The US, EU and NATO provided the Russians with inspiration for their policies in Ukraine. The US had an imperative role in toppling authoritarian regimes in eastern Europe in the years 2000-2004. With hindsight, the 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Serbia and Kosovo and the subsequent grass-roots campaign to remove Serbian leader Milosevic from power, has been the turning point in the Russian attitude to the west. It served as inspiration for the strategy and tactics now employed by Russia in Ukraine. The Euro-Atlantic coalition is of-guard: neither prepared for the banality of Russian propaganda and imperialism, nor prepared to cope with the threat that an irredentist and authoritarian alternative for western liberal democracy represents.

Hybrid War: A New Phenomenon?

In February 2013, the new chief of the Russian general staff Valery Gerasimov delivered a speech to a general meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences. He analysed the recent western approach to conflicts in Libya and elsewhere and stated:

“The emphasis in the confrontation methods employed is shifting toward the broad use of political, economic, information, humanitarian and other non-military measures, taken along with the use of the population’s protest potential. All that is supplemented with covert military measures, such as information warfare activities and the actions of special operations forces. The open use of force, often under the guise of peacekeeping and crisis resolution, only occurs at a certain stage, mainly to achieve ultimate success in a conflict. Asymmetrical actions, which allow a side to level out the adversary’s fighting advantage, are becoming widespread. They include the use of special operations personnel and internal opposition to create a permanently open front throughout the territory of the adversary state, as well as influence through information, whose forms and methods are continuously perfected.”

Since the capture of Crimea, western think tanks, politicians and armed forces hastily introduced new terminology. Russia’s actions are framed in metaphors: ‘Hybrid Warfare’ and ‘Green Men’. The information war was well planned, Kremlin shills and trolls were everywhere and Putin’s behaviour is characterized as unpredictable and dangerous. The sudden need to catch the developments of the last months in new phrases was not a result of a change in strategy by the Russians. Putin’s position on the enlargements of NATO and the EU has been known for years. Russian Irredentism is a well-known phenomenon and the (cyber) actions of the Russian Armed Forces in Estonia, Transnistria, Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia and Georgia have been noted.

The change materialized in tactics and operational concepts, which includes civilian aspects of conflict, all subordinated to the idea of a Greater Russia and the Eurasian Union. The Russian authoritarian model is presented as the alternative for the western liberal democratic model with the expansion of NATO and the EU and a strategic encirclement defined as its main threat.

The inclusion of civilian aspects in conflict is not a new idea. Bolsheviks subordinated the war effort during the Russian Civil War (1917-1922) to their ideal of an equal society and a better life for Russia’s poor. An important part of the victory of the Bolshevik forces was their propaganda effort. They managed to secure the support of most farmers, who felt attracted to the idea of social justice and equality as opposed to the Tsarist model or various other alternatives. A societal model is by definition civilian and it is hardly surprising that civilian aspects are part of the struggle.

During World War II the Communist Partisans in occupied territory coordinated their operations and attacks with the Red Army on the other side of the front line. This coordination made the Communist Partisans a very effective and powerful force. Under the overarching ideology of Communism and the Communist Party as executor, supporters and sympathizers were persuaded to join and resistance was organized. Central to the idea was that a better and more equal Communist society would emerge. The Partisans were the vanguard of that society, subordinated to this civilian model. The idea of an equal society proofed more appealing than the Nazi, Ukrainian nationalist or other alternatives.

The recent struggle in Ukraine is not about Bolshevism or Communism, but Russian Irredentism. The separatists act in coordination with Russian Armed Forces, as the Communist Partisans did in WW2. The Russians aim to correct the mistakes of the 90’s, block the liberal democratic model from spreading to even more former Soviet republics and break down the Euro-Atlantic dominance. The actions of the separatists and Russian Armed Forces have to be seen in this perspective and are subject to the Russian authoritarian model.

Hybrid War Avant la Lettre

Western governments and armed forces employ comparable tactics and operational concepts. They have other names and narratives, but are essentially the same. Valery Gerasimov’s remarks were made in the context of an analysis of the Arab Spring and the Libyan uprising and the western involvement in these conflicts. Usually the west subjects interventions to (the impression of) civilian democratic decision making, covered by International Law.

But as the process that led to the Iraq invasion proofed, the western use of International Law can be, to put it mildly, creative. The rather loose interpretation of the humanitarian mandate given to western countries during the Libyan uprising, showed the Russian Chief of Staff the way ‘forward’. France, the UK, Norway, Belgium, the US and others took the opportunity to influence events on the ground with military means, under the pretense of a humanitarian mandate. Both Russia and China felt betrayed.

Humanitarian mandates have been used before. It served as a justification for the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serbia. Supposedly a genocide took place in Kosovo and NATO was given a ‘humanitarian’ mandate to bomb Serbia and avoid slaughter. Afterwards no genocide could be proven and the UCK leadership appeared to be full of criminal elements.

After months of bombing, NATO ground forces entered Kosovo. Russian Peacekeepers from Bosnia surprized western forces and were ordered to go to Kosovo and occupy the airport of Pristina. Russia made a political statement, demanding the protection of the Serbian minority in Kosovo and expressed anger over NATO’s aggression to its ally Serbia. The US, via NATO and the UN, laid the foundation for an independent Kosovo and Milosevic’ position was weakened.

Following the Kosovo intervention, the US designed a campaign to definitely remove Milosevic, the ‘Butcher of the Balkans’, from power. The US succeeded staging a popular revolt in 2000 after an election controversy. The Serbian organizers of the protests were trained and paid by the US. Covered by American politicians, assisted by US Embassies and private consultants, the Serbian students created a format for popular uprisings. The format has been repeated in other former Soviet republics, most notably Georgia and Ukraine, while it failed in Belarus. On November 26, 2004 the Guardian published a piece on the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and the key role the US played in the organisation of the toppling of authoritarian regimes:

“But experience gained in Serbia, Georgia and Belarus has been invaluable in plotting to beat the regime of Leonid Kuchma in Kiev.The operation – engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience – is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people’s elections. In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations, the young Belgrade activists are for hire. They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 – the two words “gotov je”, meaning “he’s finished”, a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing.”

The threat these methods represent to the authoritarian Russian leadership, is real and not a result of Putin’s paranoia. It is no coincidence these cases have a direct link to Russia’s current behaviour. The combination of diplomatic pressure, humanitarian motives, mandates and convoys, the staging of protests and branding them, civil war, proxy forces, special forces, regular invasions and bombardments is hardly surprising. In the recent past the west used all the elements. These western policies and military engagements must have been an endless source of inspiration for the Russian military thinkers and their apparently not so new hybrid war formats. The Russians prepared for the Maidan protests and called the western bluff. They simply took the elements they needed from the US organized campaigns, unified it into one civil-military concept and threw it in our faces.

The Comprehensive Approach.

In the post 9-11 wars, western armed forces realized their armies were not capable of stabilizing the society they were tasked to stabilize. The western armed forces didn’t follow a sustainable strategic plan. During the peak of the military engagements, around 2008, most western armed forces struggled with the civilian sides of the conflicts they were supposed to fight. They were trained for the destruction of military targets in a purely military space, while the most important issue was civilian in nature: a corrupt and incapable administration, installed by the invading power, that lacked basic means and popular support to function properly.

New formats and training programs were designed to address these issues. NATO and EU have branded their own ‘hybrid’ civil-military concept the Comprehensive Approach which has become standard practice. Key to this concept is that civilian skills, knowledge and partners are integrated in the military decision making process, so the military is aware of civilian issues that influence their military environment, while outsourcing as much civilian tasks as possible. But when vital tasks are not performed by civilians, the armed forces have to do it themselves. Throughout the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq most measures were military and not enough resources were directed to basic civilian needs.

“NATO’s Strategic Concept, adopted at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, underlines that lessons learned from NATO operations show that effective crisis management calls for a comprehensive approach involving political, civilian and military instruments. Military means, although essential, are not enough on their own to meet the many complex challenges to Euro-Atlantic and international security.” (…) “NATO is improving its own crisis-management instruments and it has reached out to strengthen its ability to work with partner countries, international organisations, non-governmental organisations and local authorities. In particular, NATO is building closer partnerships with actors that have experience and skills in areas such as institution building, development, governance, the judiciary and the police.”

The concept sounds awfully familiar in the perspective of the Russian ‘new’ hybrid warfare. Russian policies are aimed at pulling countries or parts of it in their sphere of authoritarian institutions, governance, judiciary and police. The Russians use political, civilian and military instruments to ensure countries are not swallowed by the Euro-Atlantic democratic bloc. Russia uses the same elements western countries do, but in a context of Russian Irredentism and national interests. The Russians merged the military Comprehensive Approach with the civilian format that removed Milosevic in 2000 and do that with great success. Where NATO tried to implement the Comprehensive Approach in an Afghan environment, with few civilian resources, Russia implements it in an area with a known and similar culture. NATO’s inability to deal with the Russian attitude, is nonetheless surprising.

International Law and international support.

As Putin aims to reinstate Novorossiya and create the Eurasian Union, he seeks to undo the mistakes that were made in 1991, when Ukraine gained its independence and international borders were drawn. International Law would stop him from doing so and these laws would cost him at least Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, East Ukraine and Transnistria.

On August 28, 2014, Putin reminded the West not to mess with a nuclear Russia, suggesting that NATO troops fighting on the Ukrainian side would result in a nuclear attack. This threat created enough uneasiness and uncertainty to ensure that Russian troops in Ukraine effectively do operate under a nuclear umbrella; As a non NATO member Ukraine cannot be guaranteed nuclear protection, which leaves Ukraine in a vacuum.

Putin learned by experience to regard the western liberal democratic model as an existential threat to Russia. He has a perfect motive to portray International Law as a set of rules that only serves the interests of the western bloc. In the 90’s the toxic liberal recipes for Russian economic, social and political problems and the shame of the collapse of an Empire caused a deep resentment. Putin established his authoritarian position by steering away from the liberal principles, associated with western dominance and a treacherous use of International Law.

International support for Putin’s resentment and policies is easy to find. All of Russia’s allies are increasingly unwilling to play by ‘the rules’:

Iran aims to go nuclear and the American reaction in the shape of the SDI program, caused Putin to upgrade its nuclear arsenal. An existential Shiite-Sunni war would redraw borders and reshape the whole Middle East, a perfect opportunity to reshape some other borders.

Syria is fighting for its existence and a possible outcome would be the creation of new nations. Whether Assad survives is not important: Syrian unity would provide Putin with a motive to subdue any protest or uprising in his own country. A division of Syria would provide him with an opportunity to, again, redraw some borders for himself.

China has its own revisionist territorial ambitions in literally every direction the NATO star points. China is equally frustrated by the borders that were drawn in the 19th and 20th century and seeks to alter them at the cost of western allies and for a part liberal democracies. Every challenge to the consensual status of International Law can be portrayed as a western struggle and its inability to police that system. Russia and all her allies have an interest in the destruction of the equilibrium and by-pass International Law.

Conclusion

The events that led to the Ukrainian Crisis, support the idea that the Russians are consequently pursuing a Greater Russian ideology and have formulated an authoritarian alternative for the democratic system. Western governments, NATO and other western armed forces act surprised, but have used the same methods in Kosovo, Libya and have orchestrated regime changes. As numerous cases in the recent past prove, the western utilization of a wide range of civilian means and creative interpretation of International Law during conflict is common practice.

Western support for protests and revolts presented a threat to Russian interests. The accusations towards Putin of aggressive behaviour might be true, but let’s not forget the Euro-Atlantic coalition is not a stranger to that. The Russians have been clear in their Irredentist ambitions and for almost two decades are protesting NATO’s enlargement policies. The current crisis coalesces with a wider international development: After many centuries the western dominance and its grip on world affairs is declining. The international system and organisations founded after World War II are losing its consensual status, partly because western democracies abused the system. There is a growing group of nations and non-state actors, some of them allied with Russia, that have a an interest in breaking down the international system through which western dominance is projected. If the West is not able to recognize the changing world order and, as a result, the crumbling international structures, the coming decades are going to be very sobering.