" giving him the old Soviet empire as his "sphere of influence".
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
As in 1939, Kremlin Said Mulling ‘Preventive Occupation’ of the Baltic States
Seems as if "soft power" ie diplomacy is not working and yet DC keeps on trying.
MFA Russia ✔ @mfa_russia
In dialogue w/US,we are open to cooperation based on equal rights, non-interference in internal affairs & due consideration for our interests
In Russian double-speak—it really means we took and will keep Crimea and we will take eastern Ukraine and the Ukraine and the Baltics are our “sphere of influence” AND we are an equal super power doing what we want.
Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom
How diplomacy works now: #Russia saves time and humiliates SecState by issuing the "doesn't matter" statement before he even gets there.
It’s ‘Complicated’ - White House Defends John Kerry Trip To Visit Russia's Putin -
Kremlin transcript removes Merkel's word "criminal" to describe Russia's annexation of Crimea.http://www.golos-ameriki.ru/content/putin-merkel-tallks-galperovich/276… … pic.twitter.com/M23NcUtlTQ
BUT in Putin's support for the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the West forgets this rather simple point of history which occurred daily from 1939 to 1941.
Putin defends the NKVD handing over Jews to the Gestapo whilst performing the sieg heil. #NaziSovietPact pic.twitter.com/Z81LmBaKTB
Any Kremlin leader who repeatedly states Hitler-Stalin Pact was no big deal is signaling *exactly* what his intentions are. Not complicated.
Notice not a single comment on the Crimea annexation starting Russia's problems. Not a single comment about vacationing Russian troops who took their tanks with them.
Putin's desire is to win a second Yalta. If he does, the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine will end.
It is as if Russia leadership lives in an "altered state of reality" and that is dangerous.
The Kremlin's 'welcome' message to @JohnKerry before his visit to #Sochi ... https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/597807815328137216 …
MFA Russia ✔ @mfa_russia
Washington, against international law, introduced visa and property sanctions against Russian individuals, companies, banks & organisations
MFA Russia ✔ @mfa_russia
The White House groundlessly blamed Russia for the Ukrainian crisis, which in fact was largely provoked by US itself, trying to isolate it
Michael McFaul ✔ @McFaul
.@mfa_russia "groundlessly"? Russian annexed Ukrainian territory. That's "grounds" for blame.
@McFaul @mfa_russia Putin *really* thinks international laws are applied to everyone but him.
German Chancellor #Merkel on #Russia breaking international law in #Ukraine: http://goo.gl/H2o0w4 pic.twitter.com/p00IapLHcv
Merkel "The criminal and illegal annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine have led to a serious setback" in German-Russian coop.
MFA Russia ✔ @mfa_russia
Russian-US relations are passing through a difficult period caused by targeted unfriendly actions by Washington
MFA Russia ✔ @mfa_russia
#NATO military infrastructure is approaching our borders, including a buildup of armed forces contingents in East. Europe,US missile defence
And here is Putin's interpretation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
Notice in his statement he utterly fails to mention that the Soviet Union invaded northern Poland taking over 22K POWS which they later executed and it allowed them to start a war with Finland---all done under the auspices of the Secret Addendum to the Non-Aggression 1939 Pact. Plus it gave the SU the Baltics and a part of Romania--all again not mentioned by Putin.
Putin Defends Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in Press Conference with Merkel
I have commented here a number of times the ---"spoken/stated desire" of Putin to have a new "Yalta" much as his idol Stalin had--meaning sitting down with the US and dividing up the globe into specific "spheres of influence" which he defines as "areas of privileged control".
Non linear warfare is the "means" --this concept of a new Yalta coupled with his three openly stated geo political goals is his "end state".
It is time for the entire western civilian leadership to sit up and pay massive attention--when his version of the truth is spoken by a fascist leader with nuclear weapons --the train has left the station so to speak.
This same individual in 2009 outright stated the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was the worst thing ever for Europe/condemned it and THEN yesterday----
His statement was not just an accident nor a slip of his tongue--it is his political belief--and he was prepared for the question coming as it was directed to him yesterday--this was not a per chance reporters question.
#Putin has defended the Nazi-Soviet #Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Time for the west to wake up | Linas Linkevičius ]http://gu.com/p/4364v/stw
It was in fact this "Pact" that allowed WW2 and even Putin seems to forget Russia via this Pact allowed Hitler to make his military moves triggering WW2 regardless of how the old Communists of the SU and new Russian fascists
spin the historical facts.
Russian intelligence operations are part and parcel of their nonlinear warfare doctrine and we have seen massive use of that in the Ukraine and Crimea over the last year.
BUT it can be used virtually anywhere non linear warfare is put into play.
Russian intelligence general Leonid Reshetnikov stirs the Balkans for #Putin. Here's how @20committee http://20committee.com/2015/04/27/pu...kan-offensive/ …
a. The United States/the West seeks to (1) gain greater power, influence and control in various regions in the world by (2) transforming "different" states and societies -- residing within these regions -- such that these might come to operate more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
b. Nations such as China, Russia and Iran seek to (1) prevent the United States/the West from gaining such greater power, influence and control; this, by (2) preventing/rolling back such favorable (to the U.S./the West) transformations as the U.S./the West hopes to achieve.
It is in this light, I suggest, that we must look at both "our" and "their" -- potential and/or actual -- use of such things as real warfare, political warfare, hybrid warfare, unconventional warfare, etc.
Viewed from this perspective (see my "a" - "b" above), do Putin's, ISIS's, etc., "countering actions" (for example: their appeal to conservative causes, conservative populations and conservative values -- so as to prevent favorable-to-the-West transformations) make sense?
If so, then how might we overcome these such countering actions/activities and achieve, in spite of them, our political objective (see my "a" above)?
Herein, is the use of "tanks," for example, considered viable and valuable options/tools, etc?
Putin has 5,000 MBTs, 10,000 APCs, 10,000 artillery pieces, 5000 aircraft what difference does a few hundred or even a thousand of ours of the above make? He has most of his hardware less than a few days from the battlefront. Any deployment by us would be limited to hundreds and take months.
A token deployment of GPF would only make sense if it was meant as a deterrence to a possible incursion. Unfortunately he has called our bluff and taken Crimea and is busy annexing the Ukraine piece by piece. That horse has not just bolted but left the Reservation.
Any US GPF steel on steel, aircraft on aircraft, artillery exchange etc could escalate into 200 million Americans being vaporized. He knows it, we knows it, so that ain’t gonna happen.
The games afoot and it's UW (why am I telling you this?). IMO it was the same in AfPak- where our GPF- laden effort was hopelessly outthought and outfought by the simplest and cheapest of ways, means, ends. (That fight is not over by the by).
IMO Putin is inspired by the Paks 'no sweat' UW effort against us in Af. The nature of Putin’s intention/ambition is the same as the Pak Army but in manner and character it could not be more different.
Because I have a gentle soul I believe the vast majority of the Russian General Staff consider Putin's War as somewhat pointless but as he seems to be getting away with it they are giving him his head.
The bloodless takeover of the Crimea no doubt made some strategic sense to the Big Caps but I have serious doubts they see much strategic baksheesh in killing Ukrainian hillbillies. However it’s the only war they’ve got and as he seems to be getting away with it, and the Butcher’s Bill is limited to emptying the Russian prison system and Chechnya of deadbeats, they remain ambivalent.
We need to convert the Big Cap’s lazy ambivalence into genuine alarm. A determined CUW effort will open an avenue that will allow the lunatic Putin to politically save face and go back to riding horses, catching big fish and taking his shirt off.
What could possibly go wrong?
And this DoD and White House again shows us the US government will never get it's act together for a "whole of government" approach to C-UW.
War in #Ukraine. US responds by withdrawing 1900 troops, 24 Apaches & 30 Blackhawks from #Germany http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/05/shrinking-us-army-forces-… …
Since Obama has come into office US Forces in Germany have lost two light infantry brigades both with a heavy tank company and artillery, it is now losing the only remaining helicopter brigade it has in Europe--and it basically leaves the 173rd AB Brigade and the 2ACR as a so called power projection capacity.
Right now there is no US heavy tanks and artillery units anywhere close to Europe--and the once proud Germany Army has only two tank BNs and two artillery BNs--AND the Russian mercenary army in eastern Ukraine has more tanks, artillery and MRLSs than four NATO armies combined.
So the idea is to fly everyone over the Atlantic and marry up with stationed equipment--the old Reforger concept--BUT there was already combat power existing in Germany so the time lag of troops flying over was acceptable.
It is no longer acceptable in order to counter the conventional piece of Russian non linear warfare which can now go from being inside a garrison to full combat operations in four hours.
Does this new White House decision make any sense to anyone outside of DC??
When Generals start making more sense that elected government officials ie a President THEN there is a serious disconnect.
Sullivan on US forces in Europe: "we're not fooling anyone – we just don't have enough there"
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/europe-requires-more-th… … pic.twitter.com/O6rCGGSL1k
For what it's worth, I agree with Magnus Nordenman and the "Global SOF Network" which is a core tenant of the Counter Unconventional Warfare White Paper from 26 September 2014. The basic idea and core elements of C-UW encompass a whole of government approach, which in the Ukraine context counters the Russia Federation's whole of government nonlinear approach. I believe unconventional warfare operations are an "activity" contained in overall nonlinear warfare, which is 21st century irregular warfare. I have a hard time with the ambiguity associated with hybrid warfare and lack of joint doctrine.
Nonlinear war doctrine is doing NOW what hybrid warfare proported to do via Nathan Freier's definition and a 2008 ILE paper entitled "Hybrid War: Is the US Army ready for the face of 21st century warfare". It is effectively employing traditional (limited), irregular, catastrophic terrorism and disruptive TTPs including all means of national power. This doctrine melds the tactical, operational and strategic levels (supra-tier combinations)to reach desired strategic and political objectives. Strategic competition or "political warfare" involves a whole of government C-UW approach through synchronized NW and JIIM partner efforts, which certainly include global SOF. Their effects must be augemented with military and civilian organizations representing national or in NATO's case multinational power. This is an arduous task and "starting now" sounds like we have some significant catching up to do.
Excerpt from my article "Grading Gerasimov":
Russia has studied nonlinear war since the Cold War (called Active Measures) and Afghanistan through the 1980s, and continued these studies with interventions in Moldova and Lithuania in the early 1990s. Furthermore, from 1994 to 2009, Russia double majored in nonlinear war during the First and Second Chechen Wars. While completing Undergraduate degrees, Russia entered the workforce by engaging Georgia with espionage in 2006, conducting cyber attacks against Estonia in 2007, and completing “counterterrorism” campaigns in Chechnya in 2009. The Russo-Georgian War in 2008, however, is an exemplary case first, of the evolution of nonlinear or hybrid capabilities; secondly, of the application of indirect instruments in order to destabilize a country; and thirdly, of the volatile effects of such tactics that persist until today. Moreover, during and after this conflict, Russian tactics also combined cyber warfare with both informational and conventional means. Currently, through the lens of this academic metaphor, Russia is further developing its nonlinear war practices by pursuing a Master’s Degree in Ukraine. This program involves subjects like gaining and maintaining popular support, military mobilization, refinement of nonlinear approaches to war and preparation for future government sponsored unconventional conflicts.
Now we are starting the C-UW conversation and the use of SF units to counter Russian non linear warfare--even in the conventional fight as some have mentioned here.
May 7, 2015
Best of Friends: Why Reassuring European Allies is a Job for Special Forces
By Magnus Nordenman
US and European special forces have been incredibly busy over the last decade in global hot spots such as Iraq and Afghanistan. But as major counterinsurgency operations recede, there is still work for them to do, not least in Europe where they could play a key role in re-assuring US allies and deterring Russian aggression. SOF could be just as effective in deterring and defending against little green men as they have been in combating insurgents and terrorist networks.
The Ukraine crisis has triggered a scramble by both the United States and NATO to find ways to quickly reassure the Alliance's eastern members, such as the Baltic states, Poland, and Romania. Already the United States has sent airborne infantry to the Baltic states, bolstered Baltic air policing, and sent F-16 fighter jets to both Romania and Poland. The recent Dragoon Ride exercise demonstrated the ability of a US Army cavalry unit to move quickly through the Baltic states, Poland, Czech Republic and Germany. European allies have contributed too, with Norway, Denmark, and the UK, among others, sending troops to the Baltic states for live-fire exercises. The Obama administration has also announced a $1 billion "European Reassurance Initiative," that will help pay for US military reassurance efforts in Europe over the next year. Coming out of the Wales Summit in 2014, the Alliance is also at work on a Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, which is intended to be able to quickly bring credible combat power to anywhere within Alliance territory, and beyond. Admittedly, this effort has proven to be slow going, but it is an important step in the right direction
Much suggests the current US and NATO efforts to reassure the eastern members will have to remain in place for some time to come, with some even calling for the permanent presence of forces in NATO's east. And while the focus has been on general purpose forces such as infantry and fighter jets, and a handful of main battle tanks, special forces could play a key role in reassuring US allies and deterring the use of hybrid warfare against other European nations.
Both the Georgia war in 2008 and the current Ukraine crisis were prosecuted by Russia using "hybrid warfare," with the blended use of conventional forces, special forces, information operations, economic and energy tools, and the leveraging of separatist forces. This is a hard challenge for the United States and NATO to respond to, as the identity of the adversary is less than clear, and the actions taken are just below the level for what constitutes outright war. Many of NATO's eastern members have political, social, and economic conditions, as well as minority groups similar to those leveraged by Russia in Ukraine and Georgia, which makes them susceptible to the same kind of pressures and methods in a crisis contingency. This is, however, a challenge that special forces were created to address. They are tailor made for gathering intelligence, training partners, and operating against small adversary formations in an uncertain, chaotic, and dynamic security environment. SOF would also be ideal for detecting Russian activities early, and counter them with precision.
Using special forces for the reassurance mission in eastern Europe would also have political and strategic benefits. They provide a visible example of US and NATO boots on the ground, but they are light and small, unlike, say, mechanized infantry or armor units, which means that Moscow could hardly call the deployment a threat to Russia's territorial integrity. Finally, US Special Operations Command is currently hard at work building the "Global SOF Network," which is intended to enhance inter-operability and cooperation among the special forces of US friends and allies across the world. Deploying US special forces to eastern Europe would provide a hands-on, real-world, opportunity for directly working with the special forces of the Allies in the region.
But the special forces from the NATO nations may also have to do something that is uncomfortable for their community in their new role in eastern Europe; step out of the shadows. In order for someone to be deterred they need to know that they are indeed being deterred. There is already a trickle of reports and second hand accounts of the presence of allied special forces in, for example, the Baltic states and Poland. While their presence is a very welcome development, they must actually be more prominently announced in order to reach their full effect in countering the threat from little green men.
Given events in Ukraine and Russia's aggressiveness and unpredictability, it is urgent that NATO recaptures its conventional warfighting skills and places the focus back on deterring and defending against aggression in Europe's east. But the special operators who rose to military, and pop-culture, prominence during the age of counterinsurgency shouldn't be consigned to the barracks. They are needed more than ever on NATO's precarious flanks.
Magnus Nordenman is deputy director of the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.
-Outlaw 09 I'll take a look at the nuclear doctrine in order to get a better assessment. I mentioned WMD capabilities when I tried to assess the "supra means combination" in Ukraine which is uniting all aspects of military and nonmilitary means to reach desired objectives. This is a seperate assessment from supra national, supra domain and supra tier combinations of Unrestricted Warfare.
"This category can be directly applied to the initial destabilization of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. The Crimea operation was a decisive application of nonlinear warfare for a variety of reasons. It illustrates nonlinear warfare phases involving initial destabilization, deception, information operations and limited military intervention, all with local population support.
Supra-means combinations are also visible in the current conflict in Eastern and Southeastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian conventional, irregular and special operations forces that employ blended tactics supported by a malicious information campaign. This initial assessment alone, however, does not adequately address the applications and compounding effects of the more complex combinations in this category. Combinations of technological, resource and economic aid warfare must also be assessed. The technological assessment focuses on having an advantage that involves superior conventional military equipment and weapons of mass destruction capabilities; Russia currently has both.
Next, pro-Russian separatists currently do not have full control of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine and Sea of Azov access. Therefore, it is clear that this group is not completely successful in combining militaristic, cultural, resource and economic aid warfare at that level. This particular lack of success in turn affects the same combinations on the supra-national level, but with a different degree of intensity. These intermediate objectives involving territorial control may be further met through cease-fire agreements giving concession to separatists, or overt deployment of "peacekeeping" military forces into the Donbas region if recognized as a Russian State.
Conversely, the result may be a sustained de-centralized insurgency or “frozen conflict” with ineffective mission command from Russian military and political actors further destabilizing both countries economically. International military aid and assistance to Ukrainian security forces and internally displaced persons, coupled with sustained sanctions are also possible long term outcomes creating sustained instability in the region. Operating through the entire depth of the enemy territory is one of the specified objectives included in “Gerasimov Doctrine”, which ultimately results in territorial defense related political objectives.
Media and Fabrication warfare
First, the doctrine of total war outlined in Unrestricted Warfare clearly demonstrates the conduct of “asymmetrical” or “multidimensional” attacks. The recommended combinations involve low and high tech means to create a new track of war in the 21st century. Unrestricted Warfare also champions asymmetrical warfare and urban terror warfare, which imposes “a huge psychological shock to the adversary”. "Political victory for the weak is caused by forcing the west to blindly use conventional measures as its main combat strength". This notion causes one of the primary dilemmas involved in contemporary Unified Land Operations involving effective transition from combined arms maneuver to wide area security and vice versa.
Next, this warfare advocates the employment of “many forms of total war”. In an attempt to counter unrestricted or nonlinear war, an assessment of the desired objectives and instruments or means to attain those objectives must be conducted. Forms of war and combinations are means to attain strategic and political goals. China, Russia, Iran and N. Korea are some of the “heavy” and “middle weights” engaged in unrestricted/nonlinear warfare. Extremist organizations (which include collective VEOS) and transnational criminal networks also engage in unrestricted warfare as a means to achieve economic and political objectives against superior adversaries. The acceleration of these activities in cyberspace is also a decisive evolution of 21st century nonlinear warfare.
Finally, tt is imperative not to neglect the conventional capabilities of hybrid threats and their relationships with irregular forces who utilize combinations of improvised weapons and nonmilitary means to attain mutually benefitting effects.
The forms of total war are enumerated as: financial, smuggling, cultural, drug, media and fabrication, technological, resource, psychological, network, international law, environmental, economic aid and urban terror. These forms can be identified and assessed directly from today's media sites and feeds.
Putin is literally "hung up" on this topic--fits nicely with his revival of his positive thinking that the Ribbentrop-Molotov 1939 agreements and secret addendum was a great move by Russia. After stating in 2009 that it was totally wrong and Russia should not have done a deal with Hitler.
The Russian regime has been asking for a second Yalta for at least a year. https://twitter.com/JSaryuszWolski/status/595884119382429696 …
Just another form of Russian non linear warfare---
Balts Say Russian Navy Bullying Undersea Energy Cable Crews http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-bullying-undersea-baltic-cable/2699…
Vicrasta--something we should never quiet forget lest it does in fact bite us.
After a number of recent Russian threats to use tactical nuclear weapons even against the US it is wise to understand Russian nuclear doctrine updated 2012 and again in 2013.
#Russia|n theory of nuclear use ..
Escalate to de-escalate pic.twitter.com/0Nb3D08h6X
#Russia|n theory of nuclear de-escalation: pic.twitter.com/ueH3AFM2wz
Have been though impressed by the speed of the Russian adaption to their non linear warfare doctrine---observed in the field, saw the single points of failure and then straight into doctrine at the national level.
We on the other hand spent millions, hired countless contractors, built literally a Lessons Learned empire and printed millions of documents and did anything really change--not much as it focused all on COIN.
Outlaw 09 definitely concur with your statement "They are on a quick lessons learned cycle--while the West is still discussing non linear warfare" The latter point is evident through one upcoming NATO "Hybrid Warfare" seminar in Europe this month, which hopefully sheds some light on nonlinear means employed to reach strategic and political objectives. More to follow,I suppose.
Heads up--Russia adjusting their non linear warfare based on the ongoing experiences seen in the Ukraine and the western responses to that non linear warfare. They are on a quick lessons learned cycle--while the West is still discussing non linear warfare
Notice the including of the term "information confrontation".
Russia to adjust national security strategy due to Ukrainian crisis, other threats
May 05, 21:19 UTC+3
Emerging military threats force Russia to adjust the national security strategy till 2020 and the doctrine of Russia’s information security
© Vitaly Nevar/TASS
MOSCOW, May 5. /TASS/. Russia’s Security Council has taken a decision to adjust the national security strategy till 2020 and the doctrine of Russia’s information security, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev said in a feature article to be published in Wednesday’s issue of the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.
Russian Security Council preparing new Doctrine of Russia’s Information Security. Russia's new military doctrine says use of protest moods typical for conflicts nowadays. Russia’s revised military doctrine lists foreign private military firms among threats.
"First of all, it was necessitated by new emerging military threats," he wrote. "Their signs are seen in the developments of the Arab Spring, in Syria and Iraq, in the situation in and around Ukraine."
He noted that pursuing their own interests leading powers were using "indirect actions," relying on popular protests, radical and extremist organizations, private military companies. "The United States and NATO are growing more and more aggressive in respect of Russia. They are building up their offensive potential in the direct proximity to our borders and are actively deploying a global missile defense system," he wrote.
These reasons necessitated amendments to Russia’s military doctrine to outline key tasks of the armed forces, the development of the defence sector and possible steps to prevent armed conflicts. "Russia’s military doctrine was amended in late 2014," Patrushev recalled. "Its updated edition pays more attention to domestic issues, information confrontation. It specified some provisions of the current military doctrine. At the same time, it preserved its defensive nature and reiterated Russia’s pledge to use for the protection of its national interests military methods only when all other non-force methods are exhausted."
<blockquote>a. "Four enduring interests" re: our national security (security, prosperity, international order and promoting values). And these may be, as Bill M. suggests,
b. "Mutually supporting."</blockquote>
As you and Bill M suggest, security, prosperity, international order, and promoting values all are mutually supporting enduring interests. Therefore I would argue that everyone in the U.S. and all partners in international treaties (both military and economic) should pull their own weight.
In that respect, the majority of youth should contribute through national service of some kind to reduce military and federal/state payrolls.
In kind, those with higher incomes should contribute more in federal taxes.
All should pay higher gas taxes, and social security taxes should be paid on higher than current incomes with means testing limiting payouts to the wealthiest at retirement.
Allies who have been skating by in Europe and elsewhere with inadequately funded militaries, need to step up and pull their own weight or pay increased taxes within the U.S. for exports sent here.
<blockquote>In order to assure all
a. Provide for George Soros' "global open society." Which will:
b. Provide for "global capitalism." Which, in turn, will:
c. Provide for the security, prosperity and international order needs of -- not only the U.S./the West -- but also the rest of the world.</blockquote>
Funny that you mention George Soros since it was just revealed that he will owe an additional $7 billion in U.S. taxes by 2017 since a loophole was removed that shielded him.
Likewise, in 2014 there were 513 U.S. citizens worth at least a billion (increased to 536 in 2015). If the 113 "poorest" billionaires in 2014 had paid at least $100 million in federal taxes that would have contributed $11.3 billion in tax revenue. If the next wealthiest 100 billionaires averaged $200 million in annual taxes that would be $20 billion in tax revenue. If the subsequent 100 wealthiest paid $400 million it would add $40 billion. If the next 100 wealthiest had paid $600 million would add $60 billion. If the 100 wealthiest billionaires paid $800 million, it would add $80 billion for a total U.S. billionaire tax bill of $211.3 billion annually. That would fund one third of our annual defense budget.
There are 22,975 folks worth at least $30 million in California and New York alone. If each paid an average of at least $500,000 in federal taxes, the total would be about $11.5 billion annually in federal revenue or twice that if they paid an annual average of one million dollars each.
Laws would need to be passed to keep folks from moving elsewhere and continuing to benefit from riches gained in the U.S. That would apply to foreign corporations as well with sales in America. Countries like Germany, South Korea, and Japan should pay more in taxes if they want to benefit from U.S. sales and military protection.
California has 486.3 billion in net worth for its many billionaires. New York has $374.4 billion in net worth for its billionaires, and Texas has $209.7 billion in net worth from its billionaires. Add those three states billionaire worth alone and it totals one trillion 70 billion dollars. If billionaires in those three states paid at least $100 billion in annual taxes it would go a long way to funding our federal budget.
On the other end of the spectrum, some of the idealistic middle class millennials who avoid service, and lower class unemployed youth we see burning buildings and stoning cops in Baltimore could be contributing to our nation, learning skills, and developing responsibility by either serving in the active, reserves, or Guard military at much lower-than-current E-1 to E-3 pay or in other civil functions (border patrol to include building fences, education and Headstart, customs, ATF, DEA, police and fire, medical, homeland defense, etc.) at even lower pay and benefits.
Bill M, et al:
PART I: Interests:
While there may be, as Bill M. suggests:
a. "Four enduring interests" re: our national security (security, prosperity, international order and promoting values). And these may be, as Bill M. suggests,
b. "Mutually supporting."
There appears to be, in the eyes of the United States/the West,
1. One preeminent interest upon which all the others rest. This being
2. OUR way of life, OUR way of governance, OUR corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs and OUR related institutions.
THIS (see my "2" above) being the matter that will, in the eyes of our national leaders:
a. Provide for George Soros' "global open society." Which will:
b. Provide for "global capitalism." Which, in turn, will:
c. Provide for the security, prosperity and international order needs of -- not only the U.S./the West -- but also the rest of the world.
It is with this understanding and thesis in mind that we come to understand President Obama's careful use of the words "underpinning" and "open" in the key passage to his 2015 National Security Strategy introductory letter, to wit:
"Underpinning it all, we are upholding our enduring commitment to the advancement of democracy and human rights and building new coalitions to combat corruption and to support open governments and open societies."
PART II: Strategy and the Use of Force:
While the goal of strategy, seen in the light offered above, is to:
a. Promote and advance -- throughout the world -- OUR way of life, etc. This, so as to:
b. Provide the necessary environment (a global open society) by which global capitalism might thrive (and "float all boats").
The question for strategy is:
a. How best to achieve this goal and via what ways and means. And, within this context, to address:
b. How military force might be used (if at all). Herein, for example, to consider General Sir Rupert Smith's guidance -- which was offered, one might we say, in the "global open societies" strategic light offered above?
PART III: Russia and the Ukraine (et al.)
Thus, and in careful consideration of the background, the strategic goal and the "utility of force" etc., data offered above, to determine:
a. How we got in the present mess. (Argument: By expanding NATO, post-the Cold War, we got off track re: our strategic objective [global open society]; herein, sacrificing a "King" [Russia] so as to protect a few "pawns" [Poland, et al?]) And likewise determine:
b. How we might get out of this mess. (An open question. But we must not get off track again -- by focusing, in the context offered above, on something other than  the strategic requirement of  creating a global open society.)
If this breaking information is indeed correct THEN Minsk 2 is formally DEAD. So Obama, his NSC, Hollande, and Merkel--AND the next move from the West is what again???--the same silence we have seen since the massive shellings have started.
Both Russia and her mercenaries are in full violation now of Minsk 2 and YET again silence is the Western response??????
Ukrainian field reports indicate it is a full scale armored assault on the Ukrainian positions which THEN enables an relatively easy Russian assault on Mariupol--the West has know this Russian objection for weeks and YET they run from a decision any decision. the entire western civilian leadership seems to be acting like a vampire running from a silver cross--absolutely no leadership is seen by any of them include the US President.
#Russia Army launch of full scale attack on #Shyrokyne now, close to #Mariupol, with tanks, artillery, APCs - Azov
BREAKING: #Shyrokyne reportedly under full scale attack by #Russia|ns right now,[url]https://twitter.com/MikaelSkillt/status/595224295879614467[/url] …