Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 8 – Many in the
West have failed to see that “the main goal” of hybrid war is to change not the
rules that govern conflict but rather the borders that have existed between states
“and not necessarily those on the map” but those of effective control by either
another state or other external forces, according to Kirill Sazonov.
Indeed, the Ukrainian analyst suggests
the enormous attention many have paid to the ways in which Putin has changed
the rules of conducting war has distracted attention from the Kremlin leader’s
use of it to change the borders of control (site.ua/kirill.sazonov/4888-gibridnaya-ugroza-dokrichatsya-do-skuchayuschey-evropy/).
When this is understood, Sazonov
says, it becomes clear that “Russia’s aggression in Ukraine” is a war against
the West more generally. If Russia wins in Ukraine, then it will move on to
others and it will involve real victims. Today, “Warsaw and Cracow are not
Donetsk and Luhansk.,” but tomorrow they could be if Russia’s hybrid war is not
stopped.
Tragically, many will not understand
this is happening even as it does, he continues, because “at first hybrid war
creates not an alternative reality or new borders but an alternative picture.
Formally, there is no war and no military aggression. There are only internal
conflicts, political struggles, a crisis in administration and cases of armed
resistance.”
At first, “there is no aggression or
aggressor; there are only concerned neighbors and freedom of speech and
conscience and an effort by the bureaucracy to bring the rules of the game into
correspondence with the real situation.” But the bureaucracy will fail because “it
is too conservative and thus becomes the unwitting ally of a creative aggressor
with new instruments.”
Over time, the problems Ukraine
faces now will be the problems Europe and the West will face in the
future. As long as Moscow has to fight
in Ukraine, “everything will be well” in the West. But if Ukraine fails, then “the
problem will become yours,” with millions of refugees flowing out of that
country into Europe.
That is how hybrid war is conducted,
and today “Russia is carrying out its hybrid war not against Ukraine but
against the EU and the US, that is, against the democratic world as a whole.
This is really a conflict of worldviews and scenarios of social development,”
one that Russia has launched because it has “lost the economic competition.”
Since it can’t use economic means to
project power and since over war would produce an immediate reaction, Russia
under Putin has chosen “other methods” including bribery, subversion,
manipulation, and exploitation of ethnic and religious differences, having
exacerbated them by promoting migration.
The Kremlin is able to do this
because “the contemporary world [is] tied together by thousands of threats of
horizontal connections” and thus “hybrid war concerns everyone.” The aggressor,
in this case Russia, wants to live no worse than others or more precisely wants
to ensure that no one lives better than it does.
Its “goal is the creation of a zone
of instability and threats large enough to force the West to agree to
negotiations and concessions, serious concessions, such as the recognition of
Russia’s right to dictate the rules of life for countries which in the Kremlin
are considered part of its zone of influence.”
If it achieves that, Moscow will
demand even more, including being treated as “an equal or senior partner” in
negotiations about the entire world.” Of course, it will sometimes make
tactical concessions itself but these will be only tactical and temporary. They
will not change the strategy.
“The experience of such operations
from Soviet times is enormous,” Sazonov says; “but now the Russian Federation
has made a serious step from local operations to a long-term project that is
unified in the single scenario” of hybrid war.
Having chosen dictatorship and reliance on raw materials alone, Moscow sees
no other alternative.
Sazonov says that Russia’s worldwide
hybrid war involves the following elements: propaganda, “the creation of
internal conflicts with the help of its own agents of influence,” terror both
via the support of internal groups and the introduction of outsiders, economic
pressure by weakening the economies of target states, political pressure by
isolating its targets one way or another, and the creation of conflicts that
Moscow can use to justify intervention.
Moscow views ethnic and religious
divisions as the most useful because “one can support them for a very long time
with the least expenditure of resources.”
Moreover, its support for this or that group can be presented to the naïve
as part of “a struggle for peace and the resolution of conflicts,” even those
it has “artificially created on its own.”
Moscow doesn’t need a powerful
technologically developed army. It does need forces to insert near the end, “but
the key tasks are fulfilled by intelligence services, diversionists, recruited
agents of influence and media under its control.” And it can count on recruiting those
politicians who might without such outside support have no chance of gaining
power.
Faced with this general threat from hybrid war, what should Western countries do? The best thing is not to have or to eliminate those weak places that Moscow may exploit. That means, Sazonov says, that “the aggressor -- even a potential one-- must be deprived of the smallest chance of financing political parties, social organization and media.”
Faced with this general threat from hybrid war, what should Western countries do? The best thing is not to have or to eliminate those weak places that Moscow may exploit. That means, Sazonov says, that “the aggressor -- even a potential one-- must be deprived of the smallest chance of financing political parties, social organization and media.”
Moreover,
the West must recognize that it faces a common threat and meet it with a united
front against what the Kremlin is trying to do.
And it must understand that helping those countries like Ukraine which
are now on the front line is “not charity but an investment” in the defense of
the West.
“If
we together do not stop the Kremlin in Ukraine, Sazonov concludes, “[the West without Ukraine] will have to stop
it in Poland, in Lithuanian, and everywhere” when Russia orchestrates a new
refugee flow into Europe and when the enemy will truly and traditionally be “at
the border.”
No comments:
Post a Comment