Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Russian military operation during the Five-Day war in Georgia points to
a number of lessons with strategic implications for Russia. The deficiencies
in its military performance – not least concerning C4ISR and precision strike
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
[S]trategy, which defines its task in the conduct of military operations as combining
operations for achieving the ultimate goal, is not only interested in stating the goal of
an operation, but also makes certain requirements of the methods of achieving it.1
For all the international turmoil and tensions it caused, the Five-Day War in
Georgia was a limited military operation for a military organization such as
Russia’s. On a strategic level, the war was combined with other measures such
as diplomatic ones, but militarily it cannot qualify as a grand military
operation.2 It was successful in that it reached the main military objective of
the operation, to take irreversible control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but
the Russian casualties and the deficiencies and problems it struggled with
during the operation have implications for the future development of its
military. This is obvious from the analyses made in Russia and from statements
from its military and political leadership.
Plans for a military operation existed, and a military exercise (‘Caucasus
2008’) in the North Caucasus as late as in July 2008 rehearsed a similar scenario.
In other words, Russia was prepared and could deploy forces to South Ossetia
relatively quickly in spite of the considerable challenges caused by the terrain –
especially the bottleneck at the Roki tunnel.3 The swift deployment of close to
20,000 men in a couple of days was key to success against even the limited size
albeit modernised. Perhaps the greatest worry was breakdowns in command and
control, the inability of the army and air force to cooperate efficiently, and poor
performance when it came to electronic warfare and the use of precision
weapons. This is especially troubling for a country that wants to compete with the
West and claim its place as one of a handful of great powers globally rather than
satisfy itself with a role as a regional power capable of taking on smaller
neighbours. In fact, even a limited operation of this size exposed the fundamental
challenges that remain for Russia when it comes to reforming its armed forces
and the considerable gap that exists between its global ambitions as a great power
and the economic and military power to sustain such claims.
technology will require that Russia is able to recruit skilled and intelligent
soldiers and junior officers that can handle the new weapons and equipment and
make independent decisions in the field.7 Trusting junior personnel with more
responsibility, however, would entail a radical shift in Russian military culture
and will not come easy.
At the same time, Russia’s most pressing security challenges are not to be
found on its Western flank. Few if any serious military analysts in Russia
believe that NATO is about to attack Russia or that a Russia-NATO military
confrontation is imminent. Instead, Moscow’s main security dilemma is located
on its southern border, not least in the South Caucasus, and within Russia and
the North Caucasus. The most likely large-scale conflict with another great
power would be with China, not with the West, and even that threat is anything
but urgent. To prepare for large-scale conventional confrontation with the West
is necessary for Russia’s status as a great power, but from a national security
perspective local wars, counterinsurgency warfare and anti-terrorist measures
stand out as far more acute to implement.8 Fighting insurgency and terrorism in
the Caucasus is not done best while entertaining a fierce rhetoric against the
West and alienating neighbouring states such as Georgia and Ukraine. In the
words of Dmitri Trenin there is little use in repeating maxims about ‘permanent
interests and impermanent friends’ or about how the ‘army and navy are
Russia’s only true friends’. In reality, there is a ‘danger of the country’s isolation’.9
Nor will Russian oil revenues be able to sustain both missions. This was evident
even before the onset of the economic crisis; in 2009 the prospects for such a two-
pronged approach are even less auspicious from a strictly economic point of view.
Furthermore, from an organisational point of view it is doubtful whether it is
even possible to successfully maintain capability for both large-scale conventional
warfare and fighting insurgencies and terrorism within one and the same
organisation, as they require very different methods, training and equipment.10
Overall, the ambition to compete with the West in conventional military
terms would be difficult if at all possible for the Russian state to sustain. It would
signify an enormous burden on the country’s economy and it is most doubtful
whether Russia would be able to significantly close the technological gap that has
Small Wars & Insurgencies 403
developed between it and the West in a situation of confrontation instead of
cooperation. Russia’s other option is to modernize a smaller army and to
concentrate on the threats that are most imminent – local wars and insurgencies.
To straddle both options, which appears to be the current strategy, is damaging to
Russia’s economic growth and to its national security, something that the war in
Georgia made obvious.
military position in the Caucasus region. Apart from ground force bases, Russia
started preparations to create a complementary naval base for the Black Sea Fleet in
Ochamchire11 and to base aircraft at the former Soviet airbase in Gudauta in
Abkhazia.12 This will make the Russian military presence on Georgian territory as
large or larger than it was before Russia withdrew from its three remaining military
bases in Akhalkalaki, Batumi and Vaziani. It will furthermore form a military
staging ground in the South Caucasus and the Black Sea. An adjustment of the
military-strategic situation in the region to Russia’s advantage, by removing the
geographical bottlenecks to southbound military power projection, may have been
an additional strategic military goal from the very beginning of the campaign.
In order to attain the military goal, the Russian military strategy consisted of
swiftly achieving an overwhelming superiority in numbers by combining massive
ground deployments with supporting air and naval operations. In other words, a
strategy fully in line with Soviet military thinking. The primary military objective
seems to have been to take control over the territory of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia and establish air and sea supremacy. A secondary, perhaps equally
important, objective was to prevent Georgian and foreign troop reinforcements.
This was achieved by cutting off vital Georgian ports, roads and railroads,
through aerial attacks on reserve units that were called up and by rendering
Georgian airfields difficult to use.
An analysis of the conduct of the Russian troops after the ceasefire suggests
that an additional objective was to neutralize Georgian military capability by
destroying infrastructure and wrecking or seizing weapons and equipment.
Judging by the reported air strikes, the strategy did not include disruption of
critical civilian infrastructure in order to paralyse the Georgian political
leadership, but centred on reducing the country’s military capability. The Russian
forces that took part in the Five-Day War clearly had instructions on how far they
were allowed to go when it came to selecting targets and advancing into Georgia.
One military commentator was of the opinion that the military operation would
have been more successful if Russian troops had been allowed to attack political
targets, such as the Georgian political leadership and vital infrastructure.13
404 C. Vendil Pallin and F. Westerlund
Elements indicative of an evolution of Soviet strategy towards contemporary
Western warfare could also be observed during the Five-Day War. Units
belonging to other power ministries, albeit in small numbers, took part in the
military operations, indicating an ambition towards performing joint and inter-
ministerial operations. Furthermore, in parallel with the military operation,
Russia initiated information operations, consisting of efforts towards creating
pro-Russian media coverage of the conflict and possibly also IT attacks on
official Georgian web servers. The Russian General Staff’s information and
media management has, however, been criticized by Russian analysts, as has the
lack of Information Warfare (IW) units within the armed forces. The military
command seemingly does not dispose of personnel qualified to perform
professional and efficient IW operations.14 Furthermore, it should be noted that
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
the official Russian declarations that the military incursion into Georgia was a
peace support operation did not materialize into military strategy. As far as can be
deduced, the declarations were merely part of Russian maskirovka, a strategic
deception intended to act as a smoke screen and to mislead the international
opinion.15 An important part of the overall military strategy was also to appear as
the victim, not the initiator of the war, despite all the planning and preparations.
This would be congruent with military strategy in previous Russian and Soviet
wars, such as the Afghan and Chechen wars.16
An influence from the recent development in Western warfare was visible in
the Russian conduct,17 and joint and inter-ministerial operation has been part of
several Russian military exercises in the past years. However, the limited success
of these elements suggests that Russian strategy has not developed beyond Soviet
military thinking. There is an ambition to move towards postmodern warfare and
new thinking about military strategy is taking form, but the thinking is far from
becoming integrated in standard operations.
units from other services and arms of the armed forces as well as units belonging
to the Federal Security Service and the Ministry of the Interior. Furthermore, the
Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, probably followed the
developments in Georgia closely, in particular in South Ossetia where it
manned key positions in the breakaway republic’s intelligence service, the
KGB.21
The existence of one or several military plans for a war in Georgia does not
necessarily signify that there was an intention to attack Georgia. The military
high command should have up-to-date contingency planning for possible
instances of armed conflicts. In the case of Georgia, an armed conflict was not
only plausible, but likely. The fact that Russia undertook practical preparations
for a future operation is more interesting in this context.
Preparations for a major military operation in Abkhazia were made during the
spring and early summer of 2008. In June and July, Russian railroad troops made
repairs on a total of 54 kilometres of railroad track in Abkhazia, despite Georgian
protests against their presence in the breakaway republic. As Russian heavy
military equipment is transported by railroad and not by road, functioning railway
links are crucial to a swift forward deployment of mechanized Russian units.22
The Russian peacekeeping unit in Abkhazia had already been reinforced with
additional artillery in April,23 and further reinforcements were possibly secretly
transferred by rail in late July.24
In July 2008, the military exercise ‘Caucasus 2008’ took place in the
southern parts of the NCMD with the participation of at least 8000 troops, 700
military vehicles and more than 30 aircraft. According to official statements, the
main purpose of the exercise was to train for anti-terror operations, but another
aim was to practice peace-enforcement operations in zones of conflict.25 Several
of the units that were later to take part in the military operation in Georgia were
involved in the exercise, among them the Black Sea Fleet large assault ship
(BDK) Tsezar Kunikov, which took part in the amphibious landing element of
‘Caucasus 2008’. Russian as well as American analysts have regarded
‘Caucasus 2008’ as a dress rehearsal for an operation in South Ossetia.26
Furthermore, many units had not returned to the bases when the war broke out;
406 C. Vendil Pallin and F. Westerlund
according to media reports, command posts remained operational after the
exercise had ended and the 58th Army remained in a state of alert.27
Despite all the planning and preparations and the repeated warnings in
Russian media of Georgian aggression towards the breakaway republics,28 the
top leadership appears to have been taken by surprise when the war did break
out. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev both attended the Beijing Olympics. President Dmitry Medvedev
gave the order to start the military operations without consulting parliament,
even though according to the Constitution use of troops outside Russia’s
borders should be decided by the upper house, the Federation Council.
The Security Council did not convene until several hours after Russian troops
had crossed the border to South Ossetia and air strikes on target in Georgia
proper had commenced.29 The military high command was likewise taken
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
conditions in Georgia during the war, with recurrent cloudiness and a low cloud
base, restricted the use of laser and TV guided weapons, which make up the bulk
of the guided weapons in the Russian arsenal.49 Because of this, the Russian air
force had to rely on unguided bombs and air-to-surface rockets during the
Five-Day War. Moreover, the Georgian air defence radar units were operational,
albeit with obvious limitations, several days into the war, which implies that the
Russian air force for some reason did not use its Kh-28 and Kh-58 anti-radiation
missiles.50 The lack of precision strike weapons meant that a larger number of
sorties had to be made in order to destroy a given target, exposing more aircraft to
the enemy air defence.
Furthermore, attack aircraft strikes with unguided weapons imply even
shorter launch distances and thus a greater risk of attracting enemy air defence
fire. This might explain the somewhat unexpected use of strategic long-range
bombers in a local war; although primarily intended for targets in the enemy’s
rear in large-scale war scenarios, their ability to drop unguided bombs from
altitudes well above the reach of many air defence systems makes them useful
also in local conflicts. Nevertheless, the Tu-22M3 bomb runs over Georgia rather
underscored the fact that the Russian air force obviously lacked suitable standoff
weapons. Cruise missiles with a conventional warhead have been part of the
Russian air force inventory for some years, albeit in small numbers, and the
Tu-22M3 bombers can carry such weapons. However, there are no indications of
air-launched cruise missiles having been used in the Five-Day War, which puts
the air force capability to precision strikes over longer distances into question.51
It also implies that Russia cannot conduct air strikes from a safe distance even in
a local war close to its own borders; Russian pilots have to enter enemy air space
when carrying out air raids and this exposes them to enemy fire. Moreover, the
Russian air units were forced to carry out missions mainly in daylight, since
many aircraft lacked night-vision equipment. This was not the case with the
modernized Georgian Su-25 aircrafts, which were able to operate at night.52
Also, the Russian air force almost completely lacked the ability to wage
electronic warfare, which could have contributed to suppressing the Georgian
air defence.53
410 C. Vendil Pallin and F. Westerlund
In sum, the Russian ability to combat enemy air defence – one of the key
elements in modern warfare – was clearly limited, even against a small and not
particularly advanced adversary. The same seems to hold true for another key
element in modern warfare: close air support to ground units. This, in
combination with the underdeveloped Russian precision and standoff strike
capability, suggests that Russian attack and bomber aviation have only a limited
air combat capability. In contrast to the attack aviation, the Military Transport
Aviation (MTA) performed its duties more or less without mishaps. The MTA
transported several airborne units from different parts of Russia to North Ossetia
and Abkhazia, and the airlift started early in the war. The MTA does not appear to
have performed any paradrops to spearhead the ground assault in Georgia though;
the airborne units were landed in airports on friendly territory.
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
Military equipment
The Russian military equipment used in the Five-Day War was sufficient for a
victory, but this was due to an overwhelming quantity rather than the quality of the
material. In the course of the Russian operation a number of deficiencies
concerning the military equipment came to light. The armour on the Soviet-made
combat vehicles turned out to be insufficient, in particular in urban warfare. Russian
as well as Georgian tanks proved to be vulnerable to handheld anti-tank rockets
fired at their sides, which was evident from pictures of blown up tanks in the streets
of Tskhinvali. It has also been reported that the reactive armour canisters mounted
on the T-72 tanks belonging to the 58th Army were empty, rendering them useless.
There had not been time to fill the canisters before the units left for Georgia.54
The armoured personnel carriers could not resist anti-tank rockets or mines or small
calibre armour piercing ammunition. This is why Russian troops prefer to travel
sitting on top of their vehicles rather than inside them.55 Since tanks are vulnerable
in mountainous areas, a Tank Support Combat Vehicle (with the Russian acronym
BMPT) armed with nine weapon systems and an advanced target acquisition
system has been developed in Russia.56 The armed forces ordered the first 10 serial
production BMPTs in 2007 after concluding State Tests and the first deliveries were
planned for 2008,57 but no BMPTs were available to the NCMD.
The technical status of the Russian ground troops’ heavy vehicles also
negatively affected Russian performance. A number of vehicles suffered
breakdowns and caused traffic jams on the only road leading south into Georgia
from North Ossetia.58 Not even the command of the 58th Army seems to have
had fully functional vehicles. The headquarters command vehicle initially
refused to start and eventually only got some 50 metres before the muffler fell
off.59 Within the 58th Army, a large number of the tanks consisted of older
models: T-62 and T-72 tanks made up 60% to 75% of the total number.60
The older models of tanks lacked IFF-equipment (Identification Friend or Foe),
increasing the risk for friendly-fire incidents – a particular problem when facing
Small Wars & Insurgencies 411
an opponent that was also fielding Soviet-era armoured vehicles. The Russian
forces had limited access to modern systems for combat in darkness and reduced
visibility,61 which made it possible for the better equipped Georgian troops to
regain during night ground lost during daytime. This slowed down the Russian
advance. Even on an individual level, the Georgian soldiers were clearly better
equipped than their Russian counterparts.
The Russian artillery units engaged in the Five-Day War did not use precision
munitions, but instead had to rely on less efficient unguided munitions.
The terrain in South Ossetia, with broken ground and dense foliage, rendered
laser designators less effective and thus restricted the use of laser guided
munitions such as Santimetr, Krasnopol, Kitolov, Smelchak and Gran.62 Artillery
munitions guided by satellite navigation systems could have proven a useful
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
alternative, but such munitions are not part of the Russian arsenal. The use of
unguided munitions, albeit several times less costly a piece, resulted in prolonged
fire and a larger amount needed per target, which reduced the combat speed and
exposed the artillery units to enemy counter measures.
Nor did the ground forces appear to have unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in
sufficient numbers. For instance, UAVs for target acquisition and target
designation could have allowed for a more adequate use of laser guided artillery
munitions, and radio relay UAVs could have compensated for the difficult
signalling conditions in mountainous territory. During the war, the Russian forces
lacked reconnaissance drones,63 a problem that is not easily solved since the
acquisition of UAVs does not appear to be part of the State Procurement Program
for 2007 – 2015.64 Moreover, the lack of artillery localization radar systems on
the Russian side made it more difficult to combat Georgian artillery units.65
The Russian forces in Georgia also had very limited access to equipment for
satellite navigation and positioning. The Russian satellite navigation
system, GLONASS, was not fully operative due to a subcritical number of
satellites in orbit and the ground units lacked receivers.66 The Russian units
reportedly lacked an autonomous targeting system, which partly obstructed joint
operations.67
The Soviet armed forces had a highly developed electronic warfare (EW)
capacity, but this Soviet legacy has been squandered over the years.
The ineffectiveness of Russian EW systems during the military operations in
Georgia was later acknowledged by the General Staff.68 The weaknesses in
Russian EW were obvious before the Five-Day-War and in order to improve the
armed forces’ EW capability Russia had begun the process of creating
independent EW troops directly under the General Staff with modern Russian
EW systems and contract soldiers.69 So far, this does not seem to have allowed
Russia to improve its EW capability significantly.
Russian intelligence also suffered from lack of military equipment. On the
strategic command level, the fact that there were no satellite reconnaissance
resources resulted in incomplete information on the Georgian preparations for the
412 C. Vendil Pallin and F. Westerlund
attack on Tskhinvali.70 On the operative and tactical command level, the shortage
of modern reconnaissance systems, including UAV systems, negatively affected
the intelligence capability.71
The above-mentioned Russian losses in the air battle indicate that Russian
aircraft have insufficient protection against portable SAM systems and possibly
that the technical status leaves room for improvement. Other shortcomings in the
military equipment are the lack of precision and standoff air strike weapons and
the limited supply of support systems for combat in darkness and low visibility.
In an assessment of the Five-Day War by the International Institute of Strategic
Studies, the authors concluded that ‘[t]he urgent need to modernise the air force
may thus be one of the main lessons for the Russian military command to take
away from the recent conflict’.72
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
Any hopes Russia’s military officers might have harboured that its success in
reaching the military objective in Georgia in August 2008 would translate into
greater influence over national security or even the fate of the armed forces were
dashed when Minister of Defence Anatoliy Serdyukov made public new plans to
cut back on the number of servicemen. Despite earlier promises that military
reform was over and that the time had come for consolidation and
‘modernization’ as late as December 2007, Russia’s officer corps found itself
faced with the most far-reaching plans to sack officers since the Yeltsin era.79
These plans must have been sanctioned at the very apex of Russia’s political
leadership and were probably the result of planning and analyses taking
place before the war in Georgia. Although the reform plan as a whole was neither
prepared as a result of lessons learned in Georgia nor primarily by Serdyukov, the
Five-Day War influenced the way in which it was presented and executed.
The war in Georgia was used to emphasise the urgency of reform and the need to
invest in new equipment to improve Russia’s military capability. The chief of the
General Staff, Makarov, stated in front of foreign military attachés that ‘taking into
account both military training of troops and experiences from military conflicts in
recent years, among which the military action of our troops in Southern Ossetia, it is
impossible to not notice a certain gap between theory and practice’. He went on to
say that it was time to stop prepare Russian troops from yesterday’s war and that they
had to prepare for battle with ‘a strong and technologically equipped adversary
taking into account all the news that have appeared in military theory’.80
The evaluation of Russian military capability from the very apex of the military
organization was thus highly critical in spite of the fact that the military objective in
South Ossetia had been reached. Apart from the military decorations awarded for the
military operation in Georgia, the officers of the armed forces as a whole would be
unwise to expect large dividends from the war.
Serdyukov’s reform plans signified a substantial reduction of the officer corps
by 2012. For example, the number of colonels was to be reduced from over
15,000 to 3114. The overall aim was to change the ratio of one officer for every
two or three soldiers to one per fifteen. In addition, the target for the overall size
416 C. Vendil Pallin and F. Westerlund
of the armed forces was 1,000,000 men – a reduction of about 200,000 – 300,000
servicemen (it is notoriously difficult to establish the size of the armed forces).
However, a substantial part of these will still be employed by the armed forces
and retain their assignments, albeit as civilians. The reform plans solicited fierce
criticism from officers and a number of military analysts – this in spite of the fact
that much of its content was far from new. Apart from the personnel reductions
among officers, the round and even figure of one million men has figured in
previous reform initiatives;81 nor is the move to a military organization divided
into brigades rather than divisions and regiments entirely new.82
In spite of increased defence budgets, the military operation in Georgia and
the predilection of top political leaders to visit military units – often sporting a
uniform – the military is not a towering force in Russian politics or even in
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
overall security policy-making. Its attempts at playing a political role have been
inept. During Putin’s term as president, the military has instead been forced to
accept that some of the top positions inside the Ministry of Defence were taken
over by former security service officials. The defence budget may have increased
nominally but remains at the same level of GDP not least since all increases are
eaten away by inflation. Meanwhile, other power ministries have managed to
move forward their positions at the expense of the military.83 The war in Georgia
did not change the position of the military in this respect to the better and as the
reality of the economic crisis hit Russia in late 2008 and early 2009, even the
limited increased funding promised was put in question. In spite of Medvedev’s
assurances that procurement would continue according to plan, the question
remains where the money would come from at a time when the Russian budget is
coming under increasing pressure as a result of falling oil prices and crumbling
domestic industries that need and receive state support to survive.
Nor did the boost of morale that the war initially signified for the armed forces
result in an increased willingness of Russian youth to serve in its ranks.
The Ministry of Defence continued to have problems convincing young Russian
men that the military was a promising career. In part, this was due to the fact that
society had changed and that there were a number of more luring opportunities
around. A talented young man could receive many times the salary in private
business compared to what the armed forces were able to offer. The fact that
servicemen are restricted when it comes to travelling abroad also reduced the
attractiveness of the military profession, as did the tarnished reputation of the
profession due to the accident prone nature of the service as well as the frequent
reports of hazing and exploiting of conscripts and contract soldiers by
commanding officers for personal financial gain. The main reason, however,
is probably to be found in the fact that Russian soldiers, whether conscripts or
contract soldiers, more or less lose their human rights when they enter service.
Many soldiers find themselves humiliated and deprived of basic comforts while
discovering that violence is used routinely to instil discipline. Even in South
Ossetia in late 2008, Russian soldiers taking part in what surely must be a
prioritised military activity for Russia complained of squalid conditions.84
Small Wars & Insurgencies 417
The controversial desertion of Aleksandr Glukhov reinforced the impression that
soldiers still had to suffer hardships while serving in the Russian military.
Russian authorities claimed initially that Glukhov had been captured and
pressured into discrediting the Russian army, while Tbilisi maintained that he had
surrendered himself to Georgian police voluntarily because of being beaten by
the major in his unit.85 Later, Russia acknowledged that Glukhov had indeed left
his unit voluntarily and pressed charges for desertion, while Georgia granted
Glukhov refugee status.86
If Russia’s military is less than successful in pressing its agenda upon the rest
of society – short of symbolic displays of unity when military victories and
history is used to infuse society with patriotism – the political leadership has
proved unable to make sure its decisions are transformed into practical action
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Vasily Zatsepin, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for the
Economy in Transition, for providing perceptive comments and advice on a draft of this
article. Needless to say, any errors or transgressions that remain are solely the
responsibility of the authors.
Notes
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
Bibliography
Allison, Roy. ‘Russia resurgent? Moscow’s campaign to “coerce Georgia to peace”’.
International Affairs 84, no. 6 (2008): 1145– 71.
Aminov, Said. ‘Georgia’s Air Defense in the War with South Ossetia’. Moscow Defence
Brief, no. 3(13), 2008. http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3 – 2008/item3/article3/. (Accessed
2 October 2008).
Arbatov, Alexei G. ‘Military reform: From crisis to stagnation’. In The Russian Military
Power: Power and Policy, ed. Steven E. Miller and Dmitri Trenin. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2004, 95 – 119.
Babchenko, Arkady. ‘Gruziia-200’ [Georgia-200]. Novaya Gazeta, 13 August 2008. http://
novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/59/00.html. (Accessed 18 August 2008).
Baev, Pavel K. ‘Russian “Tandemocracy” Stumbles into a War’. Eurasia Daily Monitor
5, no. 153, 11 August 2008. http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id¼
2373302. (Accessed 15 August, 2008).
Baranets, Viktor. ‘Armiia shla na voinu v starykh latakh’ [The Army Went to War in
Rags]. Komsomolskaia pravda, 26 August 2008. http://www.kp.ru/daily/24152/
368191/. (Accessed 29 August 2008).
422 C. Vendil Pallin and F. Westerlund
Baranov, Mikhail. ‘The August War between Russia and Georgia’. Moscow Defence Brief,
no. 3(13), 2008. http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3– 2008/item3/article1/. (Accessed 2 October
2008).
Bladel, Joris van. ‘The All-Volunteer Force in the Russian Mirror: Transformation without
Change’. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversitet Groningen, June 2004.
Borisov, Timofeev. ‘Boi vtemnuiu’ [Battle in the dark]. Rossiiskaia Gazeta, 27 August
2008. http://www.rg.ru/2008/08/27/a255325.html. (Accessed 14 October 2008).
Bozheva, Olga. ‘Ravniais! SMI . . . Otstavit!’ [Right dress! Media . . . Dismissed!].
Moskovskii Komsomolets, 11 September 2008. http://www.mk.ru/blogs/MK/2008/09/
11/politics/370250. (Accessed 14 October 2008).
CAST, The Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. ‘Preliminary Results of
Russia’s Arms Trade in 2007’. Moscow Defence Brief, no. 4(10), 2007. http://mdb.
cast.ru/mdb/4-2007/item_3/article_2/. (Accessed 5 March 2008).
Cimbala, Stephen C., and Peter Jacob Rainow. Russia and Postmodern Deterrence: Military
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
Power and Its Challenges to Security. Washington DC: Potomac Books, 2007.
Cooper, Julian. ‘Military expenditure in the three-year federal budget of the Russian
Federation 2008– 10’. SIPRI Research Working Paper, October 2007. http://www.
sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/publications/unpublished.html. (Accessed 9 February
2009).
Felgenhauer, Pavel. ‘It Was No Spontaneous, But Planned War’. Novaya Gazeta,
18 August 2008. http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/59/01.html. (Accessed
25 August 2008).
Felgenhauer, Pavel. ‘Russian Railroad Troops Complete Mission in Abkhazia’. Eurasia
Daily Monitor 5, no. 146, 31 July 2008. http://jamestown.org/edm/article.
php?article_id¼2373276. (Accessed 15 August 2008).
Fishel, John T. ‘Little Wars, Small Wars, LIC, OOTW, The GAP, and Things That Go
Bump in the Night’. Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcemen 4, no. 3 (Winter
1995): 372– 98.
Frolov, Andrei. ‘Ispolnenie gosudarstvennogo oboronnogo zakaza Rossii v 2007 godu’
[The realization of Russia’s State Defence Order in 2007]. Eksport Vooruzhenii, no. 2
(March – April 2008).
Ginor, Isabella, and Gideon Remez. Foxbats over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble
in the Six-Day War. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007.
Herspring, Dale. ‘Russian Military Reform and Anatoly Serdiukov’. Problems of Post-
Communism 55, no. 6 (Nov/Dec 2008): 20– 32.
Herspring, Dale R. ‘Russia’s Military in the Throes of Change’. Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, 16 December 2008. http://www.rferl.org/content/Russias_Military_In_The_
Throes_Of_Change/1360375.html (19 December 2008).
IISS. ‘Russia’s rapid reaction’. IISS Strategic Comments 14, no. 7 (September 2008),
Georgia crisis special issue.
Kedrov, Ilia. ‘Voina na Kavkazskogo khrebta’ [War on the Caucasus Ridge]. Voenno-
promyshlennyi kurer, no. 33, 20 – 26 August 2008. http://www.vpk-news.ru/article.
asp?pr_sign¼archive.2008.249.articles.army_02. (Accessed 27 August 2008).
Khramchikhin, Aleksandr. ‘Uroki ratnykh uspekhov i neudach’ [Lessons from successes
and failures]. Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie, 22 August 2008. http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/
2008-08-22/1_uroki.html. (Accessed 22 August 2008).
Kiselev, Valerii A. ‘Distantsionnoe protivoborstvo’ [Far distance warfare]. Voennaia mysl,
no. 5 (2008): 77 – 84.
Klein, Margarete. ‘Military implications of Georgia war: Russian Armed Forces in need of
reform’. In The Caucasus Crisis: International Perceptions and Policy Implications
for Germany and Europe, ed. Hans-Henning Schröder. Berlin: SWP Research Paper,
RP 9, November 2008, pp. 12– 18.
Small Wars & Insurgencies 423
Konovalov, Ivan. ‘Perestroiku armii provedut bez glasnosti’ [Army restructuring is carried
out without transparency]. Kommersant, 29 November 2008. http://www.kommersant.
ru/doc.aspx?DocsID¼1085793. (Accessed 3 December 2008).
Litovkin, Viktor. ‘General Shamanov tratit milliardy’ [General Shamanov spends
billions]. Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie, 8 February 2008. http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/
2008-02-08/1_shamanov.html. (Accessed 25 February 2008).
Litovkin, Viktor. ‘Genshtab informiruet zagranitsu’ [The General Staff informs the abroad].
Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie, no. 46 (26 December – 15 January 2008/2009), 1, 4.
Lukanin, Mikhail. ‘Tsena pobedy’ [The price of victory]. Trud, 18 August 2008. http://
www.trud.ru/issue/article.php?id¼ 200808181520301. (Accessed 10 September
2008).
Menkiszak, Marek. ‘Russian Invasion of Georgia, Developments, Objectives and
Consequences’. EastWeek Analytical Newsletter 26, no. 135 (20 August 2008).
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. ‘Novosti’, 29 January 2009. http://www.
Downloaded At: 14:14 27 August 2010
Solovev, Vadim. ‘Voennaia reforma 2009–2012 godov’ [Military Reform 2009– 2012].
Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie, 12 December 2008. http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/
2008-12-12/1_reform.html. (Accessed 19 December 2008).
Svechin, Aleksandr A. Strategy. Minneapolis, Minnesota: East View Publications, 1997.
(First printed in 1992, Russian 2nd ed. published in 1927).
Tikhonov, Aleksandr. ‘“Kavkaz-2008”: zaslon terroru’ [‘Caucasus-2008’: terror
protection]. Kraznaia Zvezda, 17 July 2008. http://www.redstar.ru/2008/07/17_07/
1_01.html. (Accessed 17 July 2008).
Tikhonov, Aleksandr. ‘Protivoborstvo v diapazonakh chastot’ [Combat in the frequency
fields]. Kraznaia Zvezda, 15 April 2008. http://www.redstar.ru/2008/04/15_04/1_03.
html. (Accessed 18 April 2008).
Trenin, Dmitri. ‘Moscow the Muscular: The Loneliness of an Aspiring Power Centre’.
Carnegie Moscow Center Briefing Paper 11, no. 1 (2009). http://www.carnegie.ru/en/
pubs/briefings/80284.htm. (Accessed 9 February 2009).
Tsyganok, Anatolii. ‘Uroki piatidnevnoi voiny v Zakavkaze’ [Lessons of the Five-Day
War in the Southern Caucasus]. Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie, no. 30 (29 August –
4 September 2008), 1, 3. Also available at http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2008-08-29/1_uroki.
html. (Accessed, 29 August 2008).
Vendil Pallin, Carolina. ‘The Role of the Military in Russian Foreign Policy’.
The EU-Russia Centre Review: Russian Foreign Policy, no. 8 (October 2008):
111 – 18. http://www.eu-russiacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/review_viii_
final_13_10.pdf.
Vendil Pallin, Carolina. ‘Russia and its military: between reform and modernization’.
In Russia – Strategic Yearbook 2008. Stockholm: Swedish National Defence College,
2009. To be published.
Vendil Pallin, Carolina. Russian Military Reform: A Failed Exercise in Defence Decision
Making. London: Routledge, 2009.