Evolution of Soviet Military Doctrine: Pre-Gulf War Era (1990-91)

Immediate Pre-Gulf War Era (1990-91)

This period marked the

• end of communism, 
• the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, 
• the dissolution of the Soviet Republic,
• the rise of Yeltsin, and 
• formation of the Russian Federation. 

Gorbachev announced unilateral force reductions in Europe in 1989. The Soviet military began a move toward professionalism versus conscription. Force development began to focus on qualitative factors rather than quantitative ones. The political factions reassessed the military threat from the West after force reductions and declared them less threatening. The Soviets doctrinal evolution plate was overflowing.

The central theme of doctrine evolution during this period was how to make "defensive doctrine" and "reasonable sufficiency" work after military restructuring. According to Lester Grau of the Foreign Military Studies Office, many indicators show the declaration of a defensive doctrine was 

"a purely political decision made for economic and political purposes and imposed on the military with little regard for the military logic of that doctrine." 

He points out that Soviet professional books and journal articles after the new doctrine declaration continued to reflect the Soviet military's conservative approach to operational art. Suddenly, the Soviets found themselves on a trip down the Yellow Brick Road, where perceptions and reality would come into sharp conflict.

The Soviet's view of the future battlefield emphasized nonlinearity. Their fielding systems optimized for deep battle peaked just before Gorbachev became General Secretary. New U.S. and NATO systems were clearly a generation ahead of those of the Soviets. The role of precision-guided munitions and electronic warfare had added a great combat additive to NATO forces. The Soviets were clearly behind; however, they did not intend simply to mirror image NATO's reliance on technology as a force multiplier. Soviet military professionals asserted they,

"will not follow in the wake of the probable enemy and copy his weapons and employment concepts  rather it intends to seek asymmetrical solutions, combining high combat effectiveness with economic efficiency." 

The Soviet forces "are to become equipped with the latest in science and technology and become increasingly more flexible, cohesive, and mobile." 

The revamped force structure was compact and ready, and easily expandable by an enhanced mobilization base. Finally, the restructured force relied on "fully automated command, control, communications infrastructure to facilitate mission execution. The Soviets hoped the synergy produced by these force structure factors would amount to an order of magnitude increase in combat effectiveness.

The Soviet's vision of the future battlefield was of a high intensity, dynamic, high tempo, air-land operation extending over vast land area and space. It orchestrated positional elements, preplanned fires, maneuverable fire elements, counterattack forces, and counterstrike forces. Maneuver defense using security zones and covering forces provided operational and tactical depth to the defense. Maneuver and counter-maneuver forces ensured the defense was viable and created conditions favorable to a counteroffensive. Tempo allowed the Soviets to use tactical units to counterattack into the operational depth of the enemy during operational/strategic counteroffensives.

An interesting characteristic of this doctrine is common to all Soviet military doctrine. The defense creates a favorable condition to culminate in an offensive. In this regard, the forces allotted to the defense were secondary to that of the counteroffensive and operational reserves exploited the counteroffensive. More than just blunting an attack, the defense became the means to seize the initiative from the aggressor. It also created the conditions that would ultimately lead to defeating the enemy. Key to seizing initiative is counterstrike and preemption. Although this period became one of how to apply "defensive doctrine," it is interesting that maintaining offensive capability was the essence of this defensive doctrine. The forces necessary to carry out this doctrine become very similar to those contained in the Brezhnev military doctrine. The primary difference was a smaller, faster, more concentrated force structure. One can, therefore, view the ideas of "strategic defensive" and counteroffensive as the same doctrinal concept.

May 9, 2016, photo, Russian soldiers march during the Victory Day military
 the parade marking 71 years after the victory in WWII in Red Square in Moscow, Russia

Throughout its evolution, Russian military doctrine took on certain primary characteristics. It took many forms and descriptions. But in looking at the doctrine closely, we see a persistent and recurrent theme involving offensive action. One can build a stereotype of the general characteristics of this doctrine. As the air phase of the Gulf War began in January 1991, this is the doctrinal template the Russians applied. It was the comparative paradigm they applied to measure Western military performance against their forty-year-old ideas about the nature of future war. It was this stereotypical doctrinal idea they used to "click their heels together" to carry their offensive force structure wherever they wished their military strategy to go.

Soviet Military Doctrine : Under Gorbachev

Gorbachev's Era (1983-89)
This era saw perhaps the most sweeping changes in Soviet military doctrine. In the early part of this period, the doctrine changed very little from what it had been under Brezhnev. In the mid-1980s, Gorbachev's perestroika (restructuring) markedly accelerated changes in military doctrine. An emphasis on the strategic defense, rather than preemptive offensive conventional strikes, marked the doctrine emerging from this period.
Many factors drove changes to this "defensive" military doctrine. That change in the doctrine was inevitable in the comments of then Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, regarding the connection between domestic and foreign events:

"The achievements of our foreign policy would be much more impressive if we could assure greater internal stability. The numerous misfortunes that have befallen our country recently, the critical situation in the economy, the state of ethnic relations and natural calamities are reducing the chances of success in our foreign policy. The policy of reform thanks to which our country has restored its good name is undoubtedly giving rise in the world to a feeling of compassion and a desire and readiness to help us. But it should be frankly said that if our domestic troubles are multiplied by conservatism and ill will, intolerance and selfishness and clinging to dogmatic principles of the past, it will be more and more difficult for us to uphold the cause of peace, reduce tensions, fight for broader and irreversible disarmament, and integrate our country into the world system. That is why our diplomats are not living with their heads in the clouds. Their thoughts are turned to the harsh realities of our domestic life."

Military planners and politicians firmly believed that escalation to a nuclear war would destroy the Soviet state. They saw that their previous preemptive doctrine created a deadly paradox. Rapid conventional success against NATO on any axis might accelerate NATOs decision to nuclear first use exactly what preemption was trying to preclude. Thus, the previous Soviet strategic concept contained the seeds of its own destruction. Secondly, in the 1970s and early 1980s, NATO leaders perceived the Soviet buildup as threatening and destabilizing. As such, NATO responded with deliberate political and military measures. The resultant NATO buildup in technologically superior forces, and the political will for rapid reinforcement, decreased the Soviets likelihood to win a conventional war in the initial period. Additionally, the NATO buildup forced the Soviets to ensure their industry and technology kept up with the NATO response. The result was a draining military competition with the civilian economy that economically and technologically drained the Soviets. The maintenance of a military capability to carry out a preemptive doctrine was a burden the Soviet economy could not endure. Third, the economic drain exerted indirect costs. The Soviets became politically and economically isolated from the most advanced countries of the world that they needed to enhance technology and hard cash transfers. The direct costs imposed by the military demands for the workforce, material, and technology exacerbated the Soviets decline on the world's stage. Finally, the Soviet Union's internal politics were in turmoil during this period. The impact of Marxist-Leninist ideology virtually disappeared from the formation of military doctrine. The Soviets put their view of others on a "back burner" as they concentrated on their view of themselves.

In 1985, the Soviet political leadership redefined the military doctrine to support the pressing political, economic, and societal concerns. Under the new doctrine, the conduct of the defensive operation was a precursor to the preparation of strong conventional counterstrikes, followed by a concentrated counteroffensive. The military strategists presented the defensive phase as a temporary measure to buy time in the initial period of a conflict. The Soviets would use this time to mobilize, reinforce and move rear echelons forward for the counteroffensive. The official presentation of the new doctrine focused almost exclusively on the initial period of the defense, with little said about the counterstrike and counteroffensive periods. The doctrine shifted away from the aggressive nature of the Brezhnev years. In its place was a so-called "defensive doctrine," with the weapons associated with it being of "reasonable sufficiency." The new doctrine led to the Soviet military developing plans to conduct a more prolonged initial defense.

Within the new military doctrine; however, was the provision to switch, perhaps suddenly, from the general strategic defensive to a counteroffensive. The transition to the counteroffensive marked the end of the initial period of war. This required that the strategic defensive must make up an "intentional positional defense by Soviet armies and fronts to exhaust and halt the maneuver component of an attacker's strike force." To achieve a sufficient correlation of force for the counteroffensive to succeed, the Soviets needed more forces beyond those prescribed in the new defensive doctrine. This put a premium on the mobilization of strategic reserves and forward movement of follow-on echelons. Once forces from the strategic reserve moved forward, they would exploit the success achieved by the early front counterstrikes. Without fire superiority, the surprise, maneuver, and decisiveness of the counterstrike were impossible. Enemy deep fire systems and reconnaissance had to be destroyed, mostly by air, so that the maneuver forces had freedom of action.

The new doctrine, therefore, emphasized the importance of the initial period of war. The new doctrine mandated answering a NATO attack with a "devastating rebuff." The doctrine was unclear whether this "rebuff" was limited to a counteroffensive only, or might be expanded to a full-scale strategic offensive operation. In 1987, Defense Minister Yazov called for a decisive offensive to follow a counteroffensive. By late 1989, when the new military doctrine emerged, he said, "Until recently, we planned to repel aggressions with defensive and offensive operations. Now, however, we are planning defensive operations as the basic form of our combat action."

Central to this new "defensive doctrine," however was a concept of military art prevalent throughout all Soviet military doctrine evolution. Victory only came by defeating the enemy, and the offense was the mode of operation that defeated the enemy. The Soviet military said little publicly on issues related to the debate over the counteroffensive. Hines and Mahoney feel the military's reticence may have stemmed from the atmosphere of uncertainty and fluidity characterizing Soviet military affairs after the December 1988 announcement of unilateral force reductions. Michael M. Boll asserts that the "Warsaw Pact continued to exercise with simulated nuclear weapons in sharp contrast to the doctrines reorientation emphasizing defensive preparation. He argues it is likely that the Soviets announced defensive position was more "in the realm of intent  than to an immediate reform." The General Staff was probably trying to forego any further policy surprises and were pursuing a course of flexibility and prudence. Officially, they embraced the defensive; but, in their minds, they continued an offensive spirit.

Soviet Military Doctrine : Under Brezhnev

Brezhnev's Era (1964-82)
Only minor changes in thought regarding the nature of future war occurred under Brezhnev. Given the massive nuclear capabilities on both sides, military doctrine during this era reflected a belief that conflict would eventually involve large-scale exchanges of nuclear weapons. Conventional options and the concept of strategic operations within the Western TVD opposite NATO became dominant.
Central to this doctrine was the belief that a Warsaw Pact strategic conventional offensive could preemptively deny NATO any incentive to initiate a nuclear war. Success depended on

1. attaining early air superiority 
2. timely and discrete cooperation among the Warsaw Pact allies and 
3. strategic surprise.

The primary doctrinal change was the reemergence of conventional operations in a major war. The new doctrine postulated an initial conventional phase at the start of a war. If a balance of forces existing between both sides, the initial conventional phase might last quite a long time. Given that the enemy might strike with nuclear weapons first, the initial conventional phase took on very specific characteristics. Time was the "coin of the realm." Friendly forces needed to destroy the enemy's advance defense lines and the enemy's tactical nuclear weapons quickly. The initial conventional strikes had to seize as many enemies critical targets as possible to disrupt the enemy's defensive position.

As in the Khrushchev era, doctrine continued to emphasize surprise, especially its strategic value. The most dangerous, and likely scenario to start a war, was a surprise attack by the enemy. Given scenarios based on speed and surprise, it is logical that the doctrine insisted on the primacy of the offense. An external international effect influencing doctrine was the Soviet Unions achieving nuclear parity with the United States. For the first time, the Soviets possessed a credible nuclear offensive capability to deter nuclear escalation. In the international political arena, Soviet tensions eased with other countries. As the Soviet economy began to expand domestically, they could field the forces necessary to carry out the military doctrine they espoused.

Perhaps two of the most important factors influencing military doctrine was the influence of foreign military doctrines and changes in the nature of the Soviet political system. In 1961, the United States moved away from an exclusive nuclear response (massive retaliation), to selective nuclear options (flexible response). Thus, conventional operations became more interesting to Soviet planners. The historical significance of the USSR being involved in two major world wars on the continent continued to influence military doctrines reliance on large conventional forces. More importantly, the internal political apparatus under Brezhnev became more conservative, pluralist, and bureaucratic in decision-making. The military, KGB, and heavy and light industry all received representation on the Politburo. As a result, significant real appropriations increased for each of these sectors each year. In this context, a change in military doctrine to one emphasizing a conventional option enhanced the role of the ground forces and again made them "a more integral and legitimate actor in the decision-making process."

Soviet Military Doctrine : Under Khrushchev

Khrushchev's Era (1954-64)
Freed from the stupefying control of Stalin, military doctrine changed significantly under Khrushchev. The major doctrinal trend was to adopt the new nuclear weapons, missile technology, and means of conflict to the old views and concepts of future war. Khrushchev dropped the idea of the inevitability of war between socialism and capitalism. He did not see war as a protracted affair between massed conventional ground forces in Europe. 

Instead, the war would result from the inevitable escalation of a small conventional war into a nuclear one. Short, intense, massive exchange of nuclear weapons delivered by rockets and aircraft dominated this view of war. Because of this outlook, Khrushchev downgraded and partially demobilized ground forces and tactical air forces. Conventional options were rendered obsolescent, and the Strategic Rocket Forces emerged as preeminent receiving the lions share of the Soviet defense budget.

The new doctrine connoted that enemy forces would be dealt a nuclear strike to weaken them, and then they would be attacked by tanks and mechanized forces at a high tempo. Nuclear weapons became the means of establishing favorable conditions for the rapid advance of the ground forces. With the defense weakened, the ground forces would break through, avoid a frontal assault on strong points, and carry out flexible maneuvers to deal decisive blows to the enemy's flanks and rear.

This view of the future battlefield led to the offense becoming the dominant form of battle to the Soviets. Such a doctrine accordingly emphasized the role of surprise. War was not likely to last long so the initial period would be the most important. Both sides would try to achieve the initiative at the start. This doctrine created a different set of contributions for airpower. Instead of being viewed as long-range artillery in support of the ground forces, it became a prime instrument to deliver the nuclear blows. Additionally, it was the force of choice preventing an enemy from delivering his nuclear response to the Soviet offense.

Other factors influenced doctrine evolution. The U. S. strategic nuclear superiority and cold war challenge led to the Soviet policy of preemption. On the domestic side, populist reforms and advances in technology emphasized modernity and international competition, especially with the United States. By not stressing the inevitability of idealistic war, the Marxist-Leninist dialectic had less impact on the military doctrine than under Stalin. The experience of World War II continued in its influence on doctrine; however, Soviets began to analyze the failures in the 1941-42 operations to prevent their recurrence.

Evolution of Soviet Military Doctrine: Under Stalin

Soviet military doctrine changed because of changes in the same complex interrelationships that formed it international political and military environments, foreign military doctrines, history, technology, ideology, and internal political, social moral, and economic constraints. The perceived strategic imbalance has been the prime motivator in the Soviets doctrinal evolution. 

Michael MccGwire notes:

"The Soviet military doctrine has evolved in response to what has been seen as a series of direct threats to the existence of the state; Nuclear testing aside, Soviet actions and the doctrines behind them must be seen as responses to the perceived threat posed by American decisions."

Military doctrine evolution in the former Soviet Union and Russia today, therefore represents an amalgam of many factors. The effect of the international political environment and an assessment of the probability of war, over time, forms the political component of doctrine. The evolution of Soviet military doctrine reflected foreign doctrines, especially that of Clausewitz and German "blitzkrieg." Past Soviet experience and history formed the Soviet perspective of the war. World War II, with its ten million Soviet deaths, had a profound effect. Internal political, economic, and social constraints, as well as the nature of Soviet decision making, greatly affected the nature of doctrine. Technological innovation also had a key role. The military doctrine of the former Soviet Union arose from the interaction of this multitude of often conflicting factors.

Post World War II Stalin's Era (1945-53)

The effect of World War II marks this period. The formative impact of the war led military doctrine to cast all future war in the mold of that experience protracted land war, with ground troops directly supported by tanks, artillery, and aircraft. Soviet leaders believed surprise attack would characterize this period. Although the war laid the foundation of military doctrine, there was a little critical examination of Soviet major failures in 1941 and 1942. Furthermore, Stalin placed great importance on atomic weapons and rocketry for the international prestige. Despite Stalin's xenophobic reaction to the West, the NATO military environment influenced Soviet military doctrine. U.S. superiority in strategic nuclear weapons and airpower prompted a Soviet emphasis on strong conventional forces and offensive counterattack into Europe from Soviet bases in Eastern Europe.

Shaping the military doctrine was also the international political environment and Marxist -Leninist ideology. The Soviets saw capitalism encircling them, with the United States as its superpower. Marxist idealism included the concept of the inevitable violent clash between capitalism and socialism. This shaped the objective constraints and historical experiences that reinforced the Soviets view of the world and their military doctrine. More than any other factor was the role played by the nature of the internal Soviet political system. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union became even more authoritarian. He elevated to doctrinal status those factors he believed were responsible for winning the war. Stalin ignored developments in conventional weapons, the role of surprise on the battlefield, foreign developments, and any failures the Soviets may have had during the German push to Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad. He regarded these all as irrelevant to victory.

If conventional warfare occurred, both defense and offense played major roles. The victory resulted from accumulating successful battles fought along slowly moving continuous Fronts. Frontal breakthroughs occurred by deliberating massing forces on a main axis of attack. Men, tanks, artillery, and aircraft were concentrated in the strike sectors for speed, firepower and shock to penetrate, envelop, and thrust into the enemy's rear areas. Combined arms, with preeminent ground forces in a European environment, was the primary vision of future war.

Soviet Military Doctrine

Definition
Military doctrine is the system of views that a state holds at a given time on the purpose and character of war, on the preparation of the country and the armed forces for it, and also on the methods of waging it. Military doctrine has two aspects: the political and the military-technical. The former sets out the political purposes and character of war and the way in which these affect the development of the armed forces and the preparation of the country for war. The military-technical aspect deals with the methods of waging war, an organization of the armed forces, their technical equipment, and combat readiness.


The Soviet concept of military doctrine cannot be properly understood without reference to the concepts of military science and military art. Military science is defined as the system of knowledge about the character and laws of war, the preparation of the armed forces and the country for war, and the methods of waging it. Military art is the theory and practice of preparing and conducting military operations, and thus embraces strategy, operational art, and tactics.

Sokolovsky, Soviet Military Strategy (1962):
One of the important position of Soviet military doctrine is that a world war, if unleashed by the imperialists, will inevitably assume the nature of a nuclear-rocket war, i.e., a war in which the main means of destruction will be nuclear weapons, while the main means of delivering them to the target will be rockets...
It should be emphasized that, with the international relations existing under present-day conditions and the present level of development of military equipment, any armed conflict will inevitably escalate into a general nuclear war if the nuclear powers are drawn into this conflict.
The logic of war is such that if a war is unleashed by the aggressive circle of the United States, it will ultimately be transferred to the territory of the United States of America. All weapons—ICBMs, missiles from submarines, and other strategic weapons—will be used in this military conflict. ..
In order to achieve these decisive political and military goals with which the socialist coalition will be confronted in a future war, it is not nearly enough to destroy the enemy’s means of nuclear attack, to defeat his main forces by nuclear-rocket attacks, and to disorganize the interior. For final victory in this clearly-expressed class war, it will be absolutely necessary to bring about the complete defeat of the enemy’s armed forces, to deprive him of strategic bridgeheads, to liquidate his military bases, and to seize strategically important regions. Moreover, we must not allow enemy ground armies, air, and naval landing forces to invade the territories of the socialist countries; we must hold these territories; the internal security of the socialist countries must be protected from subversive actions of the aggressor. All these and a number of other problems can be solved only by the Ground Troops in cooperation with the other services of the Armed Forces.

Georgi Arbatov:
Détente is not a continuation of Cold War by other, more cautious and safer, means. It is a policy that, by its nature and objectives, as opposed to Cold War, and is aimed not at gaining victory in conflicts by means short of nuclear war, but at the settlement and prevention of conflicts, at lowering the level of military confrontation, and at the development of international cooperation

Lenin :Guerrilla Warfare

Source: Marxist Internet Archive

Also Read: Guerrilla Warfare' s Meaning and Origin