In the military-political context, the concept of “hybrid war” can unite a wide range of actions carried out by the enemy using military and irregular formations with the simultaneous involvement of civilian components. In the works of experts, there is a similar concept of “war of controlled chaos”, the use of which, it seems, requires a more precise scientific justification.

The concept of “hybrid threats” is also becoming widespread, which are defined as threats created by an enemy capable of simultaneously adaptively using traditional and non-traditional means to achieve its own goals.

CONFLICTS OF A NEW TYPE

Hybrid war strategies and recommendations for countering hybrid threats have been developed in the United States and NATO in recent years, with the conclusion being made about fundamental changes in the nature of war.

The essence of the changes comes down to increasing the influence of both the military and irregular components of the contingent on the preparation, course and outcome of a hybrid war, while simultaneously involving the potential of civilian components.

Today, the concepts of “hybrid wars and threats” are “migrating” from scientific articles to some official and working documents of the United States and NATO. For example, paragraph 13 of the Final Declaration of the NATO summit held in Scotland in early September of this year, for the first time at a high official level, speaks of the need to prepare the alliance for participation in a new type of war – hybrid warfare. According to the alliance’s experts, such wars include a wide range of direct combat actions and covert operations carried out according to a single plan by armed forces, partisan and other irregular formations with the participation of various civilian components.

FORSYTHE: THERE WILL BE NO WAR! IT IS ALREADY ON

In the interests of improving the allies’ ability to counter new hybrid warfare threats, the document calls for close coordination between the ministries of the interior, the involvement of police and gendarmerie forces to suppress non-traditional threats related to propaganda campaigns, cyber attacks and the actions of local separatists. Conducting exercises to practice actions in a hybrid war is called one of the priorities of the alliance. In Latvia, in particular, a special center (Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence) has been created for the purpose of preparing and coordinating such exercises.

The concept of “hybrid threats” covers a wide range of hostile circumstances and intentions, such as cyber warfare, low-intensity asymmetric conflict scenarios, global terrorism, piracy, illegal migration, corruption, ethnic and religious conflicts, resource security, demographic challenges, transnational organized crime, globalization issues and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). NATO’s Bi-Strategic Command Capstone Concept (2010) defines hybrid threats as threats posed by an adversary capable of simultaneously adaptively using conventional and unconventional means to achieve its own objectives.

Thus, for the tasks of ensuring Russia’s national security in modern conditions, it is important to consider the possibility of adaptive and systematic use of one of the above-mentioned or some other threats or a combination of several of them by an adversary pursuing long-term political goals. Such an adversary may be an individual state, an international organization or a group of interested countries, as well as some non-state actors.

DEFENSE AND OFFENSIVE

An important step in the alliance’s preparation for a new type of war is the decision to form a combined arms rapid deployment force (RDF) Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VHRJTF) as part of the Initial Engagement Force (IEF), which is in 48-hour readiness for action. Along with units of the ground forces, air force and navy, it is planned to include special operations forces in their composition.

US CYBERWAR AGAINST RUSSIA HAS ALREADY BEGUN

The complex composition of the RRF allows us to assume that this formation can be used to solve two fundamentally different tasks. One of them will be to prevent the enemy’s sabotage and reconnaissance actions during the threatening period (if there is one), and to combat irregular formations on our own territory. The other task may be to organize subversive work on the enemy’s territory by creating irregular network structures with the involvement of previously created human and material resources.

Our domestic specialists (for example, Yu.N. Baluevsky and M.M. Khamzatov in the article “Globalization and Military Affairs”, published in “NVO” No. 27 for 2014) also warn that today military actions initially imply coordinated pinpoint impacts on key elements of the enemy’s national security system throughout its territory by multi-service (multi-departmental) tactical groups controlled from a single strategic center. Moreover, tactical units can be not only regular units and subdivisions, but also various types of irregular military formations, PMCs, and even purely civilian structures (for example, high-tech organizations).

HYBRID WAR. ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPT

It should be noted that the strategy of hybrid wars has been developed in the West for a number of years (approximately since the early 90s of the last century), but there is still no clear unified definition of such a war. Along with the definition proposed above, in general, hybrid warfare is called, for example, a type of guerrilla warfare that combines modern technologies and modern mobilization methods. Hybrid warfare is also defined as the main method of action in an asymmetric war waged on three selective types of battlefields: among the population of the conflict zone, the population in the rear, and the international community.

Hybrid warfare can also be defined as a set of pre-prepared and promptly implemented by the state actions of a military, diplomatic, informational nature, aimed at achieving strategic goals. It is important to note that for a hybrid war there is no need to develop new weapons and military equipment systems, the ones already available are sufficient.

Hybrid warfare includes the implementation of a complex of hybrid threats of various types: traditional, non-standard, large-scale terrorism, as well as subversive actions, during which various, often innovative technologies are used to counter superior military force. These can be, for example, massive cyber attacks, actions in the energy sector, etc.

THE COLOR REVOLUTIONS FACTOR

A special place in the list of innovative disruptive technologies is occupied by color revolutions (technologies of controlled chaos). According to the author, the formulation proposed by political scientist Andrey Manoylo fully corresponds to the political realities of our time: a color revolution is a “technology for organizing a coup d’etat in conditions of artificially created political instability, when pressure on the government is carried out in the form of political blackmail, and the main driving force of the battering ram attack on the government is a specially organized youth protest movement.” It can be added that from political blackmail, the opposing sides move on to forceful measures of influence, the implementation of which can lead to the unleashing of a civil war in the country, during which the technologies of the above-mentioned hybrid war are used.

“COLOR REVOLUTIONS” AND THEIR PROSPECTS

A hybrid threat complex is formed according to a predetermined strategic plan and affects a wide range of military and civilian targets of the enemy, including the population of the target country. The ultimate goal is to undermine the overall power of the state, the position and influence of the government within the country and in the international arena. Thus, unlike other types of threats, a hybrid threat complex is strictly focused on the selected object of influence (a specific target country), has a clearly defined format and a predetermined ultimate goal and represents the core of the strategic plan of the operation. Successful implementation of a threat complex depends on the availability of a source capable of providing the necessary forces and means, as well as the ability to access them. Such a synergistic effect of the use of hybrid threats determines their particular danger for the entire system of ensuring national security of the country. A hybrid threat complex has a number of characteristics that ensure its effective use at all stages of a hybrid war. Such a complex has a much greater destructive power than the simple sum of the threats included in it. The “cumulative effect” of the impact of threats of this type is ensured by the implementation of a system of complex and interdependent preparatory and executive measures related to the coordination of the activities of a significant number of participants operating on the territory of the target country and beyond. Success is facilitated by the skillful use of factors that determine the high dynamics of the development of the situation and give the processes the necessary direction using both non-military and military solutions. The strategy of hybrid wars is based on targeted work on forecasting and strategic planning.

To organize counteraction, it is important to determine in advance measures to ensure national security and coordinate efforts to counter threats with international organizations, for example, with the UN, OSCE, CSTO or SCO, whose support is extremely important to justify the legitimacy of the actions of an individual country or group of states. It is very important to have an international consensus in advance on the issue of what actions can be considered aggression, for example, in the context of a possible cyber attack, determining its source and legal countermeasures. Or how do issues of energy security relate to the right of a sovereign state to manage its natural resources? The task of developing such types of consensus within the framework of the CSTO and SCO is especially relevant.

The most important characteristics of hybrid threats include:

– sources of threats – a state, a terrorist organization, structures of transnational organized crime, oligarchic clans;

– the composition of threats, which is determined by the capabilities and goals of the one who forms them, as well as the vulnerabilities of the target;

– the scale or scope of threats, which determines the boundaries of the zone of their influence, which depend on the number and accessibility of threat objects, as well as the possibilities of their preliminary disclosure and study.

The complex nature of hybrid threats complicates the task of disclosing their source, which, as a rule, is anonymous. The uncertainty created in this way makes it possible to significantly slow down a targeted response from the country that has been attacked or the international community.

THE UNITED STATES WAR IN THE GREY ZONE

I would like to dwell separately on the presence of a direct connection between hybrid warfare technologies and color revolutions, which complement each other.

As a rule, a color revolution is the initial stage of a hybrid war. Subsequently, events develop within the framework of the adaptive use of force algorithm, when peaceful opposition demonstrations gradually develop into a tough confrontation with the authorities, up to the overthrow of the government and civil war. At each stage of a hybrid war, a set of corresponding hybrid threats is used.

FIGHTING A NEW THREAT

The targeted nature and high dynamics of the transition of hybrid threats from the category of potential to actually active ones require careful preliminary development of countermeasures at the state level.

При этом, как представляется, важно иметь в виду следующие обстоятельства:

– in the past, the USSR, and then the Russian Federation and its allies turned out to be quite vulnerable to the disruptive technologies of controlled chaos used by the West;

– currently, innovative adaptive technologies of hybrid wars and hybrid threats have been developed and are being implemented, posing a threat to the national security of Russia;

– within the framework of the regulatory framework of existing organizations for ensuring collective security (CSTO) and in the national legislations of the participating countries, it is advisable to additionally provide for provisions that allow for the prompt identification of an ally subjected to aggression using non-traditional threats in the form of hybrid disruptive technologies, and to provide it with the necessary assistance;

– an important task for Russia and its allies is to understand the danger and develop adequate countermeasures in advance. In the system of ensuring the country’s national security, it is important to promptly reveal places vulnerable to this type of threat, as well as conduct an analysis in order to determine the possible composition of hybrid threats that can be formed for impact;

– the measures taken in this area should be implemented in the general mainstream of the country’s and the Armed Forces’ preparation for the entire spectrum of possible modern conflicts.

Given the above circumstances, it is necessary to provide scientific and practical substantiation of the impact of globalization, the specifics of the internal situation in Russia and its allied countries on possible methods of using hybrid threats. Particular attention should be paid to revealing vulnerabilities for the use of these technologies and developing preventive measures to counteract the outbreak of hybrid wars against Russia and its allies. Measures to counter hybrid threats require interaction with a wide range of partners – individual states and international organizations, as well as the involvement of internal resources, including a perfect system of territorial defense, reliable border protection, as well as the involvement of the business community, educational institutions, and the use of public diplomacy.

HYBRID WAR: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF POST-CONFLICT SETTLEMENT

It is necessary to develop and implement a system of criteria and indicators that will allow for a prompt assessment, using primarily quantitative methods, of the country’s ability to resist subversive activities in order to exclude possible attempts to provoke hybrid wars on the territory of Russia or its individual parts.

A thorough analysis of the vulnerabilities and possible composition of hybrid threats that can be formed to influence the Russian Federation during a hybrid war should be conducted.

Particular attention should be paid to working with young people, who are the primary target for hybrid war technologists. The priority should be to ensure their employment, involve them in the work of patriotic organizations, and create conditions for sports, including technologically advanced sports, such as aviation and motorsports. A serious threat may be associated with the activities of uncontrolled youth structures, such as football fan organizations, which may fall under the influence of the radical opposition or criminals.

Another weak point may be the insufficient cultural assimilation of migrants, leading to the creation of ethnic enclaves in large cities and regions. The use of modern information and communication technologies allows, within the framework of a network organization, to quickly create powerful sources of destabilization of the situation in various regions of the country with the participation of migrants.

THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE MILITARY ELITES

When preparing a hybrid war, its potential participants unite in advance into a network that covers the capital, other large cities, and regions. At the same time, the network forms of management of preparation and deployment of actions are characterized by the absence of a single center; these are polycentric structures. The network organization has a horizontal architecture, which, unlike a rigid hierarchical pyramid, is characterized by the interconnectedness of the cells (groups) of the network and the continuous exchange of information between them on a time scale close to real time. This ensures the survival and operability of the entire structure in the chaos of a civil war, such as in Libya and Syria.

In modern conditions, the threat of unleashing a hybrid war against the Russian Federation and its allies is acquiring very specific outlines. In the United States and in NATO headquarters, corresponding concepts are being developed, the necessary forces and means are being created, attempts are continuing to ensure control and influence on the internal opposition with the aim of radicalizing it at the right time.

In these conditions, special attention is required to the timely disclosure of the complex of measures being taken to prepare the enemy for a hybrid war, starting from the planning of the initial stages of non-violent actions and up to the transition to a tough military confrontation.

As part of such activities, the aggressor party implements the following steps:

– search for sources of sustainable financing of the protest movement, and then armed formations, both from external interested forces and using internal capabilities;

– identification of protest public groups capable of participating in planned non-violent and then violent actions, up to and including civil war;

– definition of practical slogans that are as close as possible to the real demands of protest public groups, whose actions can ultimately be used to delegitimize and break the existing government;

– definition of political associations and training of leaders capable of leading political protest;

– training of field commanders and militants for violent actions in specialized camps, organization of mobilization points abroad and routes for the transfer of mercenaries;

– ensuring support for the opposition and implementing its expansion into the regions, primarily through the coordinated use of domestic and foreign electronic media controlled by the opposition. An important place is given to winning support from international organizations and the international community;

– organization of network structures for managing subversive actions, supply, communications and monitoring the situation.

Taking into account the scale and real nature of the threat, a successful solution to the complex of tasks to ensure the national security of Russia and its allies can be achieved through the consolidation of society, strengthening of national defense, development of relations with allies and partners, skillful use of the potential of existing constructive organizations to ensure international security and decisive counteraction to attempts at destructive influence in the sphere of international relations.

The post HYBRID WARS IN THE STRATEGY OF THE USA AND NATO first appeared on Global Policy.

Having discarded the propaganda tinsel of the global mass media with their parochial attachment, we will fix the results of the “Maidan”

1) Georgia – its “flower garden” and the subsequent aggression in Tskhinval lead to the independence of South Ossetia with Abkhazia, guaranteed by Russian military bases.

2) Armenia – its “flower garden” and the subsequent provocation by the “revolutionary” leadership of the Azerbaijani-Turkish (NATO) aggression lead to the appearance of a Russian military base in Nagorno-Karabakh (officially on the territory of Azerbaijan) and the preservation of the Russian base in Armenia (as the largest American embassy in the world did not try to arrange the opposite).

3) Russia – after another attempt to “rock /roll” the Russian Federation, foreign agents are officially designated in it, sponsors of “coups” in the form of NGOs are cleaned, other “sunset lovers” from the internal “elite” are blocked from financing “protestors/protesters / bulk”, “sleeping” enemies are permanently opened with the subsequent cleaning of the nomenclature apparatus and the power unit.

4) Kyrgyzstan – the cycle of clan-tribal (crony) “Maidans” discredited the very idea of “people’s revolutions” + “Yankee go home” from “Manas”.

5) Belarus – the attempt of the “flower garden” pushes Minsk from the policy of “bagatovektornost” to a close rapprochement with Russia, the cleansing of the pro-Western “elite”, the closure of NGOs, the actual resuscitation of the CSTO and in the future (if the Russian proposal not to extend NATO to the East will be ignored) – to the deployment of the NATO borders of the Russian Aerospace Forces with nuclear weapons (a minute to Warsaw and Vilna, a minute and a half to Berlin).

6) Ukraine – the “flower garden” bought by Sunset for 5 “lard” led to the return of Crimea to Russia and to the gradual return of Donbass, that is, to the reunification of Russian lands and millions of compatriots of “the most divided people in the world”, and Western sanctions for fake “aggression against Ukraine” (with trade, transit and bank loans from the Russian Federation to the Zion-Bandera occupiers of Ukraine) led to the long-awaited (after the failure of 1917) revival of Russian agriculture and Russian industry (after the failure of 1991 ). Ukraine, on the other hand, being ragulized – ruinized to a decayed colony of Sunset, has become a clear anti-example of both Ukrainians and “color revolutions” (for those who are able not to succumb to globalist propaganda).

7) Kazakhstan is a “bronzed old man”, who in his old age picked up Russophobia with a “genocide – holodomor” (as if without the USSR with growth, and not depopulation after the “Maidan”, all these national republics could generally take place surrounded by predatory neighbors) and surrendered the bowels of the Homeland to the Americans, with an obese tribe of corrupt relatives – hangers-on removed from power, another “elite”, sold to TNK with NGOs and NGOs, will be cleaned (with the help of Russian special services).

In the former capital of Kazakhstan, the “Maidan” ruin takes place in a day, not in years – this is the peak of Maydaunism. But the epic “cherry on the Kazakh cake” follows – the order to “bring in troops” against the “color” coup is given by the “little pig” who came to power as a result of a similar “revolution”. And then Pashinyan “reformed”, using the “risen from the ashes” of the CSTO (congratulations to NATO on the revival of the analogue of the Warsaw Pact Organization, where such “bankrupted” countries like Iran are now striving).

This is the aerobatics of Putin’s geopolitics, as a result of which the entire “Maidan circle closes”

Russian troops legitimately appear in Kazakhstan, where, if necessary, they will protect the Russian population from “ethnic cleansing” by radical Islamists, preserve Baikonur, strategic deposits, and the southern “underbelly” of Russia from NATO bases, biological laboratories of the Pentagon and launchers of globalist “democratizers”, protect Kazakhstan itself from pan-Turkist plans of the “Big Turan-Erdogan”, from transnational and even Chinese “business on natives”, from the same pan-Islamist radicals from Afghanistan and other “fun” places.

Kazakhstan is too big and too weak for no one to get it during the period of global confrontation and global “turbulence”. After all, all the “well-wishers” always and everywhere use any “shoals” of the local government, any excuse to tear up and plunder the “delicious” (hydrocarbons, metals, uranium, location, etc.) country. But in Kazakhstan, this “scythe of death” found Putin’s “stone” – and instantly, like a fabulous “Phoenix bird”, but the CSTO really resurrected. The “stars” of NATO, the United States and the whole Sunset are in shock. “Hypersonic” (both in terms of armament and speed of decision-making) Russia, unlike them, exports not coups with chaos, but peace and order.

The post PUTIN BEAT THE WEST USING THE “MAIDAN” first appeared on Global Policy.