So Moskovsky Komsomolets wrote about the Rossiya 24 TV show last year on the creation of these new Special Operations Forces in Russia under the Defense Ministry, especifically designed to fight abroad (my translation of the article is here at The Interpreter). Pavel Khrennikov, the author of the piece unearthed this program of a year ago, that now seems awfully relevant:
And naturally he asked the question of whether they are the same fighters who took over the police building in Kramatorsk -- and they do look alike -- as others agree.
Hey, is this Bright Eyes at 2:30, the same guy spotted in Crimea and later in the South-East of Ukraine?
Watch him on the film. There's only 500 of them, so you can probably match them. Or maybe this guy?
What's so eerie about this program is how many times -- a dozen or more -- the narrator and the soldiers say "We are defending the interests of our country" -- as if that's more than fine to do by dropping spetsnaz into neighbouring sovereign states. It's the sort of thing that the Kremlin always rants about the US doing.
Not surprisingly, John Schindler wrote about these forces on his blog when they appeared in 2013. But he conceived of them -- absolutely rationally -- as related to Chechnya, and possibly controlling Chechens abroad:
It can be anticipated that SSO units will be busy in Chechnya and elsewhere. The posited relationship with the SVR indicates that secret-squirrel activity abroad can be expected. Wetwork such as the 2004 car-bomb assassination of Chechen leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev in Qatar by GRU operators would presumably be part of the new command’s mission set, as will be Russia’s use of UAVs. Moscow makes no secret of its intent to use UAVs aggressively, so when – not, good reader, if – a Russian drone blows up an enemy of Putin abroad in best American style, it will presumably be an SSO operator on the trigger.
And Dmitry Trenin wrote about them in Foreign Policy -- again no surprise there in the other direction! -- but he tried to imply that they were "normal" because "just like the US SOCOM" and also hint that they'd be used in Central Asia to deal with post-US withdrawal spillover. He did concede that the Baltics might be worried:
Russia's other smaller neighbors, particularly in the Baltics, may look at Moscow's SOCOM with a wary eye. To them, this move is but the latest development in a series of military activities suggesting a revitalization of the Russian Armed Forces. Recent provocations include an exercise of the Black Sea Fleet last March in southern Russia practicing amphibious assault (an exercise Moscow neglected to notify its NATO partners of) and maneuvers off the coast of Syria at the beginning of 2013 in which naval ships from all four Russian fleets took part.
Looking forward, however, it is hard to expect a country of Russia's size and geographical position to not have a capable military force adequate to the current military environment. With the drawdown of Western military involvement in Afghanistan and, more broadly, the Middle East, regional powers in Eurasia, including Russia, will have to bear more responsibility for security and stability there.
Neither of them mentioned Ukraine -- but then, why would they? EuroMaidan hadn't started yet -- that was to come around November 2013. Who would imagine that Russia and Ukraine would go to war using these forces? 500 of them.
Why do I say "hidden in plain sight" then?
Well, because few people seem to have picked up on the fact that this unit was especially created to fight abroad -- which is very worrisome, given that it is Russia doing this.
I must say that I myself, thinking of Russian aggression, was concentrating on the CSTO, and the forces in that Russian-led body when thinking of Central Asia, which I spent a lot of time watching and writing about in the last decade. I figured the Russians would want the "cover" of that CIS body, as flimsy as it is. But -- why bother?
Here's Steven Blank last year in May 2013 -- again, focusing more on Central Asia:
Russia has also recently created a Special Operations Command consisting of a Special Forces brigade, a training center, helicopter, and air transportation squadrons.
Adding to the unfavorable situation is the fact that the Russian Army is almost incapable of serious power projection except by rail and certainly unable to move fast enough to meet these potential challenges. Is border forces are mired in corruption and their ability to police the borders effectively is open to serious doubt. Yet given the virtually universal lack of confidence in the post-2014 situation in Afghanistan and the real weaknesses plaguing efforts at a coordinated regional defense it is not easy to see how Russia can avoid getting entangled in protracted contingencies if Afghanistan falls to the terrorists after 2014. Despite Putin’s orders, it is only now becoming clear to the Russian military-political establishment that if terrorism and insurgency are the real threats they will have to contend with, there must be an immense strategic restructuring of the government, armed forces, defense industry, and state policy even as Putin has made clear his thorough opposition to any major reform. More of the same will clearly not suffice in the southern strategic direction.
Many people have called out the fact that the Airborne Troops and the spetsnaz (special forces) of various types are in Ukraine -- that is a given. But I don't recall anyone pointing out that this division especially created last year for fighting abroad was there specifically. I'm not a military buff, so maybe I missed it? Take a look at the guy -- looks like a big clump of grass -- the living example of that maskirovka that Schindler always talks about!
Of course, a key reason why it's so hard to have this discussion and find facts is that few people are willing to look at Russia without first genuflecting and crossing themselves and explaining that "the US has this too" or "most countries have this" or "the US is worse, why, it has special forces in 100 places around the world."
This is the favourite tune of the left, to which I only have three questions:
1. Can you point to any of those 100 countries that have asked the US to leave and they haven't left, or they've denied that they are there?
2. If you can point to some movement or party or group asking the US to leave, can we have a discussion about their nature and whether we'd all rather have them in power? i.e. communists, jihadists, whatever.
3. As special forces, have they incited and/or joined local separatists and taken over police buildings, local assembly buildings, parliaments, etc?
The nature of the regime really makes a difference.
Comments