THE NATO declaration formulated at its 75th anniversary session has effectively shut the door on any discussion about coming to terms with the collective West. NATO and the West, embodied by the “elite horizontal” of the deep state, have chosen the path of war.1 The option of a Cold War 2.0 has, for several years now, been considered by analysts in the US and the UK as an absolute priority and the most beneficial path for them.2, 3
The Struggle for a New 21st Century World Order: Historical Parallels
IT IS essential to understand that this deliberate policy of military confrontation is not merely the whim of certain political figures in the Western establishment. It is grounded in strategic directives outlined in the doctrinal documents of the US and its allies. For example, the US National Security Strategy and the UK Foreign Policy Strategy identify Russia as a key adversary.4, 5
Amid repeated statements by British leaders about the threat of a “major European war” on the continent and the need to prepare for it, on July 16, 2024, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office announced an update to the UK’s military doctrine. Notably, one of the three individuals appointed to oversee this document’s development – in addition to former UK defense secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson and former Joint Forces Commander and Deputy Chief of the Defense Staff General Barrons – is Fiona Hill, one of the most authoritative and frequently cited Western experts on Russia. This fact unambiguously signals the principal strategic threat on which the updated doctrine will focus. The prime minister stated that Russia poses a generational threat.6
Thus, for them, Russia is an enemy – a civilizational adversary, so fundamentally inimical that the prospect of its survival in any form is unacceptable. Given the West’s lack of realistic prospects for defeating Russia in a conventional kinetic clash, the primary attack should be expected on the hybrid front: sabotage, information and psychological operations, cognitive manipulation, economic warfare, and so forth.
This also involves a mental war against Russia, waged both externally and internally. The West’s primary goal is to destabilize and divide Russian society, erode trust in its institutions, and sow discord and turmoil within the country. The ultimate aim could be a “change of landmarks” and a strategic policy shift toward integration into Western ideological frameworks and the relinquishment of sovereignty.
Within this mental war, the West aims to erase historical memory and dismantle the core symbols of Russia’s political and societal identity. The adversary exploits human dependence on information, gadgets, and social networks, combining destructive actions in the media and information space with on-the-ground efforts and local engagement. To achieve these goals, they employ every available technology to demotivate, morally degrade (or at least confuse), and atomize and polarize decision-makers and the general population alike.
Thus, the West’s actions do not imply an intent to achieve lasting peace any time soon. Instead, any peace initiatives from the collective West and its satellites are merely pauses before a new, fundamentally more intense and potentially more brutal existential struggle. If the war becomes invisible, that does not signal its end; rather, it indicates a transition of hostilities to a hidden, deeper, and far more dangerous level.
In the context of the West’s global aggression against Russia, with a priority on mental-cognitive influence and hybrid operations, Russia’s primary adversary is not so much the US as it is a transnational elite “horizontal” comprised of individuals, groups, institutions, and companies within the collective West, dominated by Anglo-American interests. This is the same influence system that is called the “deep state” in political parlance and has launched a total offensive against Russia with the aim of destroying the Russian state and the civilization of the Russian World.
The West, or more precisely, the deep state, is at an existential crossroads: either the preservation of the current “rules-based order,” which involves maintaining the dominance of the Western financial system, perpetuating neo-colonial practices, and facilitating the takeover of sovereign states by financial-industrial groups, or the end of their hegemony and the collapse of a system that has ruled the world for over 500 years through military power and financial networks. This is their battle for hegemony, to uphold an order born of the colonial system’s exhausted ability to develop through expansion and the capture of global resources.
Today, we are witnessing a global conflict between two forces – those striving to preserve the state as the fundamental institution of the world order and those seeking to dismantle it, plunging the world into a “gray zone.”7 As fate would have it, Russia, as a civilization built on a strong state foundation, has found itself at the center of this confrontation.
The Special Military Operation is in essence an armed confrontation between Russia and the collective West, driven by the desire of the US and its allies to maintain their dominance and prevent the emergence of a new multipolar and equitable world order.
This dynamic aligns with historical events like the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which concluded with the Peace of Westphalia that established the state as the primary sovereign form of societal organization.8 The Thirty Years’ War left an indelible mark on Europe’s history, reshaping the continent’s political map and fundamentally altering relations between countries and peoples.
The war was one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, marked by shifting alliances and temporary withdrawals as participants regrouped. There were no winners, and the losses on all sides were colossal – in some areas of Germany and the Czech lands, populations declined by as much as 50% to 70%. Military actions and accompanying epidemics devastated the economy, depleted Europe, and dampened not only the will but also the capacity for further conflict, ultimately leading to the Peace of Westphalia.
The Westphalian era formed a global system of nation-states; inaugurated diplomacy based on equality, mutual recognition of sovereignty, and borders; and also stimulated military innovation, notably the creation of state armies.
A modern parallel with the Thirty Years’ War can be seen, for instance, in the way global powers test each other’s strength worldwide, with “spheres of influence” extending far beyond state borders, and proxy conflicts across various regions exhibiting paradoxical, subtle, but significant interconnections.
During the Thirty Years’ War, clashes also erupted in entirely unexpected places, with red lines being drawn and redrawn. It was a battle between the old and new worlds that demanded a novel concept of sovereignty to end it. Like [the conflicts of] today, that war involved supporters of an obsolete versus a progressive world order, with competing value systems and approaches to global organization. It had no clear temporal or spatial boundaries; alliances were fluid, and the forms and methods of warfare evolved and were adopted in real time.
Deep Warfare: A Battle for the World Order
TODAY, as 400 years ago, a war is being waged over the world order. According to historical logic, this second Thirty Years’ War should also culminate in a new world order and the establishment of a dominant form of global organization. However, under certain extraordinary circumstances, the outcome of such a war could be the end of humanity itself.
Analyzing these extraordinary circumstances compels us to rethink the concepts of war and peace. The old categories of “hot” and “cold” wars are giving way to new forms of confrontation, which have been termed “unrestricted,” “hybrid,” “cognitive,” and so forth. Such terms capture an emerging reality where traditional battles alternate with covert, multifaceted conflicts in the so-called gray zone, although these concepts still fall short of fully explaining what is happening.
In today’s globalizing information society, the keys to civilizational, cultural, and technological codes are now becoming the dominant assets. The arts and humanities are becoming technologically advanced and turning into a battleground of a new type of warfare, where intangible factors are more significant than material resources and assets.
The focus of warfare methods has hybridized the military and civilian sectors, shifting toward the widespread use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other nonmilitary measures, used in conjunction with the protest potential of populations. This approach is supplemented by covert tactics, including info-cognitive and cyber operations carried out by special security forces with the close involvement of civilians, either as active participants or through reflexive control and similar methods.
While direct armed clashes occupy a significant space on the geopolitical agenda, in practical terms they are increasingly giving way to less visible yet more effective operations. The potential for warfare in the “gray zone” is expanding, and vulnerabilities within the global system are multiplying. A global economy provides convenience, but also common global problems.
The global Microsoft Windows outage in July 2024 underscored a key feature of today’s world system: An error in one part of the system can destabilize the entire structure, as it is completely dependent on specific and vulnerable real-world elements: electricity, cables, servers, and similar infrastructure.9 This means that those who control digital resources, codes, and processing power control, if not the entire world, then critical parts of it. The geopolitical influence of these deep state actors – groups and individuals hidden from public oversight – far exceeds that of established political figures.
Such computer disruptions are only part of the world’s vulnerabilities. Damage to Internet cables, satellite failures, the breakdown of strategically important infrastructure due to accidents or disasters, power outages in critical regions, tensions around the Arctic and Antarctic, “random” epidemics, spontaneous but synchronized migration waves, political “color” revolutions and “minority uprisings,” and disruptions of logistics and financial chains – all these have become links in destructive actions that are felt by many but understood only by those directly involved in this hidden conflict.
This is a camouflaged deep war, with battles and skirmishes that often go unreported by the media due to either “insufficient information” or as if by command. To the average person who consumes and emotionally reacts to media content, it is as if this war does not exist. It is waged by unconventional actors, with goals and tactics that do not fit the traditional concepts of warfare. Yet fundamentally it addresses the issues of war – depriving the opponent of agency, will, and the ability to pursue sovereign development, ultimately seeking their destruction. This is an aggression by often invisible, deep structures (the deep state), conducted in the “gray zone” and constituting a deep war that aims to dismantle the system of nation-states established by the Peace of Westphalia. That aim links it historically to the Thirty Years’ War.
Given this context, we can propose the following definition of a deep war: It is a hybrid form of multi-domain conflict across both military and civilian spheres, where clashes occur not only among state and bloc-based military, security, and intelligence organizations, but also among global interest groups, fluid network-centric coalitions, and affiliated hybrid paramilitary entities such as private military companies; information, cyber, and financial groups; as well as transnational network corporations.
Warfare in this type of conflict takes place on two levels.
The first level involves traditional kinetic confrontations, accompanied by information-psychological operations. These actions are widely covered by the media, turning into a sort of bloody serial drama involving public politicians of participant states and intergovernmental or transnational organizations, such as NATO. Armed struggle is waged for territories, political interests, and medium-term resources, resembling a game of checkers on the tactical level and chess on the operational level. This aligns with the traditional understanding of war, based on historical examples like World War II and the Cold War.
The second level involves high-precision, low-intensity impacts on critical nodes of the adversary, including logistical, resource, communication, informational, intellectual, military, industrial, infrastructural, and human elements. These actions are accompanied by multi-domain confrontations in key areas of interest of various coalitions. Warfare at this level employs unconventional methods and hybrid entities, with state and nonstate intelligence agencies, organizations, and coalitions playing crucial roles. This level of warfare is pervasive and “quiet,” targeted and concentrated, strategic in its objectives, and immensely destructive in its outcomes. The primary actors are not public politicians or state institutions but covert professional communities closely connected to those making decisions at the global governance and security level. At this level, the focus is on waging war itself – depriving the adversary of agency, will, and the capacity for sovereign development, ultimately leading to its destruction.
Deep hybrid warfare is waged against its targets both from the outside and from within, across the full spectrum – from economics, politics, spiritual and cognitive domains, and cyberspace, to local military clashes and proxy conflicts worldwide.
It is important to understand that a deep war is not fought for territory or geographic spheres of influence but for the right to shape the new world order. It resembles a game of Go, where each side strategically places its pieces in various domains, spaces, and geographic regions. In this war, there are no final battles; instead, there are cumulative processes leading to tectonic shifts at the deepest levels of the system’s functioning. It is a rigorous, hidden, undeclared, yet real war between deep structures to secure strategic interests amid the dramatic reconfiguration of the world system.
Deep warfare is a qualitative struggle, where quantitative factors are merely tools and resources, not the objective.
In a deep war, defeats and victories are not enshrined with an “act of capitulation”; they are subtle, multi-domain, and hybrid in nature, but the qualitative shifts achieved are evolutionary and irreversible.
Deep War Personnel
THE strategic defeat of Russia is a top priority in the collective West’s deep war. Clearly, Russia’s strategic defeat implies its “cancellation” as an idea – the dismantling of Russian civilization’s development, not only in its sovereign aspirations but also in its historical viability.
For Russia, the primary measure of victory in this war is to preserve its statehood and greatness, its sovereignty, and thus its ability to determine its destiny independently. As noted, the West’s doctrines do not envision such possibilities for Russia. Therefore, Russia’s task is to make the Western establishment reassess Russia’s potential and reconsider its own ambitions and objectives. They must understand that trying to defeat Russia by various means is futile. This forms the essence of Russia’s plan and formula for victory in the deep war.
However, any plans or campaigns, including military ones, are doomed if implementers are not identified and selected. So who are the personnel of the deep war, and what defines them?
The foundational concept here is that, just as war is now intrinsic to politics and the boundaries between war and peace are blurred in the “gray zone,” the division between the civilian and military domains during the confrontation is also becoming tenuous.
Good times create weak people; weak people create hard times. As a Japanese proverb goes: “When the parents work hard and the children enjoy life, the grandchildren will beg for alms.”10 In challenging times, all Russian citizens must participate in this deep war against the West, each in their place. This is the only way to withstand this existential clash with the enemies of the Fatherland.
Concentration and internal mobilization are essential for membership in the Russian state elite today. Mobilization understood solely as a call to military service is not the only method by which the state can organize its resistance to global threats. Societal mobilization as the consolidation of people for a common cause, for a shared victory, and to rally around addressing existential challenges, is indeed vital for Russian society. However, service to the nation is not always synonymous with military service, even during a deep war.
Waging deep warfare under modern conditions requires not only strategic vision and resources from the Russian elite, but also a high degree of coordination, flexibility, and adaptability. The main players are not only state institutions but also professional communities with the specialized knowledge and skills necessary for successfully executing complex, multi-layered operations.
Incorporating civilian professionals to support military needs is a common practice in some of the most combat-ready military forces worldwide: the US, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and others. Experts from the intellectual, business, and cultural elite offer their knowledge, resources, connections, and authority to advance national interests across different levels.11
Britain offers an interesting case study. Historically, it has maintained a leading global role, not through vast resources or a large population but by skillfully building influence networks through elite representatives. It can be said with some confidence that Britain’s elite continues to adapt skillfully, creating unique approaches to deep warfare that blend psychological tactics, financial-economic influence, cyber capabilities, military and soft power, and cutting-edge cognitive technologies.
In this changing context, flexibility and adaptability in decision-making are more important than ever. Decision-makers must be able to respond rapidly to shifting conditions and anticipate developments, relying on advanced analytical skills and access to diverse information sources. The British military focuses less on raw military strength and more on skillfully engaging civilian elites in areas critical to national security and the country’s interests.
A notable example of this kind of entity is the Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI) in the UK.12 This unit consists of officers considered sufficiently skilled in their fields to bypass the typical military training required for other members of the British Army Reserve.13 The famous 77th Brigade, specializing in psychological operations, works closely with SGMI, as many personnel responsible for information warfare are civilians on special assignment.14 SGMI recruits its members for their academic, scientific, or professional expertise developed through full-time civilian work or extensive academic immersion. These personnel are leading experts in the sciences, technology, and the humanities, as well as regional areas and specialized fields vital to British military intelligence.
Studying the Anglo-American model, it becomes clear that in the context of deep or hybrid warfare in the “gray zone,” where the boundaries between war and peace are blurred, the civilian sector inevitably merges with the military. This synergy between military and civilian personnel enables the armed forces and security services to engage not only hundreds of top experts in various fields but also hundreds of affiliated organizations worldwide. Such an arrangement ensures the concentration and mobilization of the elite, ideological homogeneity, and loyalty to state policy, fostering dedicated service to the nation.
Developing similar entities and institutions in Russia, adapted to the national context and led by stakeholder agencies – especially security agencies – could significantly strengthen the country’s defense potential and advance relations between the military, security agencies, and civil society.
It is clear that directly replicating foreign models will not work, as national context and traditions must be respected when fostering such cooperation between government and society, particularly in such a sensitive area as national security. However, with a tailored approach, implementing adapted versions of these practices could prove valuable in the face of widespread and expanding warfare, both kinetic and mental-cognitive-informational.
The experience of the SMO has brought a growing awareness that a country’s strength lies not so much in its economy, finances, or military power, but in the unity and resilience of its people and governing elite. Only those with inner strength can rise to meet the enormous challenges of wartime and carry out the transformations necessary for Russia.
The heroes of the SMO – the fighters returning from the front lines – represent a critical resource for recruiting Russia’s new elite. They are the custodians of our nation’s honor and conscience. However, they need guidance and preparation so that they can be integrated into positions of authority, with careful placement in roles aligned with their skills and experience.
The Russian president’s initiative to establish organizations responsible for creating social and professional pathways is absolutely correct. The assertion that those willing to sacrifice their lives for their country are the true elite is undeniably both correct and essential.15
However, achieving this requires a concentrated effort within the educational system, as well as an immediate focus on addressing the challenges facing young people. Chief among those challenges is the lack of a guiding idea that justifies cultivating a resilient, determined, and cohesive social layer that can be called an elite. This is not about a universal ideology, but rather about clear moral and national imperatives, historically grounded yet forward-looking. These imperatives must serve as the foundation for those who shoulder the responsibility of creating the future. A well-defined status system is needed, one that can foster individuals capable of adapting to changing contexts and meeting existential challenges while remaining loyal to their national identity.
History shows that elite formation projects in various countries and eras were always undertaken in service to a specific idea. Elite formation is a project fueled by a clear purpose for which individuals not only receive privileges but are also prepared to make sacrifices. In every such project, the defense forces have played a central role. These initiatives skillfully adapt civil-military cooperation to achieve grand objectives, generally resulting in a layer of individuals genuinely devoted to the homeland.
It is essential to remember that the quality of the elite must align with the dominant social system and the demands of the times. Members of this group should be nurtured not as society’s upper class but as its most accountable segment, as bearers of the ideals and the banner of the civilizational state that is Russia.
Future members of the elite – who can no longer be exclusively military or civilian but must instead be a fusion of both – must not question the purpose of their actions but actively and creatively carry out the missions assigned by the state, as this is their calling as part of the elite.
What skills should this new class possess? Above all, versatility and the ability to execute missions regardless of obstacles or the absence of specialized knowledge, along with the capacity to adapt to any situation and the readiness to achieve the state’s objectives.
Other essential qualities include independence and a clear perception of reality – qualities that were lacking in the former, Western-oriented “elites.” The elite consists of those who shape circumstances, not those who conform to them. A true member of the elite is a person of “long will,” willing to sacrifice immediate interests for the sake of strategic state goals.
The goal set by the Russian president is to be at the forefront of shaping a new world order. Those who can achieve this need to be nurtured now. Key qualities defining their status should include leadership skills, strategic and sovereign thinking, adaptability, commitment to state interests, and the capacity to shape both domestic and international agendas in line with Russia’s interests. The best formula for achieving these goals is through the skillful integration of civilian expertise into military objectives and the establishment of effective civilian-military cooperation.
If traditional warfare was like a game of chess, then deep warfare resembles the game of Go. Russia’s leadership must carefully place the stones and deploy its people in the right roles.
NOTES:
1 Washington Summit Declaration issued by the NATO Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., July 10, 2024, NATO, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm (retrieved on July 18, 2024).
2 Takach G. “ ‘Cold War 2.0’: George Takach on the Evolving World Order,” The Diplomat, May 18, 2024, https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/cold-war-2-0-george-takach-on-the-evolving-world-order (retrieved on July 18, 2024).
3 Ferguson N. “The Second Cold War is Escalating Faster than the First,” Bloomberg, 2024, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-21/china-russia-iran-axis-is-bad-news-for-trump-and-gop-isolationists (retrieved on July 18, 2024).
4 National Security Strategy, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf (retrieved on July 18, 2024).
5 National Security and Investment Act 2021: Annual Report 2023, UK Government, 2023. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641d72f45155a2000c6ad5d5/11857435_NS_IR_Refresh_2023_Supply_AllPages_Revision_7_WEB_PDF.pdf (retrieved on July 18, 2024).
6 “UK to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, PM to tell NATO,” UK Government, 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-stand-with-ukraine-for-as-long-as-it-takes-pm-to-tell-nato (retrieved on July 18, 2024).
7 Ilnitsky A., Yanovsky O. “Strategic Silence,” International Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 5, pp. 79-86.
8 Ibid.
9 Gail М. “Microsoft rukhnul po vsemy miru iz-za odnogo antivirusnika: chto o nem izvestno,” URA News, July 17, 2024, https://ura.news/news/1052794892 (retrieved on July 22, 2024).
10 Yaponskiye poslovitsy i pogovorki, https://socratify.net/quotes/iaponskie-poslovitsy-i-pogovorki (retrieved on July 22, 2024).
11 National Risk Assessment 2023, Irish Government, 2023, https://assets.gov.ie/194552/d0761c49-b7cc-4dcb-b1d3-dd92ca0e68c4.pdf (retrieved on July 22, 2024).
12 254 Signal Squadron, British Army, 2023, https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/royal-corps-of-signals/13-signal-regiment/254-sgis-signal-squadron (retrieved on July 22, 2024).
13 Reserve Land Forces Regulations Amendment 3, UK Government, 2019, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826095/AC_72030_Reserve_Land_Forces_Regulations_Amendment_3.pdf (retrieved on July 22, 2024).
14 77 Brigade, British Army, 2023, https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/field-army-troops/77-brigade/ (retrieved on July 22, 2024).
15 Snegova D., Kurenev D., Putin poruchil zapustit proyekt po perepodgotovke uchastnikov spetsoperatsii,” Vedomosti, February 29, 2024, https://www.vedomosti.ru/society/articles/2024/02/29/1023006-putin-poruchil-zapustit-proekt (retrieved on July 22, 2024).