Stock Lt. Col. Vasily Pavlov from the experience of the war in Syria about the threat of a terrorist war in Russia
Imagine for a start. I'm a lieutenant colonel in stock. He spent a little more than a year in Syria with the troops of the Republican Guard as a volunteer, a military reporter. I was shooting and, naturally, of how the Syrian army acts, what problems arose and ... I have already voiced earlier and wanted to tell people who may not be closely connected with this topic to discuss, looked at possible threats based on the Syrian experience, threats that may arise from us. Look at the urgency of the problems based on the Libyan-Syrian, and now on the basis of the Libyan-Syrian-Ukrainian experience.
One of our military theorists said, “Today, Russian military science does not give us a clear understanding of what today's war can be. Therefore, we will prepare for something. ”In a nutshell somewhere like that. In fact, if military science does not give us such an answer, then it is very sad. In fact, this answer is - it is absolutely clear what type of war is most likely today. The concept of modern war has absolutely changed today and is caused by the following reasons: the development of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA led to the fact that the means of defeat were constantly improved and complicated. There was a situation when the means of destruction began to cost more than the objects of defeat and the war in the form in the Soviet and post-Soviet times, the war with the help of high technology and high-level armies is not profitable. I think everyone will agree that war is an economic concept, it has economic roots. As a result of the war, either side tries to achieve some kind of result, which can then be converted into an economy. And today the situation is such that a modern army with aggression against any state is not capable of defeating with acceptable costs. Losses of the aggressor, not to mention the fact that a retaliatory strike is possible - weapon mass destruction is widespread in our country, which will definitely make losses unacceptable - even the aggression of a strong country against a weak one is economically unprofitable. The losses are so great (economic precisely) that the whole point of the war is lost. This was shown by Yugoslavia, where NATO incurred expenses such as if it had lost the war. Example: about 2 thousands of cruise missiles, more than 3 thousands of sorties could not destroy the tiny air defense of Yugoslavia. NATO forces could not launch a [ground] operation before this problem was not resolved by political means.
- How much is a cruise missile? Somewhere a million dollars, and now probably ten.
“I don't know exactly, but somewhere like that.” The armored personnel carrier shot down by such a rocket costs somewhere 300 thousands .... They could win, but the consequences of such a victory negated the result.
And therefore, the concept of a new method of warfare was created - a terrorist war with the help of cheap mass force hired on the spot and in neighboring countries. Thousands of untrained militants are cheaper than one trained soldier with modern means of warfare. Jewelin (FGM-148 Javelin - American portable anti-tank complex) stands as a thousand militants. The damage from a thousand militants clearly exceeds the damage from such a complex.
Terrorist armies are cheap, massive, effective, plus there is no way to strike back. Because the terrorist army does not belong to anyone, there is no one to strike. Everyone knows the owners of the army, who sponsors it, but formally no complaints are made. Such a terrorist war consists of several components:
1. reducing the living standards of neighboring countries and creating points of instability in them, places where militants can be recruited, where the sluggish conflict allows them to penetrate the border, where the people have weapons. And this allows creating a permanent source of militants on the border of the state. The decline in living standards in neighboring countries leads to a reduction in the cost of militants. Unleashing religious or national hysteria, working the media and then sponsoring and providing weapons. In fact, Ukraine, in my opinion, is suitable for the parameters and for what is happening in it as a country of preparation in it a springboard. We see what is happening in Ukraine now. This process itself was the task [goal].
The same in Syria. It is absolutely clear to everyone that the militants cannot win. But this is not the goal - to win. Victory [goal] is instability, the process of war. We can have migrant workers as a source of manpower (if they haven’t had a life, they haven’t found themselves there, either), local Wahhabis are coming. Wahhabism, unfortunately, has begun to move forward strongly in our country - it is a current that does not recognize half tones, they are ready to die on the matter itself. Plus, our militants who have returned from Syria from Chechnya will be of great help to a possible aggressor. They unequivocally say that in Syria they are preparing for war here. And the nationalists, oddly enough, Russian. Because they will be the source, most likely, the creation of collisions and as "meat" for the opposite side.
Many people have told me that this is impossible in Syria, because we do not have such mass Wahhabism. But in Ukraine it turned out to be possible to unleash a war in a short time with minimal costs. We can always find a reason. Absolutely no difference - religion is, the national question, the economy or the other. The occasion is just an occasion, but there is always “meat” for it.
What is the danger of a terrorist war as opposed to a conventional war? If in an ordinary war the army fights against the army, then in a terrorist one, where the goal is not victory, but the war itself - the militants are fighting against the population. And not a single army in the world is able to protect its population from militants. All armies, absolutely everything - neither the level of development of the state, nor technical capabilities matter - all armies are designed to withstand the same army. A small example. Thousands of militants in Jobar can occupy territory, for knocking out which they need at least 50 thousands of soldiers. Why? How can the army protect the population? It is necessary to protect every person in this area. It is necessary to securely enclose this territory so that the fighters do not break through (and the fighters can attack / break from any direction), and saturate the territory inside with troops. Those. no state is able to maintain an army capable of protecting more than one or two settlements simultaneously from militants. If all the armed forces of Russia are attracted, they will be able to defend Moscow - to saturate it with troops so that the militants will not be able to act. Or Leningrad. Or Novosibirsk plus Khabarovsk. Everything! Many wonder why the Syrian army has already reached the 600 of thousands and is unable to win. The army is not able to win this war because the task of defense of all settlements is at the same time impossible. And the militants, unlike the classical army, can attack several any point at any time and at the same time. If, in the presence of a front [in a classical war], there is a line of contact, then in the case of a terrorist war, the entire territory of the country is completely a front line. No troops are fundamentally enough.
Nord-Ost showed us that 20 of practically unarmed militants (light firearms) were destroyed for almost three days by almost all the terrorist forces of the country. At the same time there were victims of the population. The cinema is not the most difficult object in terms of cleaning. Residential building is much more difficult problems. If such groups are, for example, 50 (and a thousand people are simply recruited), they will not only paralyze a city like St. Petersburg (well, 1,5 can need thousands for Moscow), plus destroy a huge population of people without destroying the object of their attack cannot be destroyed. The examples in Syria are very obvious - where the army is trying to destroy the militants on its own, the city is still demolished as a result. Since the times of the Great Patriotic War, it is known that a city cannot be taken if it defends itself until it is destroyed. All cities either surrender to avoid destruction - the enemy retreats, seeing the advantage [of the opposite side], or collapse. Stalingrad, Berlin [Voronezh] - vivid examples of cities that defended. In the case of terrorists it is still much more complicated. Because their task is to terrorize the local population, they do not need to come into opposition with the army, on the contrary, they are trying to avoid it. Their target is unarmed citizens. And the police here is an object that will help the militants. (I'm telling everything by the example of Syria). Where do the gunmen get their weapons? They need the minimum armament with which they attack police stations that are not absolutely protected. Gain a weapon there. Then, with this weapon, they attack the army warehouses, which are in the rear and therefore unprotected, are gaining heavy weapons. Those. even without external support, within a few days any terrorist army is able to arm itself. Neither the army, nor the police, nor counter-terrorism units are able to cope. There is a solution, but unfortunately, it is very difficult [to bring it to the decision-makers]. I don’t know the reason why no one talks about it, and no one thinks about it among our command. But Syria has clearly shown that the only option for the protection of settlements is the presence of militia in them. Only the army, based on the army, is able to protect the settlements. What is meant by the militia? This is not walking the streets men with machine guns. How is it made in Syria? These are civilians, most of whom served in the army (although this is not necessary), who know how to contact the commander in case of anything. The commander is an army officer. Valid or in stock. He periodically collects them (they know each other), arranges them. At the same time they live an ordinary peaceful life. They know the signal, the commander knows where to get the weapon. The advantage of such units over the army and the militants is that they all fight, unlike the army on their territory, which they know. The militia should not be constantly on alert, but it should be able to gather, be controlled and have coordination with the security forces. Without this, not a single case of attack by bandits in Syria was prevented where there was no interaction between the militia and the security forces. If the militia acts independently, without interaction with the security forces, then it is useless. An example of a village attack. They had a great squad, but a thousand people around the clock can expose no more than 10-15 people - they need to work, they need to sleep. And the group of militants in 100 bayonets knocks him down. And if there are thousands of 2 militants, they don’t even notice such militia. The task of the militia is not an army function to stop the enemy on the front line, the task is to block the enemy who has already rushed as quickly as possible, to stop his “spread” and destroy with counter-guerrilla warfare (assuming that the militants / bandits are using partisan methods). And the army is needed only to support the fire, because the power of the army, of course, much higher. Those. the militias are mainly active, and an army is stationed on their shoulders, carrying out gangsters. Only with such an organization is the militants really afraid to enter or are destroyed very quickly.
- The explosion of the trolley does not cause much damage.
- The explosion of the trolley - it's stuff. Terrorist war is somewhat different. Trolleybus explosion is a one-time action. It does not matter as a threat. But if at the same time in 10 cities in 30-50 terrorist groups simply begin to destroy the population ... Here is a multi-storey building. The group goes, knocks the door, and shoots the population. Where the doors are not knocked out, there from a grenade launcher. In two hours this house will be cut out. The whole. Moved to the next house. Imagine 50 such groups in St. Petersburg, which stupidly go and destroy the population.
Vulnerability is very high. They ask why there was no militia in Mariupol? Citizens are not really able to organize themselves in a combat, combat-ready structure. They can organize themselves into a crowd that 100 organized militants will shoot, regardless of whether citizens have weapons. The militia differs from the crowd in that the commander assembles them, performs combat coordination, firing, determines in advance how they operate on the terrain in various specific situations. Conduct learning the basics.
The population alone is not able to organize. Under the control of the army (power structures) before the outbreak of hostilities may. That is the problem. When the fighting begins, it is too late to organize something. First, there is no time for training, co-ordination, for interaction with external control (command). Secondly, if militants have already appeared in the settlement, they will not allow to create a militia. They will not allow to gather, to train. Only two gathered - one was immediately shot by a sniper. They [action films] are very tough.
- What do non-ideologized militants want, not Wahhabis?
- Of money. 50 dollars per month. Some 100. Most dreamers - 150.
- I wanted to transfer the conversation to Russia. Do you exclude such a situation for Russia? Or are we guaranteed to take place?
- I am not an oracle. But the probability is high. I believe that everything goes to this. At least, what is happening in the world clearly shows that the war has already begun. In my opinion.
- With Russia?
- Yes, the world war has already begun. Events in Ukraine I estimate as a preparatory stage of the invasion. One of the options]. I don’t say that it’s right tomorrow ...
- Ie Is the scenario supposed to be the same?
- I think yes. He successfully [proved].
- Putin's support 80% ...
- Assad also support 80%.
- Preventive measures such as “tightening the screws” that we see in Russia ... laws on statements against the national war or on secession from Russia ... If the population does not support the militants ...
- They are completely ineffective. In Syria, the population does not support the militants. Militants do not ask the population what it supports or not. They come and rob him, kill him. Militants do not need any support from the population. They come to kill the population. Militants do not need to change power. They do not need to conquer the country. The essence of the terrorist war is to destroy the country as an economic unit. The goal of the war is chaos, not the seizure of the country. Terrorist war is the fastest and cheapest way to destroy a country. Wait until Russia itself collapses no one wants, now they want to get the result. Syria may also be sometime “itself collapsed”. But no one wants to wait a thousand years, nor a hundred, nor ten.
The concept of a terrorist war is applicable not only to small countries. Syria, for example, 25 million population. Ukraine - 45. Big enough countries. The essence of the terrorist war is not conquest, but destruction. Because a ruined country is an acceptable goal. Just the physical destruction of the economy. To make it a no man’s no-use chaotic territory.
The events in Ukraine terrified me not so much because of the victims, but because of the scenario that is being conducted, which confirms my worst fears - the preparation is underway and the probability [of unleashing a terrorist war against Russia] is very high. How will we respond? There is still time, but ... Recently, I also thought that we had a year of 3 or 4 ... Now I don’t know, it’s difficult to predict, in Ukraine it’s not over yet, I don’t know how events will develop there.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.