Hybrid war as a way of life and death
"You may not be interested in the war, but then the war will interest you."
Lev Trotsky
"The greatest trick of the devil is to convince you that he does not exist."
Charles Baudelaire
Lev Trotsky
"The greatest trick of the devil is to convince you that he does not exist."
Charles Baudelaire
The exercises "West-2017" ended, the volleys of guns died down and the engines at the ranges of Russia and Belarus stopped growling. And it seems that the opportunity to protect the territory of Belarus from any external threats in the course of even that “hybrid war” was clearly and clearly demonstrated. However, not everything is so clear, not everything is so simple. Oddly enough, the questions remain, and they are more and more. It is enough to read the Belarusian press before, during and after those legendary exercises, and there really is no end to the questions.
The most unpleasant thing is that not only questions are formulated in the head by themselves, but as it were, answers to these very cruel questions ... And the whole trouble is that Belarus lacks the main factor of readiness to repel external aggression - psychological readiness to reflect this aggression. Which in itself is by no means unique: it suffices to recall the 80s of the 20 century, and if the beginning of 80s is a sharp increase in military tensions in Europe and even balancing on the verge of war, the second half of 80s is a restructuring Glasnost and friendship with the West, ended with the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the spread of NATO to the east.
In the 80s, the USSR lacked the main element of readiness for confrontation: the West ceased to be perceived as an enemy, which had its obvious consequences. Tanks, guns and planes were just enough in abundance, and in the economy it was not at all as bad as they like to tell us. In any case, better than in the 90s.
The trouble was just that: the Soviet people no longer perceived the people of the West as enemies, and this led to a political catastrophe. As a result of “friendship with America,” we now have NATO troops near Pskov. Remarkable achievement.
With Belarus, the situation is even more paradoxical: today this country does not have the twentieth part of the military potential of the USSR, the army of the Republic of Belarus has practically not been re-armed since “gaining independence”, however, there are no “alarmist” sentiments in Belarusian society. All the warnings about the quite obvious threat from NATO cause for some reason only jokes and laughter.
For some reason, the examples of Yugoslavia, Libya and Iraq with Syria do not have any influence on attitudes in society. Do not perceive NATO members in Belarus as enemies. And for some reason, a very strange conclusion is made of this that it will protect the Republic of Belarus from NATO aggression - they say, if Russia is hostile to NATO, then these are its problems, but the Belarusians want to be friends with Europe ...
In principle (if anyone did not understand this), and the collapse of the USSR was the result of the very “hybrid war”, and not a “random event” and not the result of “economic problems”. And then military pressure and economic restrictions were widely used (under them the USSR lived all its history), propaganda war and "work with the elites." And the NATO tanks "as in 1941-m" did not rush through the cordon.
Of course, the term “hybrid war” and what is meant by it needs additional research and definition, but the very “collapse of the USSR” can, I think, be held precisely according to this article: a hybrid war. Yugoslavia was destroyed in much the same way: NATO did not declare war on it and was not going to declare it. At first, interethnic contradictions (they were up to the devil in the Balkans) were actively kindled, then deliveries of “lethal weapons, Then the national bandits received active foreign support.
About the same thing we have in Syria. Hybrid warfare At the same time, neither NATO nor the United States to Syria directly large scale not attacked. The war, as a matter of fact, had the character of “mediation”, “hybrid”. The world around us is changing, and the nature of war is changing in the same way. NATO tanks are not flooded across the Syrian border, like the German 1 September 1939 of the year.
That is, not only generals always prepare for “the last war”, but also “brilliant bloggers” also, as a rule, prepare for the past war. Even not so: ingenious bloggers are preparing, as a rule, for a war long past.
From their point of view, A. Hitler and the “Dead Head” division are necessary for aggression, otherwise nothing. Alas, dear Cameda, not so simple. The USSR was utterly defeated and erased from the political map of the world without any Nazis and tank attacks, the same can be said about Yugoslavia. Today (the end of 20, the beginning of 21 of the century), the war goes a little differently. No, nobody has canceled a purely military aspect, and NATO planes bombed both Tripoli and Belgrade, but the main direction of the attack lies in a completely different area.
By the way, in 90, Russia was not bombed simply because it still had the very nuclear weapons that we are so strongly recommended to reduce. Only for this and no other reason. That is why today do not bomb North Korea: she really there are nuclear warheads, and our "democratic friends" do not differ in courage.
The most classic hybrid war was waged against Yugoslavia: harsh economic sanctions, constant military pressure spilling over into bombing strikes (not aggression!), Support for nationalists, separatists, extremists ... their financing and arming, and forgiveness of all sins. And the most powerful information campaign aimed at demonizing Belgrade. This is the “hybrid war”.
One to one, we had this in the case of a super-successful Libya — an economic blockade, information war, support for extremists, the transfer of trained militants, their supply and information support, military intervention at a later stage. Just like the notes. Syria? Well, even funny to repeat it all. Boring gentlemen It is strange that no one has yet systematized this experience and has not written an intelligent textbook on hybrid wars for the general reader.
They were not one and not two. Already not three. And the techniques are quite standard. And never once on 22 June 1941, not similar. In the 90 of the 20 of the 20th century, we had the good fortune to feel it in our own skin: the war in Chechnya has the most distant relationship to Chechnya and the Chechens. Information campaign in the Western and Russian press, the transfer of militants from the Arab world and their supply and provision of intelligence information. Hybrid war she is so ... hybrid! And yes! The fight in the ECHR for the rights of "innocent victims" bearded! And this is also an element of war ... what do you want?
And it is constantly being waged against Iran: economic blockade, saboteurs throwing, an information campaign in the “free press” aimed at discrediting the “Ayatollah regime”, supporting the “opposition” in any actions ... placing bases along the borders of the Islamic Republic, preparing for massive missile strikes ...
Nothing new - even boring. Against the PRC, a hybrid war is also being waged from Taiwan to Uiguria. And the tricks are almost the same. For some reason, we still perceive the war through the prism of the experience of the Second World War, but this is not entirely correct: there were wars before and after the Second World War. The Arab-Israeli wars and the era of the Napoleonic wars are very different from "the biggest military conflict in the history of mankind." It is impossible on the era of WWII to completely get hung up. Even the purely military aspect has seriously changed since 1945, and the experience that war it cannot be directly applied in any way even in the planning of hostilities, let alone the political aspect.
For example, in the 80-ies the fact of poor provision of the Soviet population with consumer goods in comparison with Western Europe was widely used in anti-Soviet propaganda. Today, this is far from being the case (although other, much more serious problems have arisen), but this does not mean that “we won”, by no means, this aspect is no longer used in anti-Russian propaganda. and that's it. That is, they are not interested in a real solution to domestic Russian problems (it would be very strange if they would be seriously interested in them!), But those facts and aspects of our life that can be used in anti-Russian propaganda, that's all.
Today, the standard of living in Russia is much higher than in “independent” Georgia, Moldova, or Ukraine. But it is absolutely not interesting to anybody from the western propagandists. In the anti-Russian propaganda because it can not be used, and therefore not interesting. Those publications that even 30 years ago cursed the communist regime in Russia today say with alarm in their voices that the level of social stratification is too high in Russia. Well, who would have thought! And they don't like commissars, and the oligarchs ...
Yes, they do not care for all our problems with a high bell tower. The purpose of their work is not to help solve Russian problems, but to work “on painful points”, which they do. Any living society from such problems is not spared. Just from the American point of view, corruption in the state of New York is their internal affair, and corruption in Sochi is a matter of international importance ...
And those of ours who are trying to discuss this topic at the international level fall into a frank heresy. No need to play such games. And the “doping scandal” is all from the same series of “hybrid warfare”. Powerful propaganda action to justify the fact that Russia is bad. Here the trouble is still in what: discussions on similar topics are absolutely useless - there is a “throw on the fan” in its pure form. And what you want is war.
Here, in response, usually loud, cheerful laughter of propagandists is heard - they say of course, there are enemies everywhere ... America is to blame ... No, separately ... all this could be a set of accidents: the deployment of military bases along the Russian perimeter, the support of terrorists / Islamists inside Russia and activities non-governmental organizations in the interests of foreign countries, hysterical cries about corruption and social stratification in the Western press.
But all this together, in a complex, while keeping silence on any Russian achievements, from Sochi to Almaty ... somehow, this causes bad suspicions. It seems that this is a planned, coordinated attack on Russia. About the very "hybrid war." At the same time, the same people categorically do not want to receive anything in return: they say, there is no war, and Russia has no enemies ... some friends around the perimeter of borders.
Here we have this certain weakness: we are afraid to call a spade a spade ... call a threat a threat, and the enemy a threat. For some reason it seems to us that with this we demonstrate a kind of mythical peacefulness and defuse the situation ... Demonstrating peacefulness is a good thing in theory, but not when a war is being waged against you, albeit a hybrid one. Here our dear and beloved government is also very coolly “substituted”: hostile actions such as the imposition of economic sanctions or the organization of a doping scandal on the part of the enemies are quite normal and expected and are taken for granted, but from the “friends” ... Here we have there are certain problems.
If “everything is good” and we don’t have any enemies, then such a sudden imposition of sanctions and disqualification of our athletes means that we’re wrong in something? Then, it appears, we are trying to "agree" and not to escalate, but we do not see understanding. All the arguments on the subject that they say all these dirty tricks are a matter of the dirty feet of individual radishes in the Western establishment, come up against the simple fact that anti-Russian policy fits perfectly into the general concept of the modern Western world and no serious the confrontation "inside" the West did not cause anti-Russian sanctions in principle.
That's when 3 passed since the introduction of the sanctions, but the political result was not achieved ... then, and only then, there was talk about the need to find a common language with Russia. Or at least look for things in common. That is, at first they carefully watched: did Rassei not "turn out"? And when this does not happen, it seems like the “wake up mind” in them. But the point is certainly not in the “awakened mind”, the fact is that something “went wrong” and plans to have to be rewritten on the fly.
And they are looking for ways to interact with Europe and Russia. within the framework of sanctions. That is their misfortune in what: Russia - here it is near and is not going to go anywhere, that is, absolutely nowhere. And normal diplomatic, military and economic channels of communication with it are destroyed, so a separate interesting topic is being formed in their heads: how to work with Russia, not recognizing the Crimea and not removing sanctions. And continuing the NATO movement eastward.
So, by itself, the very pseudo-compromise that is being formed - “normal relations without lifting sanctions” - cannot be of any interest to us. A coup in Kiev and the imposition of sanctions is in fact an act of war. War is only часть politicians, politics are bigger and more significant than just war, which is why generals win battles and campaigns, but wars are usually only politicians.
So, neither “to abolish” the coup and judge the junta, or to remove all sanctions simultaneously in one step no one in the West (neither in the United States nor in Europe) is going to. Junta - forever! Russia must "deserve" the lifting of sanctions. These are the slogans of European politicians today. And where did you see the base for the "compromise"? So, a small respite during the big campaign in the East. And that, more in words than in practice. In general, Ukraine is only an episode of this campaign.
Therefore, talking about the "return of the Crimea" as a condition for the lifting of sanctions - initially crazy. Both Maidan-2, and Crimea, and LDNR are episodes of the Great Game. No more and no less. Both Ukraine and the “for Ukraine” sanctions are just episodes of this very Game against Russia. Today this game is called “hybrid war”, and it is precisely in the conduct of this war itself that Russia is actively accused. So to say, the reservation according to Freud - this very “hybrid war” is being waged against us.
What will the “war of the future” look like? - the grateful readers ask the editorial board ... But the stupid question - it’s not the “editorial board” that you have to ask, but watch the latest news. There is a combination of information attack, economic, banking ... well, purely military methods, which, fortunately, against modern Russia are not very applicable. In principle, the support of terrorists in the Caucasus (and not only!) Is an element of that very “hybrid war”. Even boring to explain - everything is so obvious. But for some reason they like to “separate flies from cutlets”: sanctions are separate, while terrorists in St. Petersburg separate, and the scandal with Russian athletes is a completely different story.
And NATO military exercises near our borders are something quite “from a different opera.” Dangerous mistake, dangerous error. I understand that it is incorrect and intolerant to pay attention to the simple fact that all these “processes” are managed from one center and financed from the same wallet. If you say this directly, then someone might not like it. Not diplomatic. But in fact the way it is. In Syria, this is already directly recognized (had to). In the sense that the "democratic opposition" and the Islamists are fighting on the same side and have some bosses.
No, but at home - everything is different ... And no one from the foreign special services stands behind the terrorist underground, or rather, only some foreign special services are behind the terrorist underground, others are responsible for working with the “national outskirts”, and others are in charge of the “demo opposition” ... The situation in Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, the former. Libya, the former. Yugoslavia, the former. Ukraine, ex. Iraq is different in details, but in general, the "work plan with the client" can be read "lipstick." Because "tracing paper." And "unknown snipers" here and there, and "ardent human rights defenders, fighters against corruption", and "Jihad warriors."
Basically now you can sit down and write an absolutely de-ideologized textbook on hybrid wars - something like using the Panzerwaffe by the summer of 1942 ... But everyone continues to guess and figure out how it will be in the future (neural networks, flocks of "cunningly curved" drones)? And this is how it will be ... simply and brutally, as in 1991 in the USSR or as in a dozen other, less significant countries after that. At the same time, today you can do without the Panzerwaffe and without flocks of drones united in a neural network ... Yazov will not let you lie. And yes, Belarus has already lost this war. Makei won't let you lie, "appointed".
Information