Grading Gerasimov: Evaluating Russian Nonlinear War Through Modern Chinese Doctrine

To all readers of this particular article as it goes to the core of where I am heading these days....personally and professionally...

I have been reading SWJ since 2004 when I first became aware of it…and I have since then contributed a few articles to it as well as FP…

But since the Russian military annexation of Crimea…their unleashing of non linear warfare with cyber and information warfare as it’s core and then their military invasion of Ukraine and their adventure into Syria in the name to defeat IS which we all know is a farce……

During the last two years I have posted roughly 30,000 posts on these two areas (Ukraine/Syrian threads) and then starting posting more and more information on Russian infor and cyber warfare and responding to this particular article.

Alone on the Ukrainian thread Views have in the last two years climbed to over 980,000 …the Syrian thread climbed in the same time to over 360,000. I also noted that in the last two months the Russian disinformation and hacking has climbed over 8,000 Views.

While it is hard to see if readers were looking/researching or just skimming through I am happy that they “viewed” anything as I have seen that basically a lot of what I posted never did make it into US MSM or if it did…then days later.

During this process I have learned the value of social media OSINT and the ability of conducting excellent information warfare using social media….and took pains to show how Russian info warfare was being conducted both in Ukraine and Syria….and developed along the way a working relationship with @bellingcat one of the best social media OSINT types going these days..actually produces better quality open reporting than anything I have previously seen in the IC which also uses OSINT...

Along the way I have bashed the Obama WH for basically changing the entire ME in the desire to tilt fully to Iran and for their apparent lack of a solid strategic strategy on virtually anything…and they walked away from engaging in the Ukraine…..the Obama WH was great smoke and mirrors machine and the US MSM never really challenged that…

We then transitioned to the Trump WH….and suddenly and truly we are seeing for the first time the somehat serious political theory of “Wag the Dog” in it’s full glory being applied to cover up for a total lack of any strategy on anything other than “tweets” being used as a FP……using "on a whim and a prayer" as FP....

I learned a long time ago after VN if one does not ever speak truth to power things get worse….and in my work career that was a principle I held to which cost me sometimes, but I always learned even then you in fact move forward…because some along the way respected that.

The posting has led me to fully “see” and “understand” the intertwining of a lack of US FP built on well thought through strategies and allowed me to see at the same the interesting development of the Russian non linear warfare which is pushing their political war with the US….and they do view it as an actual war…somehow we do not…

BTW I have posted many comments on this concept of “seeing” and “understanding” something that drives me in all these years as I learned long ago ground reality “does talk to you..if you are willing to listen”….

After being recently chastised and sidelined for three days “for being on a soap box” that not many were willing to actually share…..even though reading and then responding by cut and pasting comments….I have decided it is now a good time to withdraw from SWC…it has been a great ride , the knowledge I gained in the postings has flowed into my company in a far different way than I even imagined and is openly up a startling new realm in integrating hacking defense with customers demanding now how to counter the everyday info war they are in….

It has been one heck of a long ride and I really enjoyed it…will comment on occasions if an article interests me…….

The killing in eastern Ukraine and Syria will just continue until someone stands up in the US and truly leads….and leads not by tweets….but by the realization of what Putin’s geo political goals really are guided by a strategic strategy...finally.....

Based on evidence I have had the opportunity to be shown/review the person tweeting might not be in office much longer IF treason counts for anything these days in the US…

Gerasimov’s Fifth Speech at the Academy of Military Science

OE Watch Commentary: On 4 March, Russia’s Chief
of the General Staff Valeriy Gerasimov made his yearly
presentation to the Academy of Military Science. His
speeches to the Academy over the years have offered some
of the best insights into Russia’s overall military approach
to contemporary warfare and this one was no different.
The accompanying excerpts from the speech point out
that Gerasimov urges the Academy of Military Science to
prioritize the study of new forms of interstate warfare and
effective methods of countering them.

Gerasimov notes the importance of the “formation of
scenarios and long-term forecasts of the development of
military-political and strategic situations in the world’s
most important regions.” He also invites the Academy
of Military Science to play an active role in a roundtable
which will “discuss the problems of contemporary wars
and armed conflicts and their characteristic features and
peculiarities.” The roundtable will take place within the
framework of the scientific and business program of the
international military-technical forum Army 2017, which
will be held in August 2017.

In 2013, Gerasimov had discussed tendencies, forms and
methods of warfare; in 2014 the role of the General Staff;
in 2015 the organization of the Russia’s defense under
contemporary conditions; in 2016 the West’s use of hybrid
methods and how to counter them; and in 2017 (the official
title of the presentation has still not been made available)
the requirement to develop the proper forms and methods
of warfare.

Thus he has returned to a topic he first stressed
in 2013, indicating its ongoing importance. A “form” is the
development of military organizations (joint, interservice,
special operations, etc.) and a method is composed of
weapons (tanks, hypersonic, reflexive control, etc.) and
ways to employ military art (indirect and asymmetric
operations, principles of war, etc.). End OE Watch
Commentary (Thomas)

The terms "form, method and ways" bring to mind center of gravity and critical factors analysis. Ways and means to exert a development model that does not conform to western declarations (objective). Defining the essence of war continues........

One really does wonder if the Trump WH is in fact actually supporting Gerasimov's non linear warfare?

In addition to no Dep Secs at State and Pentagon, also no Undersecretaries or Assistant Secretaries. In other words, no FP team in place at all.

Trump's been in office 3 months & hasnt even NAMED (let alone confirmed) a Dep Sec for Defense or State. That is crazy. BUT 886 tweets later he is still tweeting hard and heavy.

Issuing a lot of tough talk threats on North Korea, Syrian/Russia and Iran is not a FP.

Hopefully they have though a secret plan where tough talk is in fact a new form of FP.

All boils down though to simply "creditability".....and right now Gerasimov is way ahead in that category.....

Seriously challenge any SWC reader or commenter to prove this Gerasimov comment above differently....

Perfect example of this FP failure on the part of the Trump WH...

Sec. Tillerson: Iran nuclear deal "fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran. It only delays their goal."
http://abcn.ws/2orRHxi

So as SoS just what is his stated strategy that he should be repeating publicly that comes from the National Command Authority...Trump....?

There is none....

So what is Russia via Gerasimov doing in relation to Iran right at this moment in a non linear way?

Perfect example of the Gerasimov non linear warfare hard at work.....

Currently there is nothing but confusion coming out of the Trump WH...we have countless comments by SecDef...comments by SoS..comments by UNSC Ambassador....BUT nothing from the NCA Trump and Russians are using this confusion to push further along their "political war" both in Ukraine and against the US in general....

Putin Quietly Detaches Ukraine's Rebel Zones as U.S. Waffles
by Henry Meyer , Ilya Arkhipov , Stepan Kravchenko , and Yuliya Fedorinova
‎
April‎ ‎20‎, ‎2017‎ ‎4‎:‎00‎ ‎AM‎ ‎CEST

Russia building trade links after Kiev imposes blockade

White House seems ‘uninterested,’ Russian diplomat says
Vladimir Putin is seizing on mixed signals from the U.S. to quietly tighten Russia’s grip on two rebel regions of Ukraine, burying hopes for a European-brokered peace deal and relief from sanctions anytime soon.
While the Kremlin continues to publicly back the accord that Germany and France oversaw in 2015, Putin’s real strategy in Ukraine is to fully separate the two border areas known as the Donbas through incremental integration with Russia, three people close to the leadership in Moscow said. He has no plans to recognize or annex the territories, they said.
Russia has been moving gradually, using a blockade by Ukrainian activists as political cover to take over key economic links with the separatist zones. Last week, Russian Railways slashed rates for shipping coal and iron ore to points near the rebel areas, where the metals industry provides most jobs. That will allow Russia to replace Ukrainian supplies halted by Kiev and ensure that steel plants continue to function, according to two people in the industry.
“A step has been taken toward detaching Donbas -- there’s no doubt about that,” a senior lawmaker in the ruling United Russia party, Konstantin Zatulin, said by phone from Moscow. Like other officials, Zatulin blamed Ukraine for forcing Moscow’s hand through the blockade, an allegation Kiev rejects.
Zatulin’s assessment of the Kremlin’s plans was confirmed by Alexei Chesnakov, a former Kremlin staffer who now advises Putin’s administration on Ukraine policy, and a senior government official who asked not to be identified.
Russian Citizenship
Earlier this year, Putin angered his Ukrainian counterpart, Petro Poroshenko, by signing a decree recognizing passports and other documents issued by the separatist governments in Luhansk and Donetsk, which have already declared the ruble their official currency. The Kremlin is also considering making it easier for the 2 million residents of the regions to become Russian citizens, which would dramatically complicate any attempt by Kiev to reassert control.
Moscow is implementing the so-called “Transnistria scenario,” according to the deputy head of Poroshenko’s administration, Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, referring to the breakaway region in the former Soviet republic of Moldova, which hosts Russian troops but has no citizenship agreements with Russia.
Russia supports a string of separatist regions in former Soviet republics, using them as leverage over pro-Western governments in what it considers to be its sphere of influence. In 2008, Russia sent troops into Georgia to secure two such areas that are now essentially Kremlin protectorates. Last month, Russia absorbed some of the militias there into its regular army.
“We don’t have peace for one reason: Russians are not interested in reaching peace,” Poroshenko said in a speech in London on Tuesday. “They are interested in exerting control.”
Putin’s moves in Ukraine pose a challenge to the U.S. and the European Union, which publicly support the 2015 Minsk accord that calls for Ukraine to regain control of the Donbas. A collapse of the deal would be a major blow to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who’s spent a lot of political capital trying to end the worst violence Europe’s seen since the the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The three-year conflict has killed 10,000 people and displaced 2 million more.
President Donald Trump’s administration, on the other hand, has sent mixed signals on its stance and even appears to be “totally uninterested” in the conflict, as one senior Russian diplomat put it. Trump has taken a tough line rhetorically, though he hasn’t made his position clear and the White House seems focused on issues it considers more pressing like Syria and North Korea.
While Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has questioned Ukraine’s importance for U.S. taxpayers, he’s also insisted that sanctions be maintained on Russia until the Kremlin respects its commitments to restore peace. Previously, the new U.S. administration had only pledged to keep the less onerous penalties that were imposed in response to Putin’s annexation of Crimea.
‘Always Ready’
Putin’s strategy involves developing levers that can be used to strengthen the Kremlin’s control over the Donbas on short notice, two Western diplomats in Moscow said, an assessment confirmed by former Russian officials.
Retaliatory measures “are always ready,” said Chesnakov, the Kremlin adviser on Ukraine. “Every time Ukraine gives us an excuse they are implemented.”
In January, Ukrainian nationalist war veterans blocked off cargo links with the rebel-held east. Two months later, Poroshenko formalized the blockade even though it’s costing his country’s economy about 1 percent of output because of the cut-off of key raw material supplies including coal.
Poroshenko has said the ban on trade will be lifted once separatist authorities reverse their seizure of Ukrainian enterprises. Donetsk and Luhansk in March took control of about 40 Ukrainian companies, including billionaire Rinat Akhmetov’s steel-making and electricity assets.
This reflects the financial component of Putin’s policy, according to Andrey Margolin, an economist at the Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. After two years of recession, Russia can scarcely afford to continue subsidizing the Donbas, so it needs to incorporate Donetsk and Luhansk commercially to help offset the expense, he said.
“The less this economy is integrated with Russia’s, the higher the costs will be,” Margolin said.
Frozen Conflict
With the Minsk accord now basically at a dead end, the Donbas is drifting into a frozen conflict that may last decades.
As for Poroshenko, his hands are tied, just as Putin likes it, according to Volodymyr Fesenko at the Penta research institute in Kiev.
Domestic opponents are preventing Poroshenko from granting wide autonomy to the rebel regions, as required under the peace agreement, while two other contentious issues mandated by the accord -- a full cease-fire and a return of border areas to Ukrainian control -- are also no closer to being fulfilled.
“This lets Russia strengthen its hold on the two republics,” Fesenko said.

Realizing the term "Gerasimov Doctrine" has been misconstrued in some cases and wrongly assessed, there are still points to be made. There was also a lot of experience and wisdom associated with the aforementioned articles and speeches.

RUSSIA AND HYBRID WARFARE – GOING BEYOND THE LABEL

"Although the term ‘hybrid warfare’ was not mentioned in the article, Gerasimov was later identified as ‘the face of the hybrid war approach’, for example, in Maria Snegovaya’s article on Russian information warfare published in 2015.19 The idea that Gerasimov outlined a new ‘hybrid warfare’ doctrine that later served as the basis for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is the result of a selective and hindsight-based interpretation of the article. In fact, discussing the Arab Spring and NATO’s intervention in Libya, Gerasimov outlines his views on general trends in Western and US approaches to warfare going back to the 1991 Gulf War. In his view, the increasing importance of non-military tools in conflicts, including political, economic, informational and humanitarian measures, is an important element of change in the current operating environment."

NONLINEAR SCIENCE AND WARFARE: CHAOS, COMPLEXITY AND THE US MILITARY IN THE INFORMATION AGE:

"Doctrine often serves as a formalized embodiment or reflection of the dominant military theory within a military organization. It expresses the military organization’s official understanding of the nature of warfare and the general requirements for victory in warfare. It also serves as a statement of organizational identity, specifying and formalizing the organization’s understanding of itself, including the organization’s roles and missions, its main methods of accomplishing its mission, and its relationship to other military organizations and elements of national power. It serves as an official, common understanding of these matters for members of the organization. It also outlines, in a general way, how the military organization will conduct itself during times of war. In the United States, each service has its own set of doctrinal manuals, which are typically organized hierarchically, with the top-most manual dealing with the service’s general understandings of the nature of warfare, requirements for victory, and the service’s mission and means of accomplishing the mission. There are typically a number of lower, more specific doctrinal statements covering more specific issues such as command and control, strategy, logistics, etc.

Uniformed military professionals themselves typically write doctrine. But, like military theory, the twentieth century has seen more participation and greater influence by civilians in the process of doctrine writing. Doctrine is and has been created in various institutional locations depending on time-period and service branch. In general, however, doctrine is usually closely associated with institutions of professional military education, such as command and general staff colleges or war colleges.4 Military professional journals, usually published by institutions of professional military education, often serve as forums for debate about matters of theory and doctrine.5 Doctrine is not the same as strategy. While doctrine formalizes general understandings of the nature of warfare, the requirements for victory, and the general means that a service will use to achieve victory, strategy is a more specific application of those general understandings to a particular situation. For example, while doctrine might specify that the employment of a “maneuver style” of operations is generally more likely to lead to victory, and hence is the officially preferred method, there could be any number of strategies that combine various weapons, tactics, formations, etc. in a specific way, to meet a specific challenge, but which are still consistent with a “maneuver style.”6 Of course, it is possible for strategies to be developed and implemented that do not reflect official doctrine, just as it is possible to have doctrine that does not reflect dominant theory. In general, however, the employment of weapons and forces on the battlefield reflects the official embodiment of a service’s understandings of itself and its world found in doctrine. Military theory, doctrine, and strategy form an integral part of what some have called “security imaginaries,” which is “that part of the social imaginary that deals with the understanding of the security world and in turn makes security practices possible” (Pretorius 2008: 117). It is about how “security and insecurity
10 Nonlinear science into U.S. military discourse (or threat) . . . are constructed through the fixing of meanings to things, an identity to ‘the self ’ and others, and the relationships that are thus instituted” (Pretorius 2008: 100). Military organizations and associated security professionals in and out of uniform engage in the production of military imaginaries through the production of theoretical knowledge about war, which can provide a sense of shared awareness about the military organization’s position within the wider environment. As military organizations and practices – as well as the larger social, political, and economic environments in which they operate – are increasingly affected by rapid changes in technology and the natural sciences, it is appropriate to classify Western military imaginaries as a form of “technoscientific imaginary” (Marcus 1995: 3–4), the study of which involves paying particular attention to “how people shape and are shaped by complex technical, social, and political-economic systems” (Fortun and Fortun 2005: 44).

In short, this book draws out U.S. military understandings of itself in its world that shape the conduct and outcomes of warfare, all with an eye on the role of concepts and metaphors from the sciences in these understandings."

In order to understand this below one must fully understand exactly what the former KGB and GDR MfS Stasi mean with the term of "influence operations" WHICH means that there are very very few US grey beard types left alive that fully understand and have experienced that period of the COLD War and understand what and how the Soviet Union and GDR used "influence ops in those days"...so critical in understanding exactly what Russia is now doing.

US intel report: Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election"
http://cnn.it/2il3jQj

There are two major German books that would contribute greatly to this debate ....one by a GDR Stasi COL who actually ran the GDR MfS "influence operations Department X" for over 25 years and one written by a former MfS Stasi officer a Major who was recruited and worked for the German BND before he was extracted in a day time op to bring him to the West...AND who led and recruited 25 West German economic espionage agents...9 who were arrested in a single day and another 15 who fled back to the GDR....

The exact same "influence ops TTPs" of the 80s is exactly what we are seeing today just updated due to the IT technology of social media...internet and hacking.....and a 24 hour news cycle coupled with "fake news and fake news sites"....

AFTER more Trump tweets today referencing WLs and Russian hacking being a "witch hunt"...it is important to bring back up comments taken from a 1992 German published book which concerned the GDR Stasi COL who headed the GDR Disinformation Warfare Dept X for over 25 years......

Stasi's highly secretive "Department X" in charge of active measures [aktive Maßnahmen] was first presented internally in Belzig in 1986

Book in German
Auftrag Irrefuerhung
Wie die Stasi Politik im Westen machte
Publisher Carlson

Auftrag: Irreführung. Wie die Stasi Politik im Westen machte - Amazon.de
https://www.amazon.de/Auftrag-Irreführung-Politik-Westen-machte/dp/3551…

Fits nicely with the Trump tweets.....

Stasi: "Conspiracy was widely practiced—most widely concerning the existence and responsibilities of the Active Measures Department [X]"
—‘Embarrassment’
—‘corrosion’ [Zersetzung]
—‘incitement’
—‘disruption’
—‘influence’
—‘discrediting’
"even combined into one active measure"

Stasi covert operator: "Active measures directed against [Western] intelligence agencies in Bonn were code-named JUNGLE"

Stasi memoirs: "[KGB] black propaganda used camouflage and deception in order to penetrate deep into the political structures of the West."

Stasi, 1980s: "Black and white propaganda were not divided by some firewall. They were more like twins: information and disinformation"
Perhaps the most remarkable historical novelty when comparing 1980s Active Measures to the 2010s: this recurring tenet is no longer valid —
MEANING..in the 80s if the active measure was detected they would back off...NOW Russia in fact doubles down more.

A few details on how Russia's KGB and East Germany's Stasi cooperated on active measures and covert influence operations

"In the 80s we increased our support for the West German peace movement—at the same time we fought the pacifists in our own country"

Stasi HVA, 1989: "Western intelligence agencies simply didn’t have such a fine-grained disinformation apparatus in Europe."

"We [Stasi] eventually learned that psychological warfare did not favor peace"

One of the most amazing details from an amazing book: Stasi active measures & disinformation targeted famous Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal
Always amazing what Stasi covert Active Measure operators said about Western journalists—not dissimilar assessments probably going on today

This is what I mean by being now in a true "war"..."a war on the invisible front" common phase during the Cold War used by GDR Stasi....KGB and GRU spies inside the West.....as well as Polish SB and the Czech BtS agents.

Major GDR Stasi operator: "Our 'battle on the invisible front'—that is inside the West—was unencumbered by moral constraints vis-a-vis the 'enemy.'"

GDR Stasi: "The disinformation we engaged in far surpassed everything that [Western] intelligence agencies did—in character, extent & intensity"

QUOTE
Stunning section—eg: "Among many journalists prejudices against their own intelligence agencies were predominant—thus facilitating our work"
UNQUOTE

QUOTE
Note that op isn't over—it simply entered its next phase. Trump is inadvertently prolonging this active measure, making it *more effective*
UNQUOTE

"What would active measures be without the journalist?" asks Stasi's head of active measures, reflecting on his trade after 25 years in 1986

Stasi: "journalism and intelligence have objectively entered a kind of marriage. Both complement each other and can’t let go of each other."

"The press, radio, and TV are the ideal battleground for a Stasi operator focused on active measures."

Stasi memoirs: "Active measures are a Soviet invention that didn’t just imply a 'war of words,' but also a specific intelligence structure"

"Often the truth served the lie."

GDR Stasi active measures operator, 1992
Couple this mindset now with cyber/info warfare....and you have the "war" I am talking about....

Cyberwar for Sale

After a maker of surveillance software was hacked, its leaked documents shed light on a shadowy global industry that has turned email theft into a terrifying — and lucrative — political weapon.
By MATTATHIAS SCHWARTZJAN. 4, 2017
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/magazine/cyberwar-for-sale.html

BTW...if you have been following me on the Ukrainian thread since Crimea you would have seen me post a tons of comments around this particular Italian software company....Hacking Team....they had a massive hack and millions of Megs of data..emails...sales contracts....actual hacking tools/software viruses and malware software was placed on the common internet...

I downloaded all 800M of their data and am still going through it for my customers especially the hacking tools side of the house and all Microsoft problems they spotted and successfully used when MS did not know they even existed..........they sidestepped EU export regulations when they sold their tools and software...

AND our new incoming President being as smart as he claims he is should have known all of this if he fully understands hacking as he claims he does....

This is from 1986 and from the major GDR Stasi officer mentioned above.....RECOGNIZE anything?????

Stasi, 1986: "For the man on the street it is getting harder to assess [news stories]. This is where we come in as an intelligence agency."

East Germany's Stasi created 'active measures' Department X after receiving KGB instructions to do so during a visit to Moscow in ~1961

THIS GDR Stasi officer was the master craftsman of his tradecraft....active measures for over 25 years ...ie information warfare and disinformation.....

Stasi's Wagenbreth: "A powerful adversary can be defeated only by carefully and methodically exploiting every crack within its own society"

NOW does everyone fully understand what drives the Russian non linear warfare at it's core....
1. cyber warfare
2. information warfare including disinformation

AND this is what the former General Flynn and Trump seem to want to fully forget......WHY is that....simply put...both are fully and completely compromised by visits to Moscow and what occurred there...

QUOTED references are in German from the German book...English translation
MISSION: DECEPTION—amazing, eerily topical 1992 book on Stasi active measures in the West, by two former operators, one from "Department X"
Stasi's highly secretive "Department X" in charge of active measures [aktive Maßnahmen] was first presented internally in Belzig in 1986

Large number of confirming documents reside in the German Federal MfS Stasi Document Center here in Berlin and is open for researchers of that period..

The interesting fact in all of this is ...and the incoming administration seems..actually no...appears to not believe what Russia conducted was in fact non linear warfare....

While we have seen that the IC concludes Russian hacking occurred and was directed from the level of a Putin...what is not so clear is did in fact the hacking actually change votes..only a thorough analysis of the hacks on the three State databases and comparing paper ballots against digital counts is the only sure way to answer this....

BUT we do know and can prove as very effective information war was being driven as well and that did in fact change votes.....if we take one analysis....from a very good poller....the hammering on the Clinton emails tied to the FBI sudden investigation and the emails being released COST the Clinton campaign a sudden swing of 23-31% and that shortly before the election...

We also have proven that 33% of all proTrump English produced tweets came from a Russian owned Macedonian troll factory....

THIS does not include the massive fake news sites and the magnification of that fake news by alt right and neo conversation blogsites and websites..numbering in the hundreds..

And this by @maxseddon, the first reporter to dive into Russian troll operations in the US
https://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-arm… 

In some aspects information warfare is far more dangerous than hacking as it attempts through a number of varying narrative all previously placed into play via Moscow to change the views of the general public...

QUOTE
1/06/2017 — 
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement today after the release of a declassified intelligence report highlighting Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election:
“Our elections should be decided by American citizens, not foreign hackers, heads of state, or their propagandists.
This report shows that Russian operatives actively manipulated our presidential election.  They left cyber fingerprints and the U.S. intelligence community unanimously concluded that Russia intervened with the intention of undermining Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump.  The report clearly states: 'the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.'
Regardless, as Senator McCain points out: this was an attack on all Americans because it undermines our democracy.
We know that Russia continues to engage in similar cyber campaigns and we need to take corrective action to put a stop to it.
This declassified report is a start, but it is not enough.  The American public has been given a glimpse of a few pieces of a much larger puzzle.  They deserve as much information as can be provided without putting our intelligence assets and techniques at risk.  And the most effective way to achieve that goal is through an independent, select committee to investigate Russian interference with our election. 
There is hard evidence and broad consensus from U.S. intelligence officials on this matter, and there ought to be bipartisan consensus and action from Congress, too. 
This is not about embarrassing the President-elect; it’s about protecting our democracy.  I realize this may be an uncomfortable situation for President-elect Trump, but the American people and the strength of our democracy should come first.”

At the heart of Russian non linear warfare are the two key cornerstones...cyber and information warfare......and Russia played these two very well during the US campaign and election....

SUPPORTED by the now President elect with his unending number of twitter storms....

Fun fact! The last time the President-elect held a press conference, he encouraged Russia to actively hack Secretary Clinton's emails MAYBE that is why he holds no more press conferences.

Just a reminder that, if you were paying attention, Trump's Russia links were perfectly clear last summer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-a-trump-pre… 

Also, Trump's use of Russian narratives has been evident for many months
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/globa
l-opinions/why-is-trump-suddenly-talking-about-world-war-iii/2016/10/28/be44cc0e-9d24-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.6714df96c8c2 

Use of "secret" information plus trolling has been standard Russian tool, used in European elections for years
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/anne-applebaum-russia-does-it… 

On a scale of one to five with one being the best score..Russia's one is "winning" right now....

"Given the fact that Russian non-linear warfare is not so much directed at
winning wars but at undermining societies and political systems, Western strategy
should focus more on strengthening the resilience of post-Soviet countries."

March 2016

file:///C:/Users/575222/Downloads/klein_russiamilitary_feb16_web.pdf

http://www.stratcomcoe.org/online_library

"Given the fact that Russian non-linear warfare is not so much directed at
winning wars but at undermining societies and political systems, Western strategy
should focus more on strengthening the resilience of post-Soviet countries."

March 2016

file:///C:/Users/575222/Downloads/klein_russiamilitary_feb16_web.pdf

http://www.stratcomcoe.org/online_library

PhD Program

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/10/russia-transfers-uk…

Unrestricted Warfare Author on Geopolitics 2016....

Source: Qiao Liang, “Major General: How Should China Contend Against the US,”China Military Online (in English), 6 January 2016.

To effectively contain the United States, other countries shall think more about how to cut off the capital flow to the US while formulating their strategies because that’s the way to control America’s lifeblood. Why could the 9/11 in 2001 hit the US so hard? Apart from political and mental impact, a much heavier blow was that it drove more than US$300 billion out of the country within a month.

If we connect and analyze all kinds of geopolitical events in this way, we must have a deeper understanding of geopolitics and currency-politics instead of simply emphasizing the importance of the former but ignoring the latter’s decisive influence on the world.

The US is the first financial empire in the world, and will be the last one as far as I’m concerned. There will be no more empire or financial hegemony after the US because the Internet age has arrived, in which currency has become highly electronic and online consumption and remote transaction are driving away paper money.

Then what is China faced with in a world when geopolitics and currency-politics still exist? I think it’s an age when the US dollar, Euro and RMB will all play a part. After that, currency will be replaced by a new model of denomination.

In this process, China should follow the trend and seize opportunities to realize its own interests. From geopolitics to currency-politics and to the current age that we can hardly name yet, only those who can adapt to changes will be the final winner.

History, doctrine, SOF employment, State as a System analysis, propaganda mechanisms, and Effects Based Operations.

http://sprotyv.info/en/news/10597-russian-hybrid-warfare-what-are-effec…

Russian Priorities of Warfare

1. Methodological priority: World view and methodology – changing the worldview and methodology of the individual as a means of warfare method (how a person sees the world) is the most potent from the sustainability point of view. That is why the Russian Orthodox Church and the creation of the “Russian World” as an all-encompassing worldview is of utmost priority for Russia in order to achieve its long-term goals.

2. Chronological priority, the warfare of history – to distort history and chronology in order to justify claims on new territories both for external and internal users as well as to brainwash external and internal victims with propaganda for them to regard Russian claims as legitimate.

3. Priority based on facts and their interpretations: ideology, technology, methodology. The examples: Russian Doctrine, ideology of Russia as Third Rome,AlexandrDugin’s ideology and hisEurasianism,Panslavism based on distorted historical interpretations (see above – 2nd chronololgical priority).

4. Economics priority: eсonomics and finance warfare (example – trade wars against Ukraine, use of the unjustified gas price as an instrument of war against Europe and Ukraine, Russian banking and finance system as warfare tool against Ukraine, currency speculations and throw-in of counterfeit local currency in order to destabilize Ukrainian currency and the Ukrainian monetary system, strategy to buy sovereign debt of victim country and then to request immediate debt re-payment etc.)

5. Ecological priority, “Genetics” warfare (alcohol, tobacco, environmental pollution e.t.c.) – to promote in the victim country a tolerance to abuse of alcohol, narcotics, to support environmental pollution, deliberately destroying the infrastructure and industrial capacities of the victim county e.t.c. In line with this priority Russia is making efforts to destroy the infrastructure of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast. The terrorists mined the Stirol chemical plant, threatening to cause an environmental catastrophe in the Donetsk Oblast.

6. Military priority: conventional warfare. Military warfare was used by Russia in a new form of an undeclared hybrid war with a wide application of newly created Special Operation Forces (SSO) in combination with use of local residents brainwashed by the ‘higher’ priorities of warfare described above.

As we can see that information and network operation strategies are key and cover 5 priorities of 6 (Methodological priority, Chronological priority, Priority based on facts, Economics priority, Ecological priority) and only one priority is a conventional military priority.

Article was published in Euromaidan Press on November 5th, 2014












Victor,

I found your analysis interesting, but your grading criteria for the Russian doctrine too kind. Russia at best has developed a doctrine that gave them an "initial" edge in Ukraine, but now what? The conflict is looking more and more conventional to me, whether the combatants wear uniforms or not.

Theoretically this doctrine could be employed in other countries bordering Russia that have discontented Russia populations, but where else? I agree it gives them the advantage in the initial phases of the conflict, but then what? And since their hand has been exposed it would be much more difficult to pull this off in the future. To get a grade of C, much less an A, I would need Russian theorists to explain to me what they accomplished beyond inadvertently strengthening NATO, weakening the Russian economy,and making Russia an international pariah state. Hopefully they could provide something beyond increasing their nationalist, which is a sword that cuts both ways. Doctrine in the end should enable military and other forms of power to achieve the state's policy goals. Is it really doing that?

To me Russia seems to be in a bit of a quagmire in Ukraine. Perhaps this is why they're sending more conventional military support to Assad? Do they need a perceived win somewhere? I guess a win in this case would be anything that allows them to poke the West in the eye and get away with it? That is a pride win, not a long term interests win. However, we must recognize that pride can be dangerous, and proud men don't always make what we consider to be rational decisions.

In Europe their new doctrine would probably fail "if" NATO pushed back, which is why it is being executed under a nuclear umbrella to deter NATO from pushing back. So the real risk isn't their non-linear doctrine, but the risk that non-linear warfare could intentionally or accidentally lead to nuclear warfare. In many respects this form of warfare isn't all that new, nor has it proven to be overly effective. Little green men without big green men and their armor and their nukes behind them would accomplish little in Europe beyond creating some instability. The advantage Russia enjoys is that the West desires to stay in the gray zone. They're exploiting what they see as our political weakness, but only time will prove if NATO is weak or wise.

Also it is a bit of a stretch to confuse two Chinese COL's writing an article on what they called unrestricted warfare as Chinese military doctrine. China may think about these things, but what we know is they're modernizing their military to include their cyber capabilities. That would indicate that non-linear, unrestricted, and other forms of warfare executed by powerful state actors will still be dependent on credible conventional and nuclear capabilities to deter those targeted from quickly crushing the unconventional aspects of their doctrine.

The third off set strategy seems to be largely focused on high end technology, which will certainly be needed, but we'll be remiss if it doesn't address the irregular warfare aspect of war also. Despite claims to the contrary, the last decade of war really didn't make us better at it. Also we'll lose whatever skills we did gain if they're not continued to be taught and practiced. This goes back to what Secretary Gates told DOD, they need to maintain a balanced portfolio of capabilities that isn't too heavily slanted one way or the other.

Kudos on a very fine article, particularly the illumination of the connection between the Chinese approach to unrestricted warfare without boundaries, and the Russian implementation of the same idea, what the Americans and NATO are now calling hybrid warfare.

I am so very sad to say that I conceptualized all of this in 1989 for General Al Gray's article, Global Intelligence Challenges of the 1990's as published in the American Intelligence Journal (and easily found online by searching for the title).

In particular I distinguished between the Conventional Threat and the Emerging Threat as shown below, and called for "peaceful preventive measures" as a major aspect of integrated national security strategy.

Conventional Threat
Governmental
Conventional/Nuclear
Static Orders of Battle
Linear
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Known Doctrine
Strategic Warning
Known Intelligence Assets

Emerging Threat
Non-Governmental
Non-Conventional
Dynamic or Random
Non-linear
No constraints (ROE)
Unknown doctrine
No established I&W net
Unlimited 5th column

Typically then, and still today, no one wanted to listen. Conventional war is profitable for the few, peace is profitable for the many, and intelligence is irrelevant to how Washington makes decisions. Our military is a spending machine, nothing more. Viet-Nam and Iraq were about "using up" our military so we would have to buy it again. Until we can establish the primacy of intelligence (evidence-based decision support to strategy, policy, acquisition, and operations) and restore integrity to counterintelligence (enabling the FBI to nail the known financial, religious, and ideological traitors in senior positions across the board) we will continue to be a corrupt ineffective nation unable to assure the security and prosperity of our public.

I appreciate the comments and SWJ's continued professional and support. This article was written in early May (before my first trip to Ukr) and a lot has undoubtedly changed since then. I'm in Ukraine now, so I'll try and add to the discussion later. I'd like to address tactical level hybrid formations and mission command systems on both sides. I agree with a lot of your recent assessments highlighting past non-linear wars and how quickly it has adapted and transitioned recently.

Additional Notes: 8 Phases of New Generation/Non-linear war doctrine
1-2.Non-military asymmetric warfare
3. Combination of steps 1-2
4. Arrival of polite green men
5. Indirect military action
6. Employment of direct military measures
7. Combination of targeted campaigns
8. Destroy points of resistance and surviving enemy units

In all the articles written and published here in SWJ on the subject of Russian non linear warfare or the Chinese, Iranian and IS UW strategies we as readers seem/appear to have simply forgotten two critical items so necessary in the conversation--we act as if they are in fact there BUT and this is critical they are not there by any means.

1. the necessary and completely total whole of government approach needed to counter non linear warfare regardless of flavor of the month-simply stated we as a country, government and political/military leadership do not do whole of government well actually if AFG and Iraq are the best examples we have--then not at all. We talk a great game but when the rubber hits the road daily--nothing to be seen.

2. in order to fully counter all flavors of non linear warfare one must have a WH, NSC, DNI, DoD, DoS that has in fact developed a C-UW strategic national level strategy that is clear and concise that allows then one to implement a counter concept regardless and this is key regardless of flavor of the month or yes even multiple flavors of the month as we now see with Russia and Iran in Syria.

Sorry to say this President, his entire 700 person NSC staff and his DNI are not capable of creating one and they have actually had over three years to do it--as even social media saw this coming at them that long ago.
At least DoD has begun the discussion and formulations of one--but the political side and DoS are missing in action.

As proof that we have not even a single coherently stated foreign policy built around any strategic strategy here are a few examples of day to day reality this current WH has not even begun to address other than via tap dancing--so all the theoretical discussions on UW and or C-UW are a collective waste of time.

Wait, you mean eroding NATO forces has consequences? “The conclusion was that we are unable to defend the Baltics.” http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18/exclusive-the-pentagon-is-preparing… …

As usual, the #Kremlin is not aware of anything. More vacationers, tourists and volunteers.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a5f5117e-5e03-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.htm… …

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s senior military advisor says Russia is in sync with Iran regarding Syria http://www.criticalthreats.org/iran-news-round-september-18-2015 …

Syria: #Russia|n selfie soldiers' locations @ProtestSPb pic.twitter.com/muEs6IpGPK

Russia's soldiers aren't only in Latakia & Tartus. Their selfies geolocated to Aleppo, Hama, Homs, Damascus. #Syria https://twitter.com/loogunda/status/644726066012143616 …

OR has any SWJ reader here seen a publicly debated US C-UW strategy come out of this WH in say the last 6 or so years--if it did I must have been sleep walking.

https://de.informnapalm.org/mark-gal...inearer-krieg/

While this is in German—highly recommend reading it as Mark is one of the leading global SMEs on the Russian military and his blog "In the Shadows of Moscow” is worth following----and he has just released a thorough book on the Russian Spetsnaz.

Mark Galeotti: Die „Gerassimow-Doktrin“ und Russlands nicht-linearer Krieg

Der Autor, Dr. Mark Galeotti erforscht russischen Geschichte und Sicherheitsfragen seit den späten 1980er Jahren. Seine Ausbildung absolvierte er an der Universität Cambridge und der LSE. Heute ist er Professor für Global Affairs am „Center for Global Affairs“ der „School of Professional Studies“ an der New York University und ein assoziiertes Mitglied der NYU für Geschichte, Russisch und Slawistik. Bis 2008 war er Leiter der „History in the UK“ sowie Leiter der Abteilung für die Erforschung der „Organisierten Kriminalität in Russland und Eurasien“ an der Keele Universität.

Wie auch immer Sie es nennen, ob „nicht-linearer Krieg“ (was ich bevorzuge), „hybrider Krieg“ oder „spezieller Krieg“, die russischen Operationen, zunächst auf der Krim und im Osten der Ukraine, haben gezeigt, dass Moskau sich in Zukunft verstärkt auf neue Formen der Politik konzentriert. In vielerlei Hinsicht ist dies eine Erweiterung dessen, was ich an anderer Stelle als Russlands „Guerilla- Geopolitik“ bezeichnet habe. Sie geht von der Anerkennung der Tatsache aus, dass neue Taktiken benötigt werden, die sich auf die Schwächen des Gegners konzentrieren und direkte und offene Konfrontationen vermeiden. Um in einer Welt bestehen zu können, deren internationale Ordnung vom Kreml zunehmend als lästig empfunden wird und in Anbetracht der Mächte und Allianzen mit größerer rein militärischer, politischer und wirtschaftlicher Stärke. Um ehrlich zu sein, sind dies Taktiken, gegen welche die NATO – noch immer in letzter Konsequenz eine Allianz zur Bekämpfung und Abschreckung einer mit massenhaftem Panzereinsatz geführten sowjetischen Invasion – weder Wissen noch Erfahrung hat, damit umzugehen. (In der Tat könnte man den Standpunkt vertreten, dass das gar nicht Aufgabe der NATO ist, was allerdings auf einem anderen Blatt steht.)

Wie so oft weist uns die späte Einsicht eines raffiniert-scharfzüngigen Besserwissers dringend darauf hin, dass wir das hätten erwarten können wegen eines zu seiner Zeit unbemerkten Artikels des russischen Chefs des Generalstabs Valery Gerassimow. Der Fairness halber sei angemerkt, dass er in der Zeitschrift „Wojenno-promyshlenny kurier“, also dem Kriegsindustrie-Kurier erschien, den zu lesen nur wenige Menschen in der Welt das Vergnügen haben. Nichtsdestotrotz, stellt er die beste und am höchsten autorisierte Aussage dessen dar, was wir, zumindest als Arbeitsbegriff, die „Gerassimow Doktrin“ nennen (was nicht heißen soll, dass es notwendigerweise seine Erfindung war). Ich und jeder andere an diesen Entwicklungen Interessierte verdanken es Rob Coalson von RFE/RL, der diesen Artikel bemerkte und in Umlauf gebracht hat. Die folgende Übersetzung stammt von ihm (Dank an Rob für seine Erlaubnis, es zu benutzen) versehen mit meinen verschiedenen Kommentaren und Interpretationen.

Military-Industrial Kurier, 27. Februar 2013

(Die Kommentare des Autors sind eingerückt. Die Hervorhebung durch Fettschrift im Gerassimov-Text stammt ebenfalls vom Autor)

Die Bedeutung der Wissenschaft für die Vorhersage

General Valery Gerasimov, Chef des Generalstabs der Russischen Föderation

Continued……..

https://de.informnapalm.org/mark-gal...inearer-krieg/

While this is in German—highly recommend reading it as Mark is one of the leading global SMEs on the Russian military and his blog "In the Shadows of Moscow” is worth following----and he has just released a thorough book on the Russian Spetsnaz.

Mark Galeotti: Die „Gerassimow-Doktrin“ und Russlands nicht-linearer Krieg

Der Autor, Dr. Mark Galeotti erforscht russischen Geschichte und Sicherheitsfragen seit den späten 1980er Jahren. Seine Ausbildung absolvierte er an der Universität Cambridge und der LSE. Heute ist er Professor für Global Affairs am „Center for Global Affairs“ der „School of Professional Studies“ an der New York University und ein assoziiertes Mitglied der NYU für Geschichte, Russisch und Slawistik. Bis 2008 war er Leiter der „History in the UK“ sowie Leiter der Abteilung für die Erforschung der „Organisierten Kriminalität in Russland und Eurasien“ an der Keele Universität.

Wie auch immer Sie es nennen, ob „nicht-linearer Krieg“ (was ich bevorzuge), „hybrider Krieg“ oder „spezieller Krieg“, die russischen Operationen, zunächst auf der Krim und im Osten der Ukraine, haben gezeigt, dass Moskau sich in Zukunft verstärkt auf neue Formen der Politik konzentriert. In vielerlei Hinsicht ist dies eine Erweiterung dessen, was ich an anderer Stelle als Russlands „Guerilla- Geopolitik“ bezeichnet habe. Sie geht von der Anerkennung der Tatsache aus, dass neue Taktiken benötigt werden, die sich auf die Schwächen des Gegners konzentrieren und direkte und offene Konfrontationen vermeiden. Um in einer Welt bestehen zu können, deren internationale Ordnung vom Kreml zunehmend als lästig empfunden wird und in Anbetracht der Mächte und Allianzen mit größerer rein militärischer, politischer und wirtschaftlicher Stärke. Um ehrlich zu sein, sind dies Taktiken, gegen welche die NATO – noch immer in letzter Konsequenz eine Allianz zur Bekämpfung und Abschreckung einer mit massenhaftem Panzereinsatz geführten sowjetischen Invasion – weder Wissen noch Erfahrung hat, damit umzugehen. (In der Tat könnte man den Standpunkt vertreten, dass das gar nicht Aufgabe der NATO ist, was allerdings auf einem anderen Blatt steht.)

Wie so oft weist uns die späte Einsicht eines raffiniert-scharfzüngigen Besserwissers dringend darauf hin, dass wir das hätten erwarten können wegen eines zu seiner Zeit unbemerkten Artikels des russischen Chefs des Generalstabs Valery Gerassimow. Der Fairness halber sei angemerkt, dass er in der Zeitschrift „Wojenno-promyshlenny kurier“, also dem Kriegsindustrie-Kurier erschien, den zu lesen nur wenige Menschen in der Welt das Vergnügen haben. Nichtsdestotrotz, stellt er die beste und am höchsten autorisierte Aussage dessen dar, was wir, zumindest als Arbeitsbegriff, die „Gerassimow Doktrin“ nennen (was nicht heißen soll, dass es notwendigerweise seine Erfindung war). Ich und jeder andere an diesen Entwicklungen Interessierte verdanken es Rob Coalson von RFE/RL, der diesen Artikel bemerkte und in Umlauf gebracht hat. Die folgende Übersetzung stammt von ihm (Dank an Rob für seine Erlaubnis, es zu benutzen) versehen mit meinen verschiedenen Kommentaren und Interpretationen.

Military-Industrial Kurier, 27. Februar 2013

(Die Kommentare des Autors sind eingerückt. Die Hervorhebung durch Fettschrift im Gerassimov-Text stammt ebenfalls vom Autor)

Die Bedeutung der Wissenschaft für die Vorhersage

General Valery Gerasimov, Chef des Generalstabs der Russischen Föderation

Continued……..

This is the perfect example of why we must get way, way past the theoreticial discussions on non linear warfare.

Even with the single points of failure it is morphing and adapting faster than we could have anticipated---in their UW strategy we have forgotten and or did not truly realize that UW is adaptive and agile.

We saw non linear warfare unfold in Crimea, then we saw the creation of a hybrid army in eastern Ukraine created after a conventional invasion.

NOW in Syria we are seeing a non linear war evolved via a hybrid invasion using now a hybrid army carrying out conventional warfare against a anti Assad force that in itself has evolved out of UW at initially the civil society level with a radical Islamist twist.

Here we are seeing a new form of hybrid warfare ie hybrid invasion on top of an hybrid army--BUILT via the experiences gained by the Russian military in eastern Ukraine----and we assume the Russians are slow at adapting???

1000 #Iran(ian) Marines Join #Russia(n) Troops in Jablah Base to Fight #Syria(n) Rebels http://www.ibtimes.co.in/syria-1000-...-report-646283 … pic.twitter.com/DyPQVFDHhv

Russia will consider #Syria’s request to send troops if Damascus asks http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2015/18-september-russia-will-consider-sy… … via @Conflicts

I would argue that currently the Russian nonlinear warfare is experiencing five specific single points of failure and the eastern Ukraine is not a frozen conflict as many seem to think which should drive a serious rethink as we see Russian military expansion into Syria.

In some aspects the Russian non linear warfare has now moved into conventional warfare which should have been at phase eight of their doctrine.

Secondly, the conversation must get back to the simple fact that all current UW strategies being used by Russia, China, Iran and yes even the IS have great similarities---as it is UW--but driven by the different cultural and historical aspects.

Right now there are two critical cornerstones of all the various UW strategies ---weaponization of information and cyber warfare/cybercrime that the West is absolutely losing.

Added to this cornerstone mix is the new use of refugees --ie how to create them and how to use refugee flows.

We urgently need to get to an analysis of the failures in the Russian UW strategy as that will reflect on the UW strategies of China, Iran and IS.

Solid work by Mr. Morris. His perspective from JMRC provides keener insights than the average observer. Having endured many wet autumns at Hohenfels myself, I became very attuned to the security concerns and undercurrents in the European continent as we trained US and European allies at the Training Center.

I would submit a few additional areas for grading to Mr. Morris report. Following the theme of Supra-national and Supra-tier combinations. The first one is within the context of Putin's previous annexation of Georgian territory as a rehearsal for Crimea and other parts of Ukraine. He leveraged Economic Diplomacy/Blackmail against a disjointed Europe with the threat of long winters without Russian Crude and natural gas to meet European countries heating needs. He compounded that via rhetoric and carefully manipulation of the fuel supply, as well as by obfuscating any alternative pipeline alternatives. He clearly used the Economic and Information elements of national power to fix his competitors and isolate them in both military and political terms. Because this approach has still worked until today, I recommend a B+ or A-.

The second area that merits a closer look is the use of maneuver or kinetic force as a supporting effort to the overall cognitive/informational effect. The annexation of Georgia and Crimea, with relative no cost to Russia was clear example of this. The fact that he could move Russia to do decisive military action; albeit at a level below the necessary threshold to "merit a significant response" from Europe, the US, or NATO certainly achieves a far greater cognitive effect in the perceptions of the Eastern, Central, and even some Western European audiences. A loud message intended to create doubt (Question more?)about the resolve, and capability of EU, and NATO to be a viable security and economic partner. After all; hadn't the US and Russia "guaranteed" the security of Ukraine through the Budapest Memorandum of Assurances" upon Ukraine's relinquishing it's nuclear arsenal? Well the past two years had been clear witnessed to the contrary. Russia, one of the guarantors became the aggressor, and the US, well?! So in this area, Russia seems to have also a passing grade. They get a B- as they have to endure some economic backlash and internal grumblings.

Russian and Chinese tactics; while fascinating, making terms like "Hybrid Warfare" envogue, are not necessarily new. Genghis Khan is well known for employing a variety of options, often in escalating fashion, or by massing them to target the Chinese and then the Islamic Kingdoms all the way to the gates of Baghdad. He employed hit and run raids, made brutal examples of those threatening to oppose to dishearten dissent, pitched the white, gray, and black tent as part of his psychological ultimatum during sieges, and even catapulted dead bodies as a crude biological attack. Not to mention the economic activities that he did by interdicting commerce or by marrying his chieftains and sons to gain access and lines of communications. Alexander also used a mix of conventional and non-conventional approaches to meet his overall objectives. Even in the 20th Century, Western government and intelligent agencies used similar combination of tactics to a varying degree of success. The difference is that both the Russian and Chinese are able to do so through a centralized style of command and control that allows them to operate well within the decision model of their competitors. Democracy and consensus are great, but do not necessarily mobilize nations to be able to conduct warfare, particularly total warfare, as sometimes it may be required to do so.