Ms Alishbah Syed is pursuing her Bachelor's degree in International Relations from University of Peshawar.
What is Maskirovka?
Beginning in the 14th century, maskirovka, a Russian military strategy of deception, has come a long way from simple battlefield surprises to global-level application, influencing world events and perceptions to Russia’s advantage.
Maskirovka is directly translated from Russian to English as a ‘disguise or camouflage’, but the rich cultural and historical background surrounding the word allows it to be anything but a simple camouflage. Maskirovka is a Russian military doctrine of deception, but this ‘deception’ word carries a heavy weight of what Russia believes to be the limits of its deception.
This can be best understood by the 1944 Soviet Military Encyclopedia referring to maskirovka as, “A means of securing combat operations and the daily activities of forces; a complexity of measures, directed to mislead the enemy regarding the presence and disposition of forces, various military objectives, their condition, combat readiness and operations, and also the plans of the command… maskirovka contributes to the achievement of surprise for the action of forces, the preservation of combat readiness, and the increased survivability of objectives.”
The meaning further evolved into strategic, political, and diplomatic spheres operating on all levels of war (tactical, operational, and strategic). For the Soviets, deception is present at all levels of war, and since war is merely an extension to politics by other means, deception could and should be used in addition to being considered in politics regardless of it being war time or peace time to avail the full advantages of deception. These sentiments obviously transferred to the Soviet Union’s successor, Russia.
A simpler but broader description of what maskirovka entails is by Sun Tzu’s teachings, way before the conception of Maskirovka doctrine, which openly elevated deception tactics: “Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
The denial and deflection of responsibility from Russia on events like the trending of the Russia-backed theory of #Syriahoax during the chemical attack in Syria in 2017; blaming the murder of a Russian spy in the UK in 2018 on others by denying the distribution of the Russian poison; and denying any control over the mercenary Wagner group’s activities in Africa. More of these include the sudden annexation of Crimea in 2014 with the ‘little green men’ that Russia claimed were merely devout patriots wearing military uniforms. All these actions point toward Russia’s tactic of maskirovka, which is now more relevant than ever.
Maskirovka’s Internal Workings
Maskirovka effectively functions on four principles: activity, conviction/plausibility, continuity, and variety. Activity dictates that there should be persistence in deception. It should be consistent and stay alive for a long time for the credibility of the ‘truth’. The second principle, plausibility, dictates that deception that makes no sense or is odd will likely not be believed by the enemy.
The third principle, continuity, calls for the continuous application of deception. If you want your deceptions to succeed, then long-term commitment is required. The final principle, variety, places emphasis on the fact that people recognize pattern. Deceptions should have freshness and creativity from operation to operation if you want to avoid the enemy catching on to your tricks.
Four components of maskirovka are relevant to this article: concealment, feints/demonstration, simulation, and disinformation. Concealment is the low chance of detection and covering up friendly information from enemies. Feints/demonstrations are the intentional display of troop units and equipment to give the enemy a false picture of the unit’s true intentions.
Simulation is the creation of false objects that appear to be real, whereas disinformation is the intentional dissemination of false information to create a false perception through which an enemy can be misled.
Maskirovka’s Intimate Relation To Surprise
Despite what is being said about maskirovka evolving out of the ‘surprise tactics’ of military offensives and moving towards defensive maneuvers, creating ambiguity and controlling the responses, an element of surprise is still mostly underlining these actions. Deception often entails gaining surprise whether as a way to get decisive gains in the initial periods of conflict/war (direct) or as a way to keep enemies in the dark till the final grand reveal when it is too late for changes; or damaging the credibility, psychology and will to fight off the victim (indirect).
The use of deception is well recorded in history and so is the element of surprise complementing it. In a declassified 1972 seminar by the United States (US) Joint Chief of Staff on intelligence warning function, a paper was presented on deception and surprise. The element of surprise was analyzed in 168 battles in 17 wars from 1914 through 1968, and impressive statistics on the success rate of deception were presented. Out of 50 battles in which intense surprise was achieved, 17 far exceeded the objectives of the initiators and only one ended in defeat.
Conversely, out of the 50 battles fought without the advantage of initial surprise, 30 ended in defeat for the initiators and only one substantially exceeded the attacking commander’s expectations. With 82% of all cases of strategic surprise and 57% of tactical surprises attributed to deception, the paper summarized that the greater the effort put into the deception plan, the greater the degree of surprise gained. With such statistics, the role of surprise in deception is evident.
First Three Paradoxes of Handel
Michael Handel considers deception a normal part of warfare, supporting the ancient Chinese military thinking that “all warfare is based on deception”. This brings us to the first three paradoxes of Handel’s inevitability of surprise. Through these paradoxes, I will attempt to explain the general relevancy of surprise in the Russian strategy maskirovka.
First Paradox
“As a result of the great difficulties in differentiating between ‘signals’ and ‘noise’ in strategic warning, both valid and invalid information must be treated on a similar basis. In effect, all that exists is noise, not signals.” The ‘signals’ are what is true and the ‘noise’ is what is false. Secrecy creates problems for the intelligence community to accurately understand and predict the actions, capabilities, and intentions of the actor. Due to the unreliability of control over the signal-to-noise ratio, surprise is the natural outcome on the basis of which the actor can catch one off guard.
Second Paradox
“The greater the risk, the less likely it seems, and the less risky it becomes. In fact, the greater the risk, the smaller it becomes.” Risk-acceptant and risk-aversive behaviors come into play for this. When you are in the domain of winning, you’ll be risk-aversive. When you are in the domain of losing, you’ll be risk-acceptant.
The underlying meaning of the paradox is that since an action is not to be expected, the risks involved in doing it would be considerably less. This is because the defenses around those risks, both psychological and physical, will be less due to which a surprise opening is provided.
Third Paradox
“The sounds of silence. A quiet international environment can act as background noise which, by conditioning observers to a peaceful routine, covers the preparation of war.” Handel mentions how both peaceful and chaotic international environments can create confusion, distractions, and smokescreen for actors to make moves without alerting others.
All these propositions present in the three of Handel’s paradoxes are included in maskirovka. The components of maskirovka mentioned above (concealment, feints, simulation, and disinformation) are geared towards creating ambiguity and misunderstanding regarding what is false (noise) and what is true (signal).
Maskirovka tends to have risk-acceptant behaviors, as taking an unexpected risk generates an off-balancing effect on defenses (both physical and psychological) and morale. David Glantz mentions that if deception is to work, it has to begin its planning even in peaceful times. Since maskirovka can be connected to the three paradoxes, it can also be connected to the underlying topic of the paradoxes: the element of surprise.
Surprise is a force multiplier that increases the effectiveness of any action against an unsuspecting target. A target that would be otherwise difficult to deal with if it was alert and determined. So whether it is a direct or an indirect surprise, it is still an integral part of maskirovka in the current times.
Maskirovka in the Age of Information
According to David Glantz in 1987, “More easily understood is the effect that changing technology has on prospects of using maskirovka. It is in this area that the potential effects of maskirovka’s future use have been most pronounced.” Using maskirovka, Russian generals used the local terrain of the battlefield for deception against the enemy during hostile times. Components like concealment, feints/demonstration, and simulation were important and popular. Disinformation was also important but did not garner the same level of investment as the other three.
One of the most dramatic changes was the creation of a new battlefield, a ‘digital battlefield’. In this age of information, the maskirovka’s component of disinformation has taken center stage. Russia is actively taking advantage of the connectivity that globalization has brought about; controlling narratives, and initiating trade and interdependence with countries far beyond the limits of its geography.
According to Julian Lindley-French in 2015 after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, “Moscow has established a new level of ambition – strategic Maskirovka – by which disinformation is applied against all levels of NATO’s command chain and wider public opinion to keep the West politically and militarily off-balance. Indeed, whilst Eastern Europe is the focus of the conflict, Moscow is clearly attempting to force the NATO Allies to consider simultaneous challenges on several fronts, specifically the High North, the Middle East, and the Pacific. Indeed, in spite of the understandable focus on Ukraine’s tragedy, President Putin’s challenge is truly grand strategic and spans four dimensions: conventional warfare, hybrid or non-linear warfare, nuclear strategy, and geographical reach.” The general message of these words is prophetic, something that can be applied even now in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, we can understand that maskirovka is a Russian concept and art form of deception during wartime. Although experts have argued that maskirovka has evolved past the concealment tactics generating the element of surprise and has moved to more advanced methods, surprise is still a relevant part of the strategy. Despite all the advances in military tactics and technologies, maskirovka is still a relevant part of Russian military strategy and is clearly still in use as seen in the Russia-Ukraine war and its engagement with NATO.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
