Russia's gaming success
THE RUSSIAN LIMITED
AIMS SECRET.
The current international system has several ongoing
conflicts which have the great powers taking sides and engaging in such proxy
wars. These states have put in place strategies in the war gaming. Russia is
placed among the powerful states club along with the United States, China and
Britain. The approaches used by the Russians however, are those of a weaker
state. One of the scholars of war, T.V Paul in his piece Asymmetric conflicts: War initiation by weaker powers discusses
some of the means and ways that can be used by these countries or rather any
parties in a conflict.
Attrition or manoeuvre strategy, blitzkrieg and the limited
aims strategy could be applied. The United States and Russia have kept on the
cold war traits of unending competition in fostering their interests.
Evaluating Russia’s configuration of its war involvement explicitly displays
the limited aims strategy. This is an approach that has less exposure to
several or prolonged conflicts. The assumption is that such means is preferred
by actors that have no resource base and capacity to expend in fighting. The
Crimea and Syrian conflicts are the only cases that have had the Kremlin
sending its personnel in recent years. Limited aims strategy does not focus on
fully defeating an opponent but achieving political scores and capturing
intended targets.
The Crimean crisis gave Russia an opportunity to shove off,
US and NATO influence in Ukraine. This attracted sanctions against the regime
but in the long run it was able to set foot on Crimea, plan a plebiscite on
seceding from Ukraine and using the separatists to bring down aircrafts. There
was no further extension of aggression within that territory but the military
had already set camp and making it impossible to overrun its establishment,
resulting in an offensive-defensive aspect of strategy. This move evoked so
much praise for Vladimir Putin at home and he was viewed as a hero. This was a
classic example of the limited aims strategy influencing local political
opinion and disenfranchising the Americans of their grip on an important flank
of its ally.
The United States have seemingly applied the attrition
strategy. Their military has presence almost globally. This is possible for a
country with such power but this might strain its military and give an upper
hand to the Russians. America has faced a lot of opposition by other actors due
to such a bloated presence. Locally voices of dissent are also growing loud
against such scale of interventionism.
Syria is lately the battleground between the two powers. Their
strategic computations are being inculcated. If Russia has a taste for limited
aims but the United States decides to prolong the war how futile could that be?
Russia has a great number of allies including Iran which is the new kid on the
block after sanctions against it were removed and the Turks have joined the pact
too. Can these friends help Russia to hold on longer and secure a reasonable
win? Israel which is America’s ally have played isolationist and defensive. How
can its decision to go into Syria influence the direction of war? These are
some of the considerations that must be in the minds of strategists on such a
war theatre.
There is a probability that the Syrian crisis will take more
time than anticipated and the Islamic State holding ground.
The United States needs to reinvent its strategies with a
bias to limitations as a reaction to Russia’s successful scheme in war.
Generally Russia is achieving its strategic goals and retaining influence in
Europe and Middle East which gives it an upper hand in the energy-propagated
wars. This also shows that Russia is acutely aware of the dynamics in the
strategic environment and pulling a first in cost-benefit analyses.
Upon rebuilding and restructuring the KGB, Russia will
further bring on board the intelligence aspect of strategy and increase its
lead over other great powers. Limited aims strategy is instrumental in the
success of Russia’s attainment of a strategic balance against the United
States.
There are indications that Russia might consider going back
to Afghanistan, where it previously failed. The Afghans have the time, while
the Americans had the watches. How will this upset the US game which have been
trailing overtime despite large presence?
The Afghanistan groups have an unshakable will to keep fighting. With
limited aims Russia’s stakes will be low, but it can pull a better score
compared to the Americans. If this happens, the Kremlin will have earned the
“Special One” acronym.
Comments
Post a Comment