Russia’s Geopolitics and Strategy in the Future

Commentary:  The last complete Russian military doctrine was conceived during a very different phase of the East-West confrontation, before Russia's participation in the war in Syria and hence even before the new projection of Russian power onto the Mediterranean. In any case, 2020 is an end point for Russian military planners. Many things will be decided in the relations between East and West based on the military doctrine developed this year

Photo: Bigstock

Russia’s military doctrine is clearly closely related to European security - which is obvious even after the Cold War - and is in any case completely independent of the internal political configuration of the Russian regime.

Therefore, studying the evolution of Russia's military doctrine means predicting, a contrario, much of the strategic future of Europe and obviously of NATO as well.

A strategic future that is still tied to the USA’s - and not only within the Atlantic Alliance - but which experiences situations that would have been unimaginable during the Cold War: the destabilization of the Mediterranean; the jihad; the Iranian-Saudi tension; the new role played by Israel; the more or less artificial "Arab springs", the new immigration from sub-Saharan Africa and, finally, China’s New Silk Road

All possible sub-military threats - obviously except for Israel’s role - which, however, multiply the hotbeds of tension, while NATO is focusing again on the East-West confrontation, thus providing to the East a wide range of possible instruments which are automatically taken away from the West.

The last complete Russian military doctrine, however, was made public on December 25, 2015. 

Before Russia's participation in the war in Syria and hence even before the new projection of Russian power onto the Mediterranean, partly resulting from Russia's relative success in Syria. In essence, Russia’s last doctrine was conceived in a very different phase of the East-West confrontation.

We should not even forget - as happened in the West in 2018 and afterwards - the Russian development of advanced medium-long range weapons, capable - at least according to the Russian technical experts - of hitting the Atlantic Alliance and the United States with the maximum speed and effectiveness without warning and without triggering nuclear-type equilibria. 

In this case, we are talking about as many as seven strategic weapons programmes, most of which are already known. 

Furthermore the United States have put the INF aside, as well as the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The new Strategic Reduction Treaty (START) is currently far from being defined and the rhetoric of the clash between the two former military empires seems to have reached its apex, now placed between rhetoric and reality.

Two cycles of sanctions for Syria and Ukraine have already been decided by Trump’s Administration, both in relation to the poisoning of the former FSB agent Skripal, occurred in Great Britain in 2018, and to the use of the nerve agent Novichok, also in other situations.  

We are obviously not in a position to ascertain whether these accusations are grounded, but it is interesting to note how these two sanction phases have been originated by a probable or alleged attack by the Russian Intelligence Services (not Armed Forces) against some of their former agents. 

In any case, 2020 is always an end point for Russian military planners. Many things will be decided in the relations between East and West, based on the military doctrine developed this year.

Previously, with the start of the Serdyukov-Makarov military reform, 1.35 million military had as many as 52,000 elements dealing only with command and control activities, albeit of the traditional and bureaucratic type.

However, the real power and quantity of truly combat-ready Russian forces did not exceed 100,000 units.

Hence, on average, only 13% of the forces were combat-ready. In the Army the average rate was 17%, while it was 7% in the Air Force and 70% in the Navy.
In the Space and Strategic Missile Forces, however, 100% of units were combat-ready. 

However, 55% of weapons were obsolete, at various levels. After that reform, however, Russia’s geopolitical and strategic ideas are still the same: NATO’s containment can be achieved only with the deterrence ensured by nuclear weapons; the doctrine is evolving towards the US-style network-centric warfare and finally the future of the Russian Forces will be based on their specialization in the counter-guerrilla warfare and the technological and operational organization of small units.

Moreover, the operations of the future are not designed to eliminate the enemy only physically, but also psychologically, culturally and in its stable relations with the civilian population. This is a typically "hybrid" factor. 

According to Russia’s current planners, in the hierarchy of threats there are the clashes in the Post-Soviet Space. 

Furthermore, Russia is particularly interested in the stability of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russian planners also imagine a "Falklands scenario" for the Kuril Islands, put in place by Japan.

Not to mention even an explicit "containment" of China which, obviously, cannot be achieved by connecting it to a nuclear threat.

The two external scenarios of primary interest for the Russian military planners are the Democratic Republic of Korea and the tension in Iran. 

These are two possible points of entry into a narrow Russian strategic area, in which Russia's response would be immediate, probably even nuclear and direct.

Still today, other potential threats are operations such as those which were carried out by NATO in the two Balkan wars, as well as the French-Italian-British presence in Libya, and some Western direct operations towards Belarus and the Russian borders, especially in the old area between NATO and the Russian terrestrial area. 

Despite this historical tension, which is now well-known, Russia does not believe there is any acceptable probability of clash between NATO and the Russian Federation, since Russia still thinks that nuclear deterrence is more than sufficient in this case.

Therefore, the other strategic goals of the reform started in 2008 were the reduction of the available Forces to only 1 million military; the elimination of the low usable Forces; the reduction in the number of officers and a new command and control chain. 

Certainly there were also the goals of reaching a 100% rate of combat ready forces, as well as increasing the outsourcing of materials and non-essential activities to civilian structures, and defining a new weapons program for 2020 designed to update 70% of material. Now we are already in 2020.

It should be clearly underlined that- to a large extent - these reforms implemented since 2008 have been successful. Therefore, also some non-negligible aspects of the Russian strategic doctrine are changing.

In particular, Russia thinks that the U.S. and NATO attitude has radicalized. 

Above all with the "enhanced" use of sanctions, as well as with the spreading of the so-called "colour revolutions" in the post-Soviet area - which the Kremlin interprets just as if it were the "hybrid warfare" of the Westerners - and finally the increase of inter-State conflicts in the disputed areas between Central Asia and the borders of Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus.

In fact, some military groups, especially in the United States, have explicitly stated they want to "intimidate" the Russian Federation again, and later contain it according to the tradition of the Cold War and of the old "Telegram" sent by "X", alias George Kennan, in 1947.

Russian distrust towards the West which, however, Russia has already widely shown both in the military doctrines of 2015 (the year of its engagement in Syria) and in the subsequent "Concept of Foreign Policy" of 2006.

Here the small changes in terminology and doctrine are always decisive. 

As early as 2015, the above stated General Gerasimov’s doctrine underlined that "the use of non-military measures for the whole range of new conflicts is increasing".

That was, in fact, the mechanism used by Russia in Syria, at first, then in the Ukraine and, probably, also in Venezuela and in other countries of the world.

Hence, an "integrated defence" strategy, which combines political and not directly military actions with conventional operations or even visible or invisible advanced psywar or commando actions. 

General Gerasimov defined it "a strategy which proactively weakens and defuses the threats to State security". Hence we find here a strengthening of territorial defence, besides the coordination of the actions made by various State agencies, halfway between intelligence services and the organizations of the so-called "civil society".

In this sense, it was also referred to as the "strategy of restrained action".

It is a term that was originally used to define precisely the Russian operations in Syria. It means to wage and fight a war always with limited goals, using only a part of the military potential and only certain groups of the Armed Forces, as well as selectively hitting only some enemy’s targets and groups which, however, are not necessarily military ones.

These are always joint operations, also with the use of nuclear weapons, which must be employed at such a level as not to trigger the enemy’s equalizing countermove. 
Moreover, the Russian doctrine of 2014 mentioned, for the first time, also private military companies, generically defined as "a characteristic of modern conflicts".

As General Gerasimov always maintain, private companies will be "a component of the increasing number of military players on the field".

Like the guerrilla groups, the "quasi-States", the various countries’ Armed Forces. All operators on the battlefield at the same level as the "classic" ones.

In this context, Russia will increasingly use private military companies, which enable the Kremlin’s planners to avoid being directly responsible for the operations and particularly to have the possibility of attributing important tactical operations to the sole willingness of their private "collaborators". 

For Russia, the primary point between propaganda and strategy is the U.S. abandonment of the INF Treaty.

With the next doctrine, Russia will reaffirm its interest in resuming a complete START-type Treaty with the United States. With specific reference to the nuclear issue, however, the criterion is the classic one: "the launch, immediately after an attack," of a nuclear strike or of a conventional operation putting the Russian State in crisis. 

Here the role played by the new weapons will be decisive anyway. Russia has the new Khinzal missile available, i.e. a ballistic air-to-ground or air-to-air, self-propelled, hypersonic and high-precision missile.

Russia has also the Avangard, previously known as Objekt 42020, available, i.e. a hypersonic glide vehicle that can be carried by continental ballistic missiles. The Burevestnik, previously known as Novator 9M730, a nuclear-powered surface-to-surface missile, is still operational, but there are some other weapons in advanced testing phase.

There are also significant evolutions in military robotics, in supercomputers and in semi-automated decision-making systems. This is another face of the future war, i.e. the use of "high-precision weapons and robotic instruments" - just to quote again General Gerasimov.

It is the technological face of hybrid warfare.

On the other side, in a mix of old and new theories, the U.S. strategists argue that "whoever controls Russia, rules the world" – a new version of Mackinder's old formula of power.

In the next Russian doctrine there will probably be no reference to NATO or the United States as "military threats on Russian borders", but both Western strategic entities will be regarded as mere "dangers".

The next Russian military doctrine will also deal with non-military instruments, which will probably be coordinated by an ad hoc structure combining traditional military commands and intelligence, as well as - most likely - an integrated command for psyops operations of a political nature. 

In particular, the new hypersonic and high-technology weapons will be used for "sub-optimal" threats towards the enemies, without having to resort to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or small or large nuclear weapons, and to change not only the military and strategic space, but above all the political complexion of the enemy forces on the ground.

We will have a theory of the strategic threat and political hegemony of the military spectrum, which will imply a set of instruments, organizations, and operations that is currently even hard to imagine.

 

Professor Valori is President of the International World Group

You might be interested also