- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
August 20, 2008
Exclusive: Soviet ‘Maskirova’ – Dangerous Deception
A sidebar to the Russian invasion of Georgia is that we should all be grateful that Russia has shown some small restraint. This may be hard to appreciate, and the Georgians certainly would have difficulty agreeing, but the fact is that Russia could have deployed considerably more military strength, such as strategic bombing to name but one of numerous unused assets, and many more collateral assets.
Amongst the numerous additional resources Russia could have deployed, but appears to have reserved so far, is a much greater use of Special Forces (the elite Spetznaz for example) and diversionary tactics in other theatres. There have been numerous rumors of Spetznaz activity in Abkhazia and South Ossetia for many years, beginning almost immediately after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Along with Chechnya, they have been both a military focus and, as a result, proving grounds for both tactical initiatives and Special Forces activity. They were almost certainly involved in provoking matters at the start of the current crisis.
However the greater threat to the U.S. comes from the old Soviet doctrine of Maskirova (deception). Having seen the tremendous success of Operation Fortitude South (which, by deception, successfully diverted German resources away from Normandy both prior to and for days after the actual landings) during the run-up to the Allied invasion of France toward the end of World War II, the Soviet Union increased their efforts to achieve surprise by deception in all military actions. It eventually became a major part of their strategic planning, including in political activity, and a primary focus of effort for the KGB in which Vladimir Putin served from 1975 to 1991.
The threat to the U.S. from modern Russian Maskirova is real and substantial. Should they assess that we pose a real threat (in terms of physical rather than political action) then Russia would almost certainly plan on causing numerous diversions from their own actions. One way of diverting American attention would be to encourage (almost certainly indirectly through numerous proxies and cut-outs, perhaps more by omission than commission and certainly with a degree of deniability which would make it impossible to accuse them meaningfully) attacks on America by other forces such as terrorists and/or rogue nations.
From a strategic viewpoint, it was distinctly noticeable that the entire world went quiet in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and stayed that way for almost three years. All of our enemies drew in their horns as they waited to see how U.S. might would be deployed to avenge that horrendous attack. But as American problems grew in Iraq and it became a focus of attention to the exclusion of almost everything else, the quiet has been broken more and more loudly and by ever-increasing numbers of nations and other international players.
In considering this aspect of Russian methodology, we should be grateful that they chose to provoke the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia while the international media were focused on Beijing. Russian support of the Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology, of Venezuelan purchases of advanced military equipment and their use of Syria as a proving ground for weapons development are examples of situations with potential for achieving Maskirova. A serious attack on the U.S., Israel or Taiwan would all focus American attention away from Russian activity.
The problem is that many Americans, especially those whose work involves international diplomacy or commerce, are bombarded with conspiracy theories on a vast range of subjects (from 9/11 to Elvis). Most of these alleged conspiracies are pure fiction and as such they are not taken seriously by a vast majority. But when it comes to security issues even the most outrageous of possibilities has to be considered. After all, as the old saying has it (and as applies particularly in security), “Even paranoids have enemies”.
In this light it is well worth comparing the way that Russia has manipulated the United Nations (UN) while invading a member state to the reaction when the United States led a Coalition into Iraq. The then-Secretary General, Kofi Annan, quickly condemned the invasion of Iraq as “Illegal.” The present Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has “met with his advisors” to confer on Georgia. In neither case was the Security Council able to take any effective action thanks to the veto capabilities of both Russia and the U.S. Since they represent the effective “supreme authority” of the UN, UN diplomacy is hamstrung in any conflict involving any of the five “Permanent” members of that body.
It is also exceptionally naïve, and dangerous, to think that the UN is merely a harmless talking shop for nations, manned by diplomats working under some form of democratic arrangement. As an example of one underappreciated aspect that relates to this issue, consider that a majority of both the Soviet Delegation to the UN and of UN employees who held citizenship in the USSR were now known to have been KGB agents (and one might reasonably assume that this tradition has been carried on by today’s FSB). The vast majority of U.S. citizens who work in the UN, either as diplomats or employees, are State Department appointees and as such are highly unlikely to have any intelligence training, far less to work for any friendly intelligence agency.
Georgia has provided Russia with an opportunity to send different messages to all the old Soviet Satellite States, to the European nations and to us, all with one relatively small military action. They have reminded the former Satellite states that they are close both geographically and militarily, and that they therefore deserve more influence and respect than America. They have warned the European Union that they control the Oil and Gas which flows from Central Asia and that NATO membership for former Soviet Satellites is not to be given lightly. And they have told us that they can act with impunity against our allies and ignore American opinion over matters in what they regard as their sphere of influence. They have also demonstrated their ability to use the UN to their own benefit in a way the U.S. is unable to match!
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tim Wilson is a retired British Army officer who now works as an independent consultant. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
