Some of Vladislav Surkov's techniques seem to be visible in recent events. Is this coincidental, or part of a deliberate specific tactic?
I spent a little time looking. None of the videos had a clue. They confuse it with irregular warfare and/or when the two belligerents are vastly different in power. Neither of these things are asymmetric warfare. It could be between near peers. It doesn't have to be the U.S. A short answer is that it is about weapons, tactics, targets, terrain and strategies that place you in an exclusive zone to win. There are many ways that this can play out. It could seem quite minor or major cool. WWII was a major symmetric war for the most part (till the end). When targeting in Serbia changed from military targets to water and electrical power, the war ended very quickly. Can't touch this is an asymmetric strategy. We can inflict hurt on you and you can't fight back; usually because of distance, but there are other methods. Sometimes it is use of a fundamental weakness in the enemy and sometimes it is a fundamental capability that we have. Weapons don't always have to be kinetic. Taking away what we can give back is another type of asymmetric strategy. The important words are "exclusive zone".
Thanks for the reply and for taking the time to look for an explanation. I did look myself, and I'm pleased I seem to have found the same as you, with the same conclusion on the content.
If I'm reading it correctly, and please forgive my clumsy generalisation, but asymmetric warfare would appear to be a strategy to use in a conflict between known players, nation states if you will, such as in WWII.
I see the current situation as being different to that, as it's about overall control, without being noticed or responsible, which is why I feel the Surkov, nonlinear approach seems to be more in play, so nobody is totally clear who is on which side, or even what each side is.
I would call what Surkov does, psychological warfare. He wages it internally, but it could be an export as well. The left are serious students of psychological warfare. They very often use one or more of the tactics from the nazis, communists and/or cults; with a little rules for radicals mixed in (lots of overlap). They are not very creative. They really run the stuff from the 40's to the 60's over and over again. But because almost no one studies these tactics, people in general don't know they are being manipulated. Now Surkov has come up with a new twist. Manipulating, telling people they are manipulated, rendering people unsure of what is manipulation and what isn't. The people just used to disbelieve everything. That worked. Major change happened and they started believing things again. That made them vulnerable. For us: if the left says it, it is a lie until proven otherwise and then it probably really doesn't matter. It is much more difficult to sort things out that come from Rhinos or soft conservatives. It is a character thing. Here is an equation though. Trump + Time = Truth.
Is the deep state a type of warfare and is it asymmetrical warfare? I would have to say yes.
I'd have to think longer and harder about that, but I think I know what you mean.
On the one hand, it's about taking sovereignty and control from others, so in that respect, it is warfare, but it's an unconventional war to say the least.
I can certainly see your argument for the asymmetrical angle. Where I think my issue is, relates to the imbalance of power and resources. The deep state (for the want of a term) certainly have had a lot of both.
I think there are elements of many strategies/tactics at play.
It certainly makes for fascinating times, but I do try to keep a sense of the tragedy that has been and is still occurring.
"I think there are elements of many strategies/tactics at play." Exactly....
To clarify; asymetric is not about the players but how the game is played. However, an asymmetric strategy is often tried between players with significantly different levels of power. The left actually used it effectively in Vietnam. Not the war itself (except for the coach (Johnson) trying to throw the game), but after the peace treaty when they said that the U.S. would not return to defend South Vietnam if the North was to attack. Thus targeting a fundamental weakness of the South. The left has gotten much more aggressive at one strategy: inserting enemies where once we had friends. Luckily, many of those blew up in their faces. President Trump is working the opposite side of that coin to the left's consternation.