As I finished reading this article, I was reminded of a specific scene in the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War.” In the film, Tom Hank’s character, Congressman Charlie Wilson, is debating the merits of arming Afghan fighters with Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character, CIA operative Gust Avrakotos.
Gust Avrakotos: “Afghans can’t be caught shooting down Russian helicopters with American made weapons.”
Charlie Wilson: “Why not?”
Gust Avrakotos: “Because that’s how a Cold War turns into an actual war, and that’s something you want to keep a very good eye on.”
Russian mercenaries operating in Syria are having a similar strategic effect more than 30 years later. American soldiers working to arm, support and assist foreign forces stand in direct contrast to Russian interests in the region. While American policy and general strategy favors the deposition of Bashar al-Assad, Russian mercenaries are backed by both the Kremlin and Syrian governments. In short, American soldiers and Russian mercenaries are operating in the same battle space but on opposite sides of the conflict. This strategic challenge threatens to further escalate an increasingly precarious and dangerous proxy war in Syria.
What types of strategic challenges do Russian mercenaries in Syria present to U.S. forces?
After reading the article, I was surprised at the detail of the news article because it felt as if I was reading an actual intel report (well a lot easier to read, like a story, not an intel report.) This article is scary because it happened. How do you fight an opponent when you don't know who the opponent is?
Having the Russian mercenaries involved in Syria causes tremendous challenges. We read about a few; equipment, jamming techniques, trained fighters, support from Russia, a different cause to fight/different reasons to fight, and as Gen. Tony Thomas said, "most aggressive E.W. environment on the planet from our adversaries.”
This years Panther Strike exercise is going to help us see a small snipet of what is happening in other areas of the world. We really do need to be ready for anything.
Operationally, this attack was not a significant threat to the US military operations in Syria, although on a strategic level it may signal a dangerous escalation towards open conflict between US and Russian forces. In multiple past conflicts, the US began with a limited role only to see a later expansion of that role turn into full military conflict.
The utilization of mercenaries by the Russian forces operating in Syria allows the Russian Defense Ministry to deny involvement if the operation goes poorly, yet if the operation had been a success the Russian military could take full credit for resourcing and planning the attack. As other comments have pointed out, there are more than casual connections between this attack and the US Special Operations efforts to fight the Soviet Union by proxy in Afghanistan during the 1980's.
Strategically, the greatest threat likely comes from the asymmetric warfare lessons learned that Russia gleans from this attack. The Russian expansionist activities in Georgia in 2008 and in Crimea in 2014 are examples of varying degrees to the use of non-attributable, non-state destabilizing actors to advance the interests of the Kremlin. So, I would not be surprised if Russia is using Syria as a testing ground for improving its abilities and equipment.
Very interesting article-- I had been following this event closely, but these are the first substantial details I've seen.
I agree with Matt Woodin-- this is all about plausible deniability for Russia, similar to how they invaded western Ukraine. They're being sneaky about how they're getting things done in Syria. This makes it hard for US Forces because the mercenaries are loosely tracked, and have zero accountability.
I am impressed that even after the fighting began--"tank fire, large artillery, and mortar rounds"--the US military was trying to get in contact with their Russian counterparts for 15 minutes! Had the Russians responded, would that have changed the outcome of the battle? This demonstrates not only the complexity of having foreign mercenaries operating in the Syrian zone but also, having the benefactor of those mercenaries feign ignorance of these operations. The comment in the article, "the outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggests that [they] were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position," suggests that if this were sanctioned by the Russian government, it wasn't a serious attempt to change anything. If these mercenaries are able to make decisions like this, independent of the Kremlin, then they will continue to make decisions that will result in similar distractions all under the auspice of preserving or reclaiming their national interests.
This is a great article that shows the complexities the US forces face operating inside Syria. The 4 strategic challenges the Russian mercenaries bring to Syria. (1) Their tie to the Russian government (2) Advanced military training (3) Modern technology (4) Equipment/resupply.
As mentioned in the article, the US was monitoring the build-up of these forces for weeks prior to their advance on the outpost. The US was in constant communication with the Russian government trying to deescalate the situation and prevent Russian casualties, but the Wagner group pushed forward and carried out the attacked without any fear of dragging Russia into a war with the US. It’s a safe assumption to make that the Russian government was fully aware of all Wagner group movements inside Syria. This situation could have turn out very differently, the Russian government could have seen this as an act of aggression towards Russia.
- Proxy war
"a war instigated by a major power that does not itself become involved."
This article illustrates microcosms of a series of complex issues the U.S. military faces going into the 21st century. The presence of Russian mercenaries in Syria combine a somewhat familiar challenge, that of anonymity, with the often unpredictable conditions of the technological landscape we are entering. The mere disposition and size of friendly forces, as depicted in the article, illustrate our military's balanced approach to dealing with the complex environment. The sustained presence of Russian mercenaries could potentially necessitate an increased presence as well as further legitimize the need we have to enhance our defense technological infrastructure. Such a threat could heighten Russia's ability to support loyalists, both in a logistical and operational sense. Perhaps the greatest threat is the potential to operate extra-judicially with the ability to absolve the state of liability and manipulate information. General Stanley McCrystal has written extensively on what a complex environment entails. In short, a complex environment moves so quickly that efforts to predict outcomes are quickly irrelevant and given way to an increase of readiness and adaptability. This instance of Russian mercenaries illustrate an asymmetrical threat backed by a formidable symmetrical force that will likely warrant an enhanced ability to change quickly.
Great feedback to this article everyone! Interesting to read the different perspectives and insights.
The greatest strategic challenge to U.S. forces I see with Russian mercenaries in Syria is plausible deniability. It provides the Russians tremendous wiggle room to achieve their objectives and at the same time provides time and space for their operations to succeed against American forces on the ground or in the air. Plausible deniability is a common strategic thread be it with their cyber operations or actions they've taken against our elections.
The Russians recognize we don't want to start WWIII over Syria. They know we will go to great lengths to avoid direct confrontation. The attempts the U.S. made with the Russian military to deconflict outlined in the article is a perfect example of how that plays out. That is why I felt this article is so informative.
To our credit, we called out the Russians in this encounter. The deception that worked so well in Ukraine and other parts of Syria ended in disaster. The Russians got the message, but we can anticipate they will continue to use deniable plausibility as a strategy when engaging the U.S. again in the future.
As I finished reading this article, I was reminded of a specific scene in the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War.” In the film, Tom Hank’s character, Congressman Charlie Wilson, is debating the merits of arming Afghan fighters with Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character, CIA operative Gust Avrakotos.
ReplyDeleteGust Avrakotos: “Afghans can’t be caught shooting down Russian helicopters with American made weapons.”
Charlie Wilson: “Why not?”
Gust Avrakotos: “Because that’s how a Cold War turns into an actual war, and that’s something you want to keep a very good eye on.”
Russian mercenaries operating in Syria are having a similar strategic effect more than 30 years later. American soldiers working to arm, support and assist foreign forces stand in direct contrast to Russian interests in the region. While American policy and general strategy favors the deposition of Bashar al-Assad, Russian mercenaries are backed by both the Kremlin and Syrian governments. In short, American soldiers and Russian mercenaries are operating in the same battle space but on opposite sides of the conflict. This strategic challenge threatens to further escalate an increasingly precarious and dangerous proxy war in Syria.
What types of strategic challenges do Russian mercenaries in Syria present to U.S. forces?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I was surprised at the detail of the news article because it felt as if I was reading an actual intel report (well a lot easier to read, like a story, not an intel report.) This article is scary because it happened. How do you fight an opponent when you don't know who the opponent is?
Having the Russian mercenaries involved in Syria causes tremendous challenges. We read about a few; equipment, jamming techniques, trained fighters, support from Russia, a different cause to fight/different reasons to fight, and as Gen. Tony Thomas said, "most aggressive E.W. environment on the planet from our adversaries.”
This years Panther Strike exercise is going to help us see a small snipet of what is happening in other areas of the world. We really do need to be ready for anything.
CPT Jackson
DeleteOperationally, this attack was not a significant threat to the US military operations in Syria, although on a strategic level it may signal a dangerous escalation towards open conflict between US and Russian forces. In multiple past conflicts, the US began with a limited role only to see a later expansion of that role turn into full military conflict.
ReplyDeleteThe utilization of mercenaries by the Russian forces operating in Syria allows the Russian Defense Ministry to deny involvement if the operation goes poorly, yet if the operation had been a success the Russian military could take full credit for resourcing and planning the attack. As other comments have pointed out, there are more than casual connections between this attack and the US Special Operations efforts to fight the Soviet Union by proxy in Afghanistan during the 1980's.
Strategically, the greatest threat likely comes from the asymmetric warfare lessons learned that Russia gleans from this attack. The Russian expansionist activities in Georgia in 2008 and in Crimea in 2014 are examples of varying degrees to the use of non-attributable, non-state destabilizing actors to advance the interests of the Kremlin. So, I would not be surprised if Russia is using Syria as a testing ground for improving its abilities and equipment.
2LT Smith (B Co)
Very interesting article-- I had been following this event closely, but these are the first substantial details I've seen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt Woodin-- this is all about plausible deniability for Russia, similar to how they invaded western Ukraine. They're being sneaky about how they're getting things done in Syria. This makes it hard for US Forces because the mercenaries are loosely tracked, and have zero accountability.
MAJ Mulholland
BN XO
I am impressed that even after the fighting began--"tank fire, large artillery, and mortar rounds"--the US military was trying to get in contact with their Russian counterparts for 15 minutes! Had the Russians responded, would that have changed the outcome of the battle? This demonstrates not only the complexity of having foreign mercenaries operating in the Syrian zone but also, having the benefactor of those mercenaries feign ignorance of these operations.
ReplyDeleteThe comment in the article, "the outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggests that [they] were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position," suggests that if this were sanctioned by the Russian government, it wasn't a serious attempt to change anything. If these mercenaries are able to make decisions like this, independent of the Kremlin, then they will continue to make decisions that will result in similar distractions all under the auspice of preserving or reclaiming their national interests.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great article that shows the complexities the US forces face operating inside Syria. The 4 strategic challenges the Russian mercenaries bring to Syria. (1) Their tie to the Russian government (2) Advanced military training (3) Modern technology (4) Equipment/resupply.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in the article, the US was monitoring the build-up of these forces for weeks prior to their advance on the outpost. The US was in constant communication with the Russian government trying to deescalate the situation and prevent Russian casualties, but the Wagner group pushed forward and carried out the attacked without any fear of dragging Russia into a war with the US. It’s a safe assumption to make that the Russian government was fully aware of all Wagner group movements inside Syria. This situation could have turn out very differently, the Russian government could have seen this as an act of aggression towards Russia.
- Proxy war
"a war instigated by a major power that does not itself become involved."
This article illustrates microcosms of a series of complex issues the U.S. military faces going into the 21st century. The presence of Russian mercenaries in Syria combine a somewhat familiar challenge, that of anonymity, with the often unpredictable conditions of the technological landscape we are entering. The mere disposition and size of friendly forces, as depicted in the article, illustrate our military's balanced approach to dealing with the complex environment. The sustained presence of Russian mercenaries could potentially necessitate an increased presence as well as further legitimize the need we have to enhance our defense technological infrastructure. Such a threat could heighten Russia's ability to support loyalists, both in a logistical and operational sense. Perhaps the greatest threat is the potential to operate extra-judicially with the ability to absolve the state of liability and manipulate information. General Stanley McCrystal has written extensively on what a complex environment entails. In short, a complex environment moves so quickly that efforts to predict outcomes are quickly irrelevant and given way to an increase of readiness and adaptability. This instance of Russian mercenaries illustrate an asymmetrical threat backed by a formidable symmetrical force that will likely warrant an enhanced ability to change quickly.
ReplyDeleteGreat feedback to this article everyone! Interesting to read the different perspectives and insights.
ReplyDeleteThe greatest strategic challenge to U.S. forces I see with Russian mercenaries in Syria is plausible deniability. It provides the Russians tremendous wiggle room to achieve their objectives and at the same time provides time and space for their operations to succeed against American forces on the ground or in the air. Plausible deniability is a common strategic thread be it with their cyber operations or actions they've taken against our elections.
The Russians recognize we don't want to start WWIII over Syria. They know we will go to great lengths to avoid direct confrontation. The attempts the U.S. made with the Russian military to deconflict outlined in the article is a perfect example of how that plays out. That is why I felt this article is so informative.
To our credit, we called out the Russians in this encounter. The deception that worked so well in Ukraine and other parts of Syria ended in disaster. The Russians got the message, but we can anticipate they will continue to use deniable plausibility as a strategy when engaging the U.S. again in the future.