How the Russian army changed its concept of war, 1993–2022

ABSTRACT

The traditional and high-intensity war that has occured in Ukraine since Russia decided to invade raises a key issue: did post-soviet Russian strategic thought really prepare Russia for waging this war? An analysis of Russian military sources shows that the ‘special military operation’ was not supposed to lead to such a war. Quite the contrary, it was part of the post-Soviet Russian military theorizing about bypassing armed struggle. To understand this theorization and its long-term implementation in Ukraine, it is necessary to analyze the main Russian military debate since 1993: what is war?

KEYWORDS:

• War in Ukraine
• Russian military thought
• Hybrid Warfare
• Russian army
• Concept of War

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ There are precious exceptions, among which we can find, for example: Timothy L. Thomas, Recasting The Red Star: Russia Forges Tradition and Technology Through Toughness (Fort Leavenworth: Foreign Military Studies Office 2011); Dmitry Adamsky, ‘From Moscow with coercion: Russian deterrence theory and strategic culture’, Journal of Strategic Studies 41/1–2 (2017), 33–60; Katri Pynnöniemi, Minna Jokela, ‘Perceptions of hybrid war in Russia: means, targets and objectives identified in the Russian debate’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 33/6 (2020), 828–845; Janis Berzins, ‘The Theory and Practice of New Generation Warfare: The Case of Ukraine and Syria’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 33/3 (2020), 355–380.

² It’s not as rigid as a model for conducting war, or as a doctrine, even if the Russian strategic doctrines (including military one) reflect the theorization of the bypassing, but instead a strategic obsession.

³ Dimitri Minic, Russian Strategic Thought and Culture: From the Bypassing of Armed Struggle to the War in Ukraine (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme 2023, in French).

⁴ Dimitri Minic, ‘War in Ukraine: The Fatal Obsession With Bypassing the Armed Struggle’ (in French), Stratégique 129 (Dec. 2022), 55–73.

⁵ Few experts have mentioned the existence of this central debate and none has really examined it. See for example: Flemming Splidsboel Hansen, ‘When Russia Wages War in the Cognitive Domain’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 34/2 (2021), 181–201. Oscar Jonsson, The Russian Understanding of War: Blurring the Lines between War and Peace (Washington: Georgetown University Press 2019).

⁶ See for example: V. I. Varennikov, ‘O vozmožnom haraktere voin buduŝego’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 3/2 (2003), 44; V. I., Kuz’min, N. A., Galuša, V. A., Râbošapko, ‘Upravlâemyj haos kak tehnologiâ organizacii “Novogo Mirovogo Porâdka”’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 39/2 (2012), 98.

⁷ The notion of ‘new generation warfare’, sometimes mentioned by Western researchers studying the Russian army, may have led to confusion. While it did appear – as far as we know – in a radical revisionist’s work (Gulin, 1997) and gave prominence to non-military and indirect military means, this notion (rarely used) is neither clear nor fixed and has been used equally well by traditionalists or proponents of an intermediate position, between revisionism and traditionalism (such as Čekinov and Bogdanov, 2013, see below).

⁸ V. D. Sokolovskij, (eds.), Voennaâ strategiâ (Moscow: Voenizdat 1963, 2d ed.), 215–220; Marksizm-leninizm o vojne i armii (Moscow: Voenizdat 1957), 12. See again recently this connection made between Clausewitz, Lenin and violent means: V. Litvinenko, ‘Suŝnostʹ kategorij “vojna” i “specialʹnaâ voennaâ operaciâ”’, Armejskij Sbornik 7 (2022), 16.

⁹ Let us note in passing that Russian military theorists did not draw directly on works that have updated our vision of Clausewitz’s thought (Bassford 1994, Colson 2016): neither the traditionalists to revise their ‘classical’ interpretation, nor the revisionists to promote their new vision.

¹⁰ M. A. Borčev, ‘Voennaâ nauka: razvitie i sovremennaâ struktura’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 12 (1993), paragraph 30, http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/1993-vm/8509-voennaja-nauka-razvitie-i-sovremennaja-struktura.

¹¹ V. G. Andreev, ‘Oružie i vojna: novye tendencii razvitiâ’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 1 (2005), paragraph 39. http://militaryarticle.ru/vestnik-akademii-voennykh-nauk/2005-vavn/10546-oruzhie-i-vojna-novye-tendencii-razvitija. This article was published in VM (n°6) and Obozrevatel’ (vol. 112, n°5) in 1999: see http://militaryarticle.ru/zarubezhnoe-voennoe-obozrenie/1999-zvo/9020-ukazatel-statej-opublikovannyh-v-zhurnale-voennaja-5 and http://militaryarticle.ru/obozrevatel/1999-obozrevatel/13093-oruzhie-i-vojna-novye-tendencii-razvitija.

¹² V. P. Gulin, ‘O novoj koncepcii vojny’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 2 (1997), paragraph 8. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/1997-vm/9659-o-novoj-koncepcii-vojny.

¹³ A. A. Dremkov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny: suŝnostʹ, problemy, perspektivy’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 2 (1998), paragraph 6. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/1998-vm/8940-netradicionnye-vojny-sushhnost-problemy.

¹⁴ Andreev, ‘Oružie i vojna: novye tendencii razvitiâ’.

¹⁵ A. I. Vladimirov, ‘O Nacionalʹnoj voennoj mysli i voennoj nauke’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 1 (2013), 57.

¹⁶ V. V. Kvačkov, Specnaz Rossii, 2004, Chap. 3, Part 3.1., Paragraphs 20–26. http://militera.lib.ru/science/kvachkov_vv/03.html.

¹⁷ I. S. Danilenko, ‘K voprosu ob adekvatnosti voennogo stroitelʹstva veroâtnym vojnam’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2013), 40.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ I. S. Danilenko, ‘Ot prikladnoj voennoj nauki k sistemnoj nauke o vojne’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 2008, https://textarchive.ru/c-2094356.html. Published in Military Thought (English version of Voennaâ Myslʹ): I. S. Danilenko, ‘From Applied Military Science to a Basic Science of Warfare’, Military Thought 17/4 (2008), 84–104. See also: ibid., Danilenko, 2013, 41.

²⁰ E. A. Derbin, ‘Informacionnaâ bezopasnostʹ soûznogo gosudarstva kak osnova ego oboronosposobnosti v usloviâh neprâmyh dejstvij protivnika’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 27/2 (2009), 32. See also ibid, Danilenko, 2013, 39, 41.

²¹ S. N. Konopatov, V. V. Ûdin, ‘Traditional Concept of “War” Is Obsolete’, Military Thought 1 (2001), 64–65.

²² A. I. Nikolaev, ‘Voennaâ nauka i vojny buduŝego’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 3/2 (2003), 20.

²³ Danilenko, ‘K voprosu ob adekvatnosti voennogo stroitelʹstva veroâtnym vojnam’, 40.

²⁴ V. I., Lutovinov, ‘Development and Use of Nonmilitary Measures to Reinforce Military Security of the Russian Federation’, Military Thought 18/2 (2009), 27.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Danilenko, ‘Ot prikladnoj voennoj nauki k sistemnoj nauke o vojne’.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Vladimirov, ‘O Nacionalʹnoj voennoj mysli i voennoj nauke’, 57.

²⁹ V. Û. Sizov, ‘O sisteme zakonov vooružennoj borʹby’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 1 (2013), 90.

³⁰ Karl von Clausewitz, De la guerre (Paris: Payot & Rivages 2006), 341, 293, 62–63, 20.

³¹ Ibid., 20.

³² See for example: Borčev, ‘Voennaâ nauka: razvitie i sovremennaâ struktura’, paragraphs 3–6; Andreev, ‘Oružie i vojna: novye tendencii razvitiâ’, paragraph 39; Kvačkov, Specnaz Rossii, paragraph 18.

³³ Ibid., Andreev, paragraph 30.

³⁴ Gulin, ‘O novoj koncepcii vojny’, paragraphs 8–9; Lutovinov, ‘Development and Use of Nonmilitary Measures to Reinforce Military Security of the Russian Federation’, 27.

³⁵ See for example: Dremkov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny: suŝnostʹ, problemy, perspektivy’, paragraphs 6, 12–13; Danilenko, ‘K voprosu ob adekvatnosti voennogo stroitelʹstva veroâtnym vojnam’, 38–39; Danilenko, ‘Ot prikladnoj voennoj nauki k sistemnoj nauke o vojne’.

³⁶ Borčev, ‘Voennaâ nauka: razvitie i sovremennaâ struktura’, paragraphs 3–6.

³⁷ Gulin, ‘O novoj koncepcii vojny’, paragraph 8.

³⁸ Dremkov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny: suŝnostʹ, problemy, perspektivy’, paragraph 1.

³⁹ Ibid., paragraphs 12–13.

⁴⁰ Ibid., paragraphs 20, 41. See also: Kvačkov, Specnaz Rossii, Chap. 3, Part 3.1. Paragraphs 18, 20–26.

⁴¹ Andreev, ‘Oružie i vojna: novye tendencii razvitiâ’, paragraphs 38, 41, 47.

⁴² Konopatov, Ûdin, ‘Traditional Concept of “War” Is Obsolete’, 64–65.

⁴³ Derbin, ‘Informacionnaâ bezopasnostʹ soûznogo gosudarstva kak osnova ego oboronosposobnosti v usloviâh neprâmyh dejstvij protivnika’, 32–33, 38.

⁴⁴ Nikolaev, ‘Voennaâ nauka i vojny buduŝego’, 20.

⁴⁵ Danilenko, ‘K voprosu ob adekvatnosti voennogo stroitelʹstva veroâtnym vojnam’, 36.

⁴⁶ Lutovinov, ‘Development and Use of Nonmilitary Measures to Reinforce Military Security of the Russian Federation’, 27, 28–32.

⁴⁷ V. I. Lutovinov, ‘Možet li bytʹ čelovek na vojne bez vojny?’, Voenno-Promyšlennyj Kurʹer 2 (2008), paragraph 30. http://militaryarticle.ru/voenno-promishlennii-kurer/2008-vpk/2654-mozhet-li-byt-chelovek-na-vojne-bez-vojny.

⁴⁸ Borčev, ‘Voennaâ nauka: razvitie i sovremennaâ struktura’, paragraph 30.

⁴⁹ Gulin, ‘O novoj koncepcii vojny’, paragraphs 13, 22.

⁵⁰ Sizov, ‘O sisteme zakonov vooružennoj borʹby’, 90.

⁵¹ Andreev, ‘Oružie i vojna: novye tendencii razvitiâ’, paragraph 47.

⁵² See for example: Gulin, ‘O novoj koncepcii vojny’, paragraph 8; Dremkov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny: suŝnostʹ, problemy, perspektivy’, paragraph 22; Nikolaev, ‘Voennaâ nauka i vojny buduŝego’, 19–20; Samsonov (see below).

⁵³ Ibid., Nikolaev, 20.

⁵⁴ V. V. Serebrânnikov, ‘O ponâtii vojna’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 10 (2004), paragraphs 1–5. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2004-vm/9396-o-ponjatii-vojna.

⁵⁵ E. G. Šalamberidze, ‘Teoretičeskie voprosy razvitiâ politiki nacionalʹnoj oborony Rossii v usloviâh mirnogo vremeni s ispolʹzovaniem sistemy mer nevoennogo i voennogo haraktera’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 4 (2011), 36.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 41.

⁵⁷ A. V. Seržantov, ‘Transformaciâ soderžaniâ vojny: ot prošlogo k sovremennomu’, Voennaâ Mysl’ 1 (2021), 53–54.

⁵⁸ See for example: Gulin, ‘O novoj koncepcii vojny’, paragraphs 2, 12–13, 24; Dremkov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny: suŝnostʹ, problemy, perspektivy’, paragraphs 18–20, 44, 46; Sizov, ‘O sisteme zakonov vooružennoj borʹby’, 90; Vladimirov, ‘O Nacionalʹnoj voennoj mysli i voennoj nauke’, 58; A. I. Vladimirov, ‘Dialektika i obŝaâ teoriâ vojny’, Voenno-Promyšlennyj Kurʹer 318/2 (2010); Danilenko, ‘K voprosu ob adekvatnosti voennogo stroitelʹstva veroâtnym vojnam’, 37–38; Danilenko, ‘From Applied Military Science to a Basic Science of Warfare’, 87–88, 99, 101–103; Nikolaev, ‘Voennaâ nauka i vojny buduŝego’, 20; Lutovinov, ‘Development and Use of Nonmilitary Measures to Reinforce Military Security of the Russian Federation’, 29–30, 35, 37.

⁵⁹ V. A. Sapožinskij, ‘Vzglâdy na harakter operacij (boevyh dejstvij) v vojnah buduŝego’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 3/2 (2003), 53; N. M. Vasil’ev, ‘On the Crisis of Military Science and Ways of Dealing with It’, Military Thought 1 (2013), 50, 52–54; A. N. Zaharov, A. D. Hrâpov, S. N. Petrunâ, ‘Vooružennaâ borʹba èpohi informacii’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 43/2 (2013), 73–74.

⁶⁰ Ibid., Vasil’ev, 53. This idea of radical traditionalism has been particularly asserted in the debates on information warfare. See for example: O. N. Kalinovskij, ‘Informacionnaâ vojna – èto vojna ?’ Voennaâ Myslʹ 1 (2001) http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2001-vm/9134-informacionnaja-vojna-jeto-vojna; V. I. Orlânskij, ‘Vooružennaâ i informacionnaâ borʹba suŝnostʹ i vzaimosvâzʹ ponâtij i âvlenij’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 6 (2002), http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2002-vm/9190-vooruzhennaja-i-informacionnaja-borba-sushhnost-i; V. I. Orlânskij, ‘Informacionnoe oružie i informacionnaâ borʹba realʹnostʹ i domysly’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 1 (2008), http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2008-vm/10121-informacionnoe-oruzhie-i-informacionnaja-borba.

⁶¹ Zaharov, Hrâpov, Petrunâ, ‘Vooružennaâ borʹba èpohi informacii’, 73–74.

⁶² See: V. I., Slipčenko, ‘Vojny šestogo pokoleniâ. Oružie i voennoe iskusstvo buduŝego’ (Moscow: Veče 2002), 141, https://velesova-sloboda.info/archiv/pdf/slipchenko-vojny-shestogo-pokoleniya.pdf.

⁶³ See ibid., 113, 118.

⁶⁴ See for example: S. G., Čekinov, S. A., Bogdanov, ‘The Nature and Character of a New-Generation War’, Military Thought 22/4 (2013), 21–22 and V. A. Kiselëv, ‘What Kind of Warfare Should the Russian Armed Forces Be Prepared for’, Military Thought 2 (2017), 1–2.

⁶⁵ V. V. Kirillov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny estʹ li u nih buduŝee’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 6 (1998), paragraphs 10, 19–20. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/1998-vm/8939-netradicionnye-vojny-est-li-u-nih-budushhee.

⁶⁶ G. P. Belokonev, ‘Philosophy and Military Science’, Military Thought 11 (2002), 111.

⁶⁷ A. I. Malyšev, ‘Voennaâ strategiâ Rossijskoj Federacii v načale XXI veka’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 11 (2007), paragraph 26. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2007-vm/9958-voennaja-strategija-rossijskoj-federacii-v-nachale.

⁶⁸ V. V. Babič, ‘O vooružënnoj borʹbe, boevyh dejstviâh, voennyh dejstviâh, ih meste v sisteme kategorij i ponâtij voennoj nauki’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 4 (2009), 36. See also: V. V. Babič, ‘On Military Science and War’, Military Thought 4 (2009), 132.

⁶⁹ V. V. Babič, ‘On the System of Principal Categories and Concepts in Military Science’, Military Thought 4 (2010), 26.

⁷⁰ A. V. Seržantov, ‘Sovremennoe ponimanie suŝnosti i soderžaniâ vojny’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 43/2 (2013), 21.

⁷¹ M. A. Gareev, ‘Struktura i osnovnoe soderžanie novoj voennoj doktriny Rossii’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 3 (2007), paragraph 42. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2007-vm/9974-geopolitika-i-bezopasnost-13.

⁷² See for example: Dremkov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny: suŝnostʹ, problemy, perspektivy’, paragraph 7. See also: Šalamberidze, ‘Teoretičeskie voprosy razvitiâ politiki nacionalʹnoj oborony Rossii v usloviâh mirnogo vremeni s ispolʹzovaniem sistemy mer nevoennogo i voennogo haraktera’, 36; S. G. Čekinov, S. A. Bogdanov, ‘Razvitie voennoj nauki na načalʹnom ètape XXI stoletiâ’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 37/4 (2011), 116, 122.

⁷³ M. A. Gareev, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2003), 11 (speech at the AVN annual conference).

⁷⁴ M. A. Gareev, ‘Uroki i vyvody iz Velikoj otečestvennoj vojny, lokalʹnyh vojn i perspektivy razvitiâ sovremennoj voennoj nauki i voennogo iskusstva’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2005), paragraph 123. http://militaryarticle.ru/vestnik-akademii-voennykh-nauk/2005-vavn/10581-uroki-i-vyvody-iz-velikoj-otechestvennoj-vojny.

⁷⁵ M. A. Gareev, ‘Sistema znanij o vojne i oborone strany na sovremennom ètape’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2013), 7.

⁷⁶ M. A. Gareev, ‘O haraktere vooružennoj borʹby buduŝego’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 4 (2005), paragraph 7. See for example: M. A. Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti Akademii voennyh nauk za 2015 godi i zadači Akademii na 2016 god’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2016), 9.

⁷⁷ V. V., Kruglov, ‘Novyj podhod k analizu sovremennogo protivoborstva’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 12 (2006) http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2006-vm/9907-diskussionnaja-tribuna-11; V. M. Burenok, ‘O nekotoryh vidah mežgosudarstvennogo protivoborstva’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 43/2 (2013), 15–19; Seržantov, ‘Sovremennoe ponimanie suŝnosti i soderžaniâ vojny’, 20; S. A. Tûškevič, ‘Žgučie problemy voennoj teorii’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 43/2 (2013), 28.

⁷⁸ See for example Gareev, 2003, 13 and M. A. Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti akademii voennyh nauk za 2006–2010 gody i zadači akademii na posleduûŝij period’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2011), 11–12.

⁷⁹ Kirillov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny estʹ li u nih buduŝee’, paragraph 10.

⁸⁰ Gareev, 2003, 11; Gareev, ‘Uroki i vyvody iz Velikoj otečestvennoj vojny, lokalʹnyh vojn i perspektivy razvitiâ sovremennoj voennoj nauki i voennogo iskusstva’, paragraph 122; Gareev, ‘O haraktere vooružennoj borʹby buduŝego’, paragraph 7.

⁸¹ M. A. Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti Akademii voennyh nauk za 2011 godi i zadači Akademii na 2012 god’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 39/2 (2012), 15.

⁸² Seržantov, ‘Sovremennoe ponimanie suŝnosti i soderžaniâ vojny’, 20–21.

⁸³ Malyšev, ‘Voennaâ strategiâ Rossijskoj Federacii v načale XXI veka’, paragraph 26.

⁸⁴ Gareev, ‘Sistema znanij o vojne i oborone strany na sovremennom ètape’, 8.

⁸⁵ Û. Â. Kiršin, ‘Suŝnostʹ i soderžanie sovremennyh vojn’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 43/2 (2013), 34–35.

⁸⁶ M. A. Gareev, ‘Obespečenie bezopasnosti strany – rabota mnogoplanovaâ’, Voenno-Promyšlennyj Kurʹer 420/3 (2012), https://vpk-news.ru/articles/8568.

⁸⁷ Burenok, ‘O nekotoryh vidah mežgosudarstvennogo protivoborstva’, 15–16.

⁸⁸ S. A. Tûškevič, V. V. Kruglov, ‘Voennaâ nauka: razmyšleniâ o ee soderžanii i razvitii’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 10 (2010), paragraph 30. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2010-vm/10305-diskussionnaja-tribuna-15.

⁸⁹ Tûškevič, ‘Žgučie problemy voennoj teorii’, 24.

⁹⁰ Tûškevič, Kruglov, ‘Voennaâ nauka: razmyšleniâ o ee soderžanii i razvitii’, paragraphs 22–23.

⁹¹ Gareev, ‘O haraktere vooružennoj borʹby buduŝego’, paragraph 7.

⁹² Gareev, ‘Sistema znanij o vojne i oborone strany na sovremennom ètape’, 7.

⁹³ Gareev, ‘O haraktere vooružennoj borʹby buduŝego’, paragraph 7 and ibid.

⁹⁴ Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti Akademii voennyh nauk za 2011 godi i zadači Akademii na 2012 god’, 15.

⁹⁵ Babič, ‘On Military Science and War’, 131–132.

⁹⁶ Gareev, ‘Obespečenie bezopasnosti strany – rabota mnogoplanovaâ’.

⁹⁷ Gareev, ‘Sistema znanij o vojne i oborone strany na sovremennom ètape’, 8. See also ibid.

⁹⁸ Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti Akademii voennyh nauk za 2015 godi i zadači Akademii na 2016 god’, 9; M. A. Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti Akademii voennyh nauk za 2016 god i zadači Akademii na 2017 god’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 59/2 (2017), 15; M. A. Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti Akademii voennyh nauk za 2017 godi i zadači Akademii na 2018 god’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 63/2 (2018), 9; M. A. Gareev, ‘Itogi deâtelʹnosti Akademii voennyh nauk za 2018 god i zadači akademii na 2019 god’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 67/2 (2019), 14.

⁹⁹ M. A., Gareev, N. I. Turko, ‘Vojna: sovremennoe tolkovanie teorii i realii praktiki’, Vestnik Akademii voennyh nauk 58/1 (2017), 4–5, 9–10.

¹⁰⁰ Burenok, ‘O nekotoryh vidah mežgosudarstvennogo protivoborstva’, 15–19.

¹⁰¹ V. M. Burenok, ‘Znanie massovogo poraženiâ’, Voenno-Promyšlennyj Kurʹer 541/23 (2014).

¹⁰² V. M. Burenok, ‘Napravleniâ i problemy sozdaniâ sistemy vooruženiâ buduŝego’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 55/2 (2016), 28.

¹⁰³ Minic, Russian Strategic Thought and Culture: From the Bypassing of Armed Struggle to the War in Ukraine.

¹⁰⁴ Gareev, Turko, ‘Vojna: sovremennoe tolkovanie teorii i realii praktiki’, 5.

¹⁰⁵ See for example: V. N., Gorbunov, S. A., Bogdanov, ‘Armed Confrontation in the 21st Century’, Military Thought 18/1 (2009), 19, 21–24; O. V. Orehov, S. G. Čekinov, ‘Harakternye osobennosti vooružennoj borʹby v vojnah i konfliktah poslednego desâtiletiâ’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 10 (2004), paragraphs 4–5, 7, 12, http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2004-vm/9467-harakternye-osobennosti-vooruzhennoj-borby-v; Čekinov, Bogdanov, ‘Razvitie voennoj nauki na načalʹnom ètape XXI stoletiâ’; S. G. Čekinov, S. A. Bogdanov, ‘The Art of War in the Early 21st Century: Issues and Opinions’, Military Thought 24/1 (2015); S. G. Čekinov, S. A. Bogdanov, ‘Forecast for Future Wars: Meditations on What They Will Look Like’, Military Thought 24/4 (2015); S. G. Čekinov, S. A. Bogdanov, ‘The Nature and Character of the Evolving Notion of War in the 21st Century’, Military Thought 26/1 (2017). The steps of the ‘new generation warfare’ model they proposed in 2013 accurately reflected their interest in bypassing: see Čekinov, Bogdanov, ‘The Nature and Character of a New-Generation War’, 15–22.

¹⁰⁶ Šalamberidze embodied a perfect intermediate position, as he saw indirect confrontation as a violent means to achieve decisive objectives, drawing on revisionism, without evoking or questioning the concept of war. See for example: Šalamberidze, ‘Teoretičeskie voprosy razvitiâ politiki nacionalʹnoj oborony Rossii v usloviâh mirnogo vremeni s ispolʹzovaniem sistemy mer nevoennogo i voennogo haraktera’.

¹⁰⁷ Čekinov, Bogdanov, ‘The Nature and Character of the Evolving Notion of War in the 21st Century’, 78.

¹⁰⁸ Sovetskaâ voennaâ ènciklopediâ, (Moscow: Voenizdat 1976–1980, in 8 vol); Voennaâ ènciklopediâ, (Moscow: Voenizdat 1994–2004, in 8 vol); Voennyj ènciklopedičeskij slovarʹ, (Moscow: Voenizdat 2001, in 2 vol).

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., VES 2001, (vol. 1), ‘War’, 337–338.

¹¹⁰ For example, see Jonsson, The Russian Understanding of War: Blurring the Lines between War and Peace. It seems that he didn’t draw on the printed version to check the concordance between the two versions.

¹¹¹ Voennyj ènciklopedičeskij slovarʹ, (Moscow: Voenizdat 2007), ‘War’, 154. This definition is much shorter than those of the VES 2001 and online VES.

¹¹² Ibid., VES 2007, ‘Military Science’, 136. The same provisions can be found in the online VES: ‘Military Science’, http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/details.htm?id=4339@morfDictionary.

¹¹³ Since the date of modification is not disclosed, see Carbon Dating The Web: http://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/#http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/details.htm?id=12849@morfDictionary.

¹¹⁴ Online VES, ‘War’. http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/details.htm?id=12849@morfDictionary

¹¹⁵ Voennaâ doktrina, December 25, 2014, Part II.15.a).

¹¹⁶ V.N. Samsonov, ‘Inaâ traktovka ponâtiâ vojny. Vremâ trebuet vnesti korrektivy v klassičeskuû formulu Karla fon Klauzevica’, Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie, December 26, 1996, in Šalamberidze, ‘Teoretičeskie voprosy razvitiâ politiki nacionalʹnoj oborony Rossii v usloviâh mirnogo vremeni s ispolʹzovaniem sistemy mer nevoennogo i voennogo haraktera’, 37.

¹¹⁷ I. N. Rodionov, ‘Zona russkih interesov’, Zavtra, 47 (November 2009). https://zavtra.ru/blogs/2009-11-1831.

¹¹⁸ Ibid.

¹¹⁹ A. V. Kvašnin, ‘Geostrategičeskoe položenie Rossii i ee nacionalʹnye interesy’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 4 (2003), paragraph 68, http://militaryarticle.ru/vestnik-akademii-voennykh-nauk/2003-vavn/10425-geostrategicheskoe-polozhenie-rossii-i-ee.

¹²⁰ S. B. Ivanov, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2003), 3. (Speech at the AVN annual conference)

¹²¹ Û. N. Baluevskij, ‘Teoretičeskie i metodologičeskie osnovy formirovaniâ voennoj doktriny Rossijskoj Federacii’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 3 (2007), paragraph 34. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/2007-vm/10069-teoreticheskie-i-metodologicheskie-osnovy

¹²² V. V. Gerasimov, ‘Osnovnye tendencii razvitiâ form i sposobov primeneniâ vooružennyh sil, aktualʹnye zadači voennoj nauki po ih soveršenstvovaniû’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 1 (2013), 24.

¹²³ Ibid., 29.

¹²⁴ See for example: Vladimirov, ‘O Nacionalʹnoj voennoj mysli i voennoj nauke’, 63; Danilenko, ‘From Applied Military Science to a Basic Science of Warfare’, 92; Danilenko, ‘K voprosu ob adekvatnosti voennogo stroitelʹstva veroâtnym vojnam’, 41; and Dremkov, ‘Netradicionnye vojny: suŝnostʹ, problemy, perspektivy’, paragraph 3.

¹²⁵ V. V. Gerasimov, ‘Sovremennye vojny i aktualʹnye voprosy oborony strany’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 2 (2017), 9–10.

¹²⁶ Ibid., 10. In the first part, Gerasimov probably described the moderate wing of the traditionalists.

¹²⁷ Ibid.

¹²⁸ Ibid., 11.

¹²⁹ Ibid.

¹³⁰ See Tûškevič, Kruglov, ‘Voennaâ nauka: razmyšleniâ o ee soderžanii i razvitii’, paragraph 22; Vasil’ev, ‘On the Crisis of Military Science and Ways of Dealing with It’, 50.

¹³¹ See Suhih Kornej, ‘Točka v vojne’, Voenno-Promyšlennyj Kurʹer, 47 (December 2017), https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/40257.

¹³² See S. V. Fomov, ‘Vojna bolʹšinstvom golosov’, Voenno-Promyšlennyj Kurʹer, 1 (January 2018). https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/40688

¹³³ See S. V. Fomov, V. N. Ûdin, ‘Neklassičeskaâ suŝnostʹ vojny’, Nauka. Obŝestvo. Oborona, 2 (2019). https://www.noo-journal.ru/nauka-obshestvo-oborona/2019-2-19/article-0186/

¹³⁴ Vladimirov, ‘Dialektika i obŝaâ teoriâ vojny’.

¹³⁵ See the page of the department on the website of the VAGŠ: http://vagsh.mil.ru/Struktura-akademii/Kafedra-gosudarstvennogo-upravleniya-i-n

¹³⁶ Minic, Russian Strategic Thought and Culture: From the Bypassing of Armed Struggle to the War in Ukraine.

¹³⁷ For the KSO, see Alexey Nikolsky, ‘Little, green and polite: the creation of Russian special operations forces’, in Colby Howard, Ruslan Pukhov (eds.), Brothers Armed: Military Aspects of the Crisis in Ukraine (Minneapolis: East View Press 2015, 2d ed.), 124–126. See also Mark Galeotti, The Modern Russian Army 1992–2016 (London: Bloomsbury Publishing 2017), 54–55 and Mark Galeotti, Spetsnaz: Russia’s Special Forces (London: Bloomsbury Publishing 2015), 42–43. For the Cyber command, see Ivan Petrov, ‘Šojgu ob’âvil o sozdanii vojsk informacionnyh operacij’, Rossijskaâ gazeta, 22 Feb. 2017; S. K. Šojgu, ‘V Minoborony RF sozdali vojska informacionnyh operacij’, Interfax, 22 Feb. 2017, https://www.interfax.ru/russia/551054.

¹³⁸ See https://structure.mil.ru/structure/ministry_of_defence/details.htm?id=12375@egOrganization. See also: ‘Komissarskij renessans: politruki vernutsâ v armiû’, Gazeta.ru, July 2018. https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2018/07/30/11876839.shtml.

¹³⁹ See ‘Komissary v novyh šlemah: v Rossii vozroždaût vuz dlâ zampolitov’, Izvestiâ, March 15, 2019, https://iz.ru/855990/roman-kretcul-aleksei-ramm-aleksei-kozachenko/komissary-v-novykh-shlemakh-v-rossii-vozrozhdaiut-vuz-dlia-zampolitov.

¹⁴⁰ V. V. Gerasimov, ‘Rolʹ Generalʹnogo Štaba v organizacii oborony strany v sootvetstvii s novym položeniem o Generalʹnom Štabe, utverždennym prezidentom Rossijskoj Federacii’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 46/1 (2014), 15.

¹⁴¹ Ibid.

¹⁴² Ibid., 16.

¹⁴³ Ibid., 17–18.

¹⁴⁴ See the page of the department on the website of the VAGŠ: http://vagsh.mil.ru/Struktura-akademii/Voennyj-institut-upravleniya-nacionalnoj.

¹⁴⁵ See for example in his latest speeches at the AVN: V. V. Gerasimov, ‘Vliânie sovremennogo haraktera vooružennoj borʹby na napravlennostʹ stroitelʹstva i razvitiâ vooružennyh sil Rossijskoj Federacii. prioritetnye zadači voennoj nauki v obespečenii oborony strany’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 63/2 (2018), 16–18; V. V. Gerasimov, ‘Razvitie voennoj strategii v sovremennyh usloviâh. Zadači voennoj nauki’, Vestnik Akademii Voennyh Nauk 67/2 (2019), 6.

¹⁴⁶ V. B. Zarudnickij, ‘Harakter i soderžanie voennyh konfliktov v sovremennyh usloviâh i obozrimoj perspektive’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 1 (2021), 36.

¹⁴⁷ A. V. Seržantov, A. V. Smolovyj, A. V. Dolgopolov, ‘Transformaciâ soderžaniâ vojny: ot prošlogo k nastoâŝemu – tehnologii “gibridny” vojn’, Voennaâ Myslʹ 2 (2021), 26.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid., 27.

¹⁴⁹ Minic, ‘War in Ukraine: The Fatal Obsession With Bypassing the Armed Struggle’.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid. See also: ‘How Putin’s War in Ukraine Became a Catastrophe for Russia’, December 16, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html?s=09.

¹⁵¹ I. N. Vorobʹev, ‘Kakie vojny grozât nam v buduŝem veke?’ Voennaâ Myslʹ 2 (1997), paragraphs 22, 25. http://militaryarticle.ru/voennaya-mysl/1997-vm/9648-kakie-vojny-grozjat-nam-v-budushhem-veke

¹⁵² Ibid.

¹⁵³ Gerasimov, ‘Razvitie voennoj strategii v sovremennyh usloviâh. Zadači voennoj nauki’, 7.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid., 6. See also: Čekinov, Bogdanov, ‘The Nature and Character of the Evolving Notion of War in the 21^st Century’, 75.

¹⁵⁵ Seržantov, Smolovyj, Dolgopolov, ‘Transformaciâ soderžaniâ vojny: ot prošlogo k nastoâŝemu – tehnologii “gibridny” vojn’, 26–27.

¹⁵⁶ Minic, Russian Strategic Thought and Culture: From the Bypassing of Armed Struggle to the War in Ukraine.

¹⁵⁷ See for example: Dmitrij Peskov, ‘Peskov rasskazal o sostoânii informacionnoj vojny v mire’, Interfaks, 20 Dec. 2018.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dimitri Minic

Dimitri Minic is a Research Fellow at Russia/Eurasia Center of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), where his research deals with Russian Armed Forces and strategic thought. He holds a Ph.D. in History of International Relations from the Sorbonne University and obtained funding for his thesis from the Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy (DGRIS) and the Institute for Strategic Research at the Military School (IRSEM) of the French Ministry of Armed Forces. He has just published the book based on his PhD thesis, entitled Russian Strategic Thought and Culture: From the Bypassing of Armed Struggle to the War in Ukraine.