[Includes 12 maps and 4 tables] In recent years, the U.S. Army has paid increasing attention to the conduct of unconventional warfare. However, the base of historical experience available for study has been largely American and overwhelmingly Western. In Russian-Soviet Unconventional Wars in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Afghanistan, Dr. Robert F. Baumann makes a significant contribution to the expansion of that base with a well-researched analysis of four important episodes from the Russian-Soviet experience with unconventional wars. Primarily employing Russian sources, including important archival documents only recently declassified and made available to Western scholars, Dr. Baumann provides an insightful look at the Russian conquest of the Caucasian mountaineers (1801-59), the subjugation of Central Asia (1839-81), the reconquest of Central Asia by the Red Army (1918-33), and the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-89). The history of these wars—especially as it relates to the battle tactics, force structure, and strategy employed in them—offers important new perspectives on elements of continuity and change in combat over two centuries. This is the first study to provide an in-depth examination of the evolution of the Russian and Soviet unconventional experience on the predominantly Muslim southern periphery of the former empire. There, the Russians encountered fierce resistance by peoples whose cultures and views of war differed sharply from their own. Consequently, this Leavenworth Paper addresses not only issues germane to combat but to a wide spectrum of civic and propaganda operations as well.

This paper looks at the Russian conquest of the Caucasian mountaineers (1801-59), the subjugation of Central Asia (1831-81), the reconquest of Central Asia by the Red Army (1918-33), and the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-89). The history of these wars - especially as it related to the battle tactics, force structure, and strategy employed in them - offers important new perspectives on elements of continuity and change in combat over two centuries. This study provides an in-depth examination of the evolution of the Russian and Soviet unconventional experience on the predominantly Muslim southern periphery of the former empire. There, the Russians encountered fierce resistance by peoples whose cultures and views of war differed sharply from their own.

This study covers four episodes that provide useful perspectives on the nature of unconventional warfare, the adaptability of modern military institutions, the character of cross-cultural conflict, and the dilemas inhernet in the creation and maintenance of an empire.

This study covers four episodes that provide useful perspectives on the nature of unconventional warfare, the adaptability of modern military institutions, the character of cross-cultural conflict, and the dilemmas inherent in the creation and maintenance of an empire. The Soviet Union's agonizing decade-long struggle against a fiercely determined Mujahideen resistance in Afghanistan offers.a compelling illustration of the perils which can await a modern power that commits conventional forces against an unconventional foe in an undeveloped theater. That the Soviets embarked on such a rash course in 1979 is especially striking in light of the American experience in Vietnam just a few years earlier and Russia's long historical involvement fighting Muslim tribesmen in the Caucasus and Central Asia. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Imperial Russia attempted to impose its authority on the Caucasus only to become embroiled in a protracted and brutal war against the mountain tribes of Dagestan. A charismatic leader, Shamil, emerged to harness the power of a formidable resistance that nearly foiled the Russian plan of conquest, which was fulfilled only after decades of destructive and costly campaigning. Following the collapse of opposition in Dagestan in 1859, the Russians concentrated on the conquest of Central Asia as far as the Afghan and Persian frontiers. Here, vast steppes and deserts-formidable obstacles standing between Russia and the remote khanates-eventually yielded to the determination and methodical preparation of key Russian commanders. Established by a series of major campaigns from the 1850s to the 1880s, Russian rule in Central Asia remained stable until the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917. With the collapse of imperial power, however, the empire dissolved. Efforts to impose Red rule over the former imperial possessions in Central Asia sparked popular resistance among the Muslim tribes and required massive intervention by the Red Army. The four episodes considered in this study provide useful perspectives on the nature of unconventional warfare, the adaptability of modern military institutions, the character of cross-cultural conflict, and the dilemmas inherent in the creation and maintenance of an empire.

Includes 3 maps and more than 10 illustrations The preponderance of conflicts fought over the last seventy years have included or been centered on irregular warfare and counter-insurgency. Indeed, the helicopter’s first significant trials in combat took place during the Algerian War 1954-1962, the Vietnam War 1955-1975, and the Soviet-Afghan War 1979-1989. During these wars, French, U.S., and Soviet militaries used significant numbers of helicopters to fight insurgents and guerrillas, and each country lost their respective conflict. As conventional organizations, these militaries used helicopters to seek military dominance, often blind to or in spite of politico-strategic goals like legitimacy. The helicopter’s firepower and mobility tactically decimated insurgents, but the nature of irregular warfare rendered tactical dominance indecisive. Helicopters were indecisive or bad at enabling legitimacy, population control, and isolation, key tenets of successful COIN. Convinced that helicopter enabled military dominance could win, the French, U.S., and Soviet militaries were unable to balance the pursuit of military and politically objectives. Airmobility distracted leaders from focusing on the political aspects of counter-insurgency.