In both Crimea and the subsequent fighting in the Donbas region of Ukraine, Russia’s signature tactic has been the use of so-called “Green Men,” soldiers without identifying insignia whose identity as Russian soldiers the Kremlin denied. Ukraine, Georgia, and even NATO members like Estonia now fear that they could be the next target for Russia’s Green Men. NATO, alarmed by the need to prepare for this unexpected tactic, has committed to develop new countermeasures to defend against this threat. Green Men, or deniable forces, are a central part of what has come to be called “hybrid warfare” in the “gray zone” between war and peace. All of this seems to be a new and innovative departure from traditional tactics, perhaps even a new model for conflict in the 21st century.
However, deniable forces are nothing new. Nor, in fact, is the specific phenomenon of using them to seize a piece of territory, as Russia did in Crimea. There is a long history of hybrid warfare in general and of intervening with deniable forces in particular. This history points not just to the enduring nature of the threat, but also to the contours of a “counter-hybrid” strategy to defeat it.
In the course of a broader research project for which I compiled data on every land grab since 1918, 105 land grabs in total, I found three instances before Crimea of deniable forces seizing territory. In 1999, Pakistani forces crossed the Line of Control in the Kargil region of Kashmir, occupying positions overlooking strategically important roads in Indian territory. Like the Russians, Pakistan used deniable forces that they described as Kashmiri insurgents. Unlike the Ukrainians, the Indians counterattacked, absorbing heavy casualties to expel the Pakistanis.
Way over my head!
Put simply, Hybrid Warfare is a form of deception, it allows a country the “deniability” of wrong doing..Ukraine is a textbook example and as the article shows, one of the only successful examples in over a century. It is favorite tactic of the Russians and word around NATO is Estonia will be the next target. Putin took his troops out of Syria for a strategic reason, not because he is a nice guy…he has plans for those troops and hardware.
And his forces are not large enough to tackle both? Would the US have enough forces for both?
Oh yeah, the Russians have a big enough Military to take Estonia, or any State in the Baltics no problem, but that is not the point, the point of Hybrid Warfare is to invade and occupy a country and have the appearance you are innocent..it is a form of Deniability and a way for Putin and Russia to always look like the “good Guy” when, as we have seen in Ukraine, they are obviously not. It is as much a Political game as anything really…sanctions will still get put on Russia if they invade, Hybrid Warfare is not fooling anybody, but it is all part of the “Great Game”.
With all of the Baltic States on high alert right now and US Forces all over Europe doing war game exercises with them, plus the Baltic States just installed Anti-Air Defenses on their borders with Russia, we stand a good chance to stop them if they invade…as you know the big deal with NATO is that they consider an attack on one member of NATO an attack on them all, so if Putin does decide to go into Estonia, all hell is gonna break loose for sure, but IMO, if Putin does decide to drop the hammer, it is NOT going to just be Estonia, he is going to go for all of Europe and Israel too…World War 3.
Is there any need for the US to even TRY to step in anywhere? What Presidential candidate will handle Putin best?
Well, if Russia invades any of the Baltic States we are going to step in, no doubt. NATO policy demands it.
As far as Politics, my answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE. 🙂