Analytics and Reports, Military Analytics, Russian & Soviet Analytics, Special Forces Analytics

From Sword and Shield to Scalpel and Algorithm: The Evolution of Russian Special Designation Forces

The evolutionary trajectory of Russian special forces is a complex narrative defined by a persistent, foundational dichotomy. From their inception in the crucible of the Bolshevik Revolution, two distinct lineages of “special purpose” units emerged and developed in parallel: one rooted in the state’s internal security apparatus and the other in the military’s external intelligence directorate. This dual-track evolution, born of different masters, mandates, and philosophies, is the single most critical factor in understanding the structure, capabilities, and employment of these forces, from the Soviet era to the present day. The political lineage prioritized regime preservation, while the military lineage focused on achieving strategic advantage in a potential conflict with external adversaries. This division created distinct organizational cultures that would shape their development for over a century, fostering rivalry and preventing the formation of a unified command structure akin to Western models.

Section 1: Genesis of the ‘Special Purpose’ Concept

The very concept of Spetsial’nogo Naznacheniya, or “special purpose,” first took shape not on a foreign battlefield, but within the chaotic interior of the nascent Soviet state. The earliest progenitors of these forces were the Chasti Osobogo Naznacheniya (Units for Special Use), established in 1918 to act as the armed fist of the Bolshevik regime against its internal enemies.1 These units were instrumental in suppressing anti-Communist movements and rebellions, most notably the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921, where they were infamously used as blocking detachments to “increase the motivation” of regular Red Army troops.1 Their operational control fell to the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, or Cheka, the state security organ founded in 1917 with the explicit aim to investigate, arrest, and execute enemies of the revolution.2 The Cheka and its successors—the OGPU and the NKVD—thus established the first pillar of Russian special forces: an instrument of political power and internal control, the veritable “sword and shield of the Communist Party”.2 These units were defined by their loyalty to the state security apparatus, their focus on internal threats, and their role in ensuring the stability of the regime.

Concurrent with the rise of these internal security forces, a second, distinct lineage was being forged within the military. In 1918, the Red Army established its own military intelligence agency, the Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU.3 While the Cheka looked inward, the GRU looked outward, tasked with collecting military-relevant information on foreign adversaries. During the Second World War, this mission set expanded to include direct action and unconventional warfare. The Red Army began to employ front- and army-level SPETSNAZ units for deep reconnaissance and sabotage behind German lines.5 These forces were generally divided into two types: engineer-based demolition units and intelligence-focused reconnaissance teams.5 A prime example was “Unit 9903,” formed in the summer of 1941 and subordinated to the Western Front’s intelligence staff. Composed of highly motivated Komsomol youth, athletes, and hunters, its small groups were deployed deep into the German rear during the defense of Moscow.1 Their missions were multifaceted: they attacked small German garrisons, ambushed staff vehicles to capture prisoners for interrogation (a practice known as capturing “tongues”), destroyed supply depots, and established contact with and provided assistance to local partisan movements.5 This experience established the second pillar of Russian special forces: a military tool designed for reconnaissance, sabotage, and unconventional warfare in direct support of conventional military campaigns. This military track, under the command of the General Staff, was defined by its focus on external military objectives and its integration with the broader armed forces.

Section 2: Cold War Doctrine and Structure

Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the Soviet Union demobilized most of its specialized reconnaissance and sabotage units.1 However, the dawn of the Cold War and the emergence of a new, existential threat—NATO’s tactical nuclear weapons—compelled a rapid and comprehensive reorganization of these forces. The doctrine that would define GRU Spetsnaz for the next four decades was not one of counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism, but of strategic anti-nuclear warfare. The entire structure, training regimen, and operational purpose of these revitalized units were singularly focused on their ability to infiltrate deep into Western Europe in the event of a major conflict and neutralize the very weapons that could halt a massive Warsaw Pact armored offensive across the Fulda Gap.

This strategic imperative drove the formalization of the GRU Spetsnaz structure. In 1949, the first “independent reconnaissance companies of special purpose” were formed, with the explicit mission of targeting and eliminating enemy tactical nuclear delivery systems, such as the American MGR-3 Little John battlefield support rocket.6 As the range and sophistication of NATO’s nuclear arsenal grew, so too did the reach and size of the Spetsnaz. In 1957, these companies were expanded into five battalions, and in 1962, the first Spetsnaz brigades were established.6 These brigades were designed for deep penetration operations, with a doctrinal reach of up to 750 kilometers behind enemy lines, specifically to destroy critical U.S. weapons systems like the MGM-52 Lance, MGM-29 Sergeant, and, most importantly, the MGM-31 Pershing ballistic missile.6 By the late 1970s, the GRU commanded a formidable force of reportedly 20 Spetsnaz brigades and 41 separate companies, a strategic asset poised to cripple NATO’s command, control, and nuclear capabilities in the opening hours of a war.6

While the GRU was honing its military spearhead for a potential hot war, the KGB was forging its own elite units to contend with the changing political and security landscape of the 1970s. The rise of international terrorism, exemplified by the 1972 Munich massacre, exposed a capability gap that the military-focused GRU Spetsnaz were not designed to fill. In response, KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov ordered the creation of Spetsgruppa “A,” universally known as Alpha Group, on July 28, 1974.7 Alpha was established as a dedicated, elite counter-terrorism and hostage rescue unit, a political tool for handling high-stakes domestic and international crises. In 1981, it was joined by Spetsgruppa “V,” or Vympel Group, which was conceived for a different purpose: clandestine sabotage, intelligence gathering, and “active measures” deep inside foreign territory, effectively serving as the KGB’s own foreign special operations force.7

The distinct roles of these parallel forces were occasionally brought into sharp focus. The GRU Spetsnaz conducted their first major foreign operation in August 1968, when they disguised themselves as a civilian flight crew and passengers requesting an emergency landing to seize Prague’s international airport, paving the way for the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.6 The most famous—and perhaps only—major joint operation was Operation Storm-333 in December 1979. This mission to assassinate Afghan President Hafizullah Amin was a textbook example of the convergence of the two spearheads. The GRU provided the specialized military muscle in the form of the 154th Spetsnaz Detachment, the so-called “Muslim Battalion,” composed of soldiers from Soviet Central Asia who could blend in more easily. The KGB, meanwhile, provided the surgical political action teams from its Alpha and Zenit groups to lead the direct assault on the Tajbeg Palace.2 The successful operation, which triggered the decade-long Soviet-Afghan War, perfectly illustrated the division of labor: the GRU executed a complex military special operation, while the KGB conducted a high-stakes political assassination.

Section 3: The Soviet-Era Arsenal

During the Cold War, the “elite” status of Spetsnaz operators was defined more by the strategic importance of their mission and the rigor of their training than by access to a bespoke arsenal of exotic weaponry. For the most part, they were equipped with the same robust, reliable, and mass-produced small arms issued to the broader Soviet Armed Forces. The primary assault rifle was the 7.62x39mm AKM, the modernized variant of the iconic AK-47, and its folding-stock version, the AKMS, favored for its compactness by airborne and mechanized troops.12 For designated marksman duties, the standard weapon was the 7.62x54mmR Dragunov SVD, a semi-automatic rifle prized for its accuracy and reliability.12

However, the unique requirements of their clandestine mission set—reconnaissance, sabotage, and assassination deep behind enemy lines—drove early and continuous innovation in the field of suppressed weaponry. The Soviet approach to this challenge was characterized by pragmatism, focusing on adapting existing, proven platforms rather than designing entirely new systems from the ground up. This philosophy was a direct descendant of wartime expedients like the “Bramit device,” a simple but effective clip-on silencer for the Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 rifle.13

In the post-war era, this approach culminated in the development of the PBS-1 (Pribor dlya Beshumnoj Strelby – Device for Noiseless Firing) in the late 1950s.13 The PBS-1 was a large, quick-detachable suppressor designed for the AK and AKM rifles. Its use necessitated the development of specialized 7.62x39mm “US” (Umenshennaya Skorost – Reduced Velocity) ammunition. This subsonic cartridge featured a significantly heavier 12.5-gram (193-grain) bullet and a reduced powder charge to keep its velocity below the speed of sound, thus eliminating the supersonic crack of the projectile.13 The reduced energy of the “US” round was insufficient to reliably cycle the Kalashnikov’s gas-operated action. To overcome this, the PBS-1 incorporated a critical design feature: a disposable rubber wipe or baffle near the end cap. Upon firing, this wipe would temporarily seal the suppressor, trapping enough gas pressure to cycle the weapon’s action. While an ingenious solution, it was also a technical compromise; the rubber wipe had a limited service life of about 200 rounds and degraded the suppressor’s performance with each shot.13 This system, while effective for its time, highlighted the inherent limitations of simply adapting a conventional weapon for a specialized role.

In terms of personal protection, Soviet development significantly lagged behind that of its Western counterparts. Throughout much of the Cold War, the standard-issue body armor, when available at all, was the 6B2 vest. This was not true body armor in the modern sense but rather a flak jacket, analogous to the American M-69 vest from the Vietnam era. It was constructed of layers of nylon fabric and small titanium plates, designed primarily to protect the wearer from low-velocity fragmentation and shrapnel from artillery and grenades. It offered virtually no protection against rifle rounds, reflecting a doctrine that prioritized offensive mass over the survivability of the individual soldier.14 For the Spetsnaz operator of the Cold War, stealth, skill, and surprise were the primary means of survival, as their issued equipment offered little in the way of ballistic protection.

Part II: The Asymmetric Challenge (1979–2000)

The final decade of the Soviet Union and the first decade of the Russian Federation presented its special forces with two fundamentally different, yet equally formative, asymmetric conflicts. The decade-long counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan forced a doctrinal pivot away from the theoretical battlefields of Europe and provided a brutal, real-world laboratory for developing new tactics. Subsequently, the two wars in Chechnya plunged these forces into the crucible of high-intensity urban combat, a radically different environment that demanded further adaptation and drove a revolution in specialized weaponry. These two conflicts reshaped Spetsnaz from a force designed for a single, strategic mission against NATO into a more versatile, combat-hardened tool capable of operating across a spectrum of irregular warfare.

Section 4: Trial by Fire in Afghanistan (1979-1989)

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 immediately rendered the primary Cold War doctrine of GRU Spetsnaz—strategic anti-nuclear warfare in Europe—irrelevant. The conflict demanded a rapid and painful pivot to a role for which they were not explicitly trained or equipped: counter-insurgency (COIN). On the unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan, large, conventional Soviet formations like motorized rifle divisions proved ponderous and highly vulnerable to the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics of the Mujahideen.15 In this environment, the Spetsnaz, alongside the VDV airborne troops, quickly emerged as the Soviet Union’s most effective and feared combat force. Their combination of elite training, high motivation, and tactical flexibility made them, along with Soviet attack helicopters, the two assets the Mujahideen truly respected and feared.15

The quintessential Spetsnaz mission of the war became the interdiction of Mujahideen supply lines from Pakistan and Iran. This campaign, officially designated “Operation Curtain” but more commonly known as the “Caravan War,” ran from March 1984 to April 1988 and became the defining operational experience for a generation of Spetsnaz operators.17 The tactical template was consistent and effective. During the day, Spetsnaz reconnaissance teams would be inserted by Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters to observe suspected caravan routes. At night, these teams, or larger ambush groups, would move to pre-selected choke points along the trails to intercept the supply columns.17 These helicopter-borne assault and ambush techniques, perfected through years of constant practice, became a core competency of modern Russian special forces. The operation achieved considerable tactical success; Soviet estimates claim that Spetsnaz units killed approximately 17,000 Mujahideen, captured 825 prisoners, and destroyed or captured 990 supply caravans over the four-year period.17

However, this tactical prowess existed within a framework of profound strategic and operational flaws, making the Spetsnaz experience in Afghanistan a classic case study in winning battles while losing the war. Despite their successes, it was estimated that Operation Curtain managed to interdict only 12-15% of the total volume of weapons and supplies flowing to the Mujahideen—a tactical annoyance, but by no means a strategic knockout blow.17 The effectiveness of individual units was consistently undermined by systemic failures. Ambushes were frequently compromised by poor operational security, particularly the excessive and rigid radio reporting procedures mandated by higher command, which allowed the Mujahideen to monitor their movements.18 The issued equipment was often woefully inadequate for the environment. Standard-issue leather army boots were heavy, uncomfortable for mountain operations, and left distinctive tracks that betrayed ambush positions.18 Even the design of armored vehicles like the BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle, with a main gun that could not elevate high enough to engage targets on steep valley slopes, was a critical flaw the Mujahideen expertly exploited.15 This persistent disconnect between the skill and bravery of the operators on the ground and the flawed strategic direction from above was a key lesson of the conflict, demonstrating that even the most elite special forces cannot achieve strategic objectives without being integrated into a coherent, well-supported, and intelligently led campaign.

Section 5: The Urban Crucible of Chechnya (1994-2000)

If Afghanistan forged the Spetsnaz into a capable counter-insurgency force, the wars in Chechnya reforged them in the fires of high-intensity urban combat. The First Chechen War (1994-1996) began with one of the most catastrophic defeats in modern Russian military history: the New Year’s Eve 1994 assault on Grozny. The operation was a textbook example of military incompetence, characterized by a complete underestimation of the enemy, non-existent intelligence preparation, the use of ad-hoc units with no cohesion, and a total breakdown of command and control between different services.19 Russian armored columns, sent into the city without adequate infantry support, were systematically trapped and annihilated by well-prepared and highly motivated Chechen fighters who used the urban terrain to their maximum advantage.19 While Spetsnaz units were among the few formations that were properly trained and prepared for the fight, their tactical competence was an island in a sea of conventional military failure and could not salvage a fundamentally broken strategic plan.11

The lessons from this disaster were learned in blood and applied with brutal resolve in the Second Chechen War (1999-2000). The second Russian assault on Grozny was a starkly different affair. Instead of a hasty, unsupported armored thrust, the advance was preceded by a weeks-long, overwhelming air and artillery bombardment that systematically reduced large parts of the city to rubble. The operational design was to use massive, indiscriminate firepower to obliterate Chechen defensive positions, thereby minimizing casualties among Russian ground troops.19 Command and control were unified under a single military hierarchy, and coordination between air and ground forces was vastly improved.19

In this new operational context, Spetsnaz played a critical and multifaceted role. They were the tip of the spear, conducting reconnaissance to identify Chechen strongpoints for the subsequent artillery and air strikes. They led smaller, more effective assault groups in methodical, house-to-house clearing operations, replacing the disastrous large-scale maneuvers of the first war.19 This brutal urban environment honed their skills in close-quarters battle (CQB), explosive breaching, and small-unit maneuver in a complex, three-dimensional battlespace to a level unmatched by any previous experience. Furthermore, the Chechen Wars cemented the importance of a key Spetsnaz tactic for future conflicts: the cultivation and use of proxy forces. The successful employment of pro-Russian Chechen militias, often trained and advised by Spetsnaz operators, provided loyal local forces that could hold territory and conduct politically sensitive operations, allowing Russia to achieve its objectives with a smaller and more deniable footprint.3 This model of leveraging local allies would become a cornerstone of Russian operations in the 21st century.

Section 6: Weapons Forged in Conflict

The intense and varied combat environments of Afghanistan and Chechnya exposed critical capability gaps in the Spetsnaz arsenal and directly spurred a period of remarkable innovation in Russian special purpose weapons design. The pragmatic Soviet-era philosophy of simply adapting existing platforms proved insufficient for the demands of modern asymmetric warfare. This led to a paradigm shift towards the development of purpose-built, integrated weapon systems designed to solve specific tactical problems identified on the battlefield.

The most significant of these developments was the 9x39mm “revolution.” Experience in Afghanistan quickly revealed that the standard suppressed AKM firing subsonic “US” ammunition was almost completely ineffective against adversaries who were beginning to acquire even rudimentary body armor.13 This urgent operational requirement—the need to defeat protected targets stealthily at ranges beyond that of a pistol—was the direct catalyst for the “Vintorez” program at the Central Institute for Precision Machine Building (TsNII TochMash). The solution was holistic, involving the simultaneous design of a new family of ammunition and the platforms to fire it. The resulting 9x39mm cartridge was loaded with a long, heavy projectile that retained significant energy at subsonic velocities. Two primary loads were developed: the SP-5 for precision sniper work and the SP-6, which featured a hardened steel core penetrator capable of defeating military body armor at ranges of several hundred meters.13

To fire this new ammunition, two groundbreaking weapons were adopted in 1987: the VSS (Vintovka Snayperskaya Spetsialnaya – Special Sniper Rifle) and the AS Val (Avtomat Spetsialnyj – Special Assault Rifle).12 These were not merely rifles with suppressors attached; they were integrally suppressed systems designed from the ground up for clandestine operations. The VSS, with its skeletonized wooden stock and ability to mount a PSO-1 scope, provided unprecedented quiet precision, while the AS Val, with its side-folding metal stock and 20-round magazine, offered a compact and silent source of automatic fire. These weapons proved immensely popular during the Chechen Wars, where their combination of stealth and lethality was perfectly suited for the close-quarters combat of urban environments.13

The demand for compact, powerful weapons for CQB and VIP protection roles, where a full-length integral suppressor was not always necessary, led to further evolution of the 9x39mm platform. In the 1990s, the SR-3 “Vikhr” (Whirlwind) was developed. It was essentially an AS Val action stripped of its integral suppressor, resulting in an extremely compact carbine that delivered the potent, armor-piercing punch of the 9x39mm round in a package similar in size to a submachine gun.21 Alongside these specialized weapons, the Chechen conflict saw Spetsnaz operators begin to move away from standardized state-issued gear. They adopted a variety of commercially produced tactical vests, such as the M23 Pioneer and Tarzan models, and wore a mix of uniforms in patterns like VSR-93 or even foreign woodland camouflage.23 This marked the beginning of a trend towards more individualized, mission-specific loadouts, reflecting the growing professionalization and autonomy of these elite units.

Part III: The Modern Reformation (2001–2021)

The dawn of the 21st century marked a period of profound transformation for Russia’s special designation forces. The lessons learned from the brutal wars in Chechnya, combined with the analysis of high-profile domestic security failures and the observation of Western military operations, catalyzed a comprehensive reformation. This era saw the formalization of a complex, multi-agency landscape of specialized units, each with a distinct mandate. Most significantly, it witnessed the creation of the Special Operations Forces Command (KSSO), a strategic-level asset designed as a precision tool for a new era of “hybrid warfare.” This new force and its evolving doctrines were tested and refined in the annexation of Crimea and the long-running intervention in Syria, while the individual operator was technologically empowered by the long-awaited introduction of the modern Ratnik combat system.

Section 7: A Fractured Landscape and the Catalyst for Change

The collapse of the Soviet Union solidified the distribution of Spetsnaz-type units across multiple, often competing, security and defense agencies. This structure was not merely a bureaucratic artifact but a logical, if complex, specialization in response to a new and varied threat landscape where the primary dangers were no longer a NATO invasion but domestic terrorism, separatism, and rampant organized crime. By the early 2000s, this fractured landscape had crystallized into several key pillars 24:

  • Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Spetsnaz: Remaining under the Ministry of Defence, these military units retained their focus on traditional special operations roles: deep reconnaissance, direct action, and unconventional warfare in support of the armed forces. They are best understood as elite light infantry, analogous to a combination of the U.S. Army Rangers and Green Berets, rather than a clandestine “Tier 1” force.25
  • Federal Security Service (FSB) TsSN: The FSB’s Special Purpose Center (Tsentr Spetsial’nogo Naznacheniya) became the premier domestic counter-terrorism and special law enforcement body, inheriting the KGB’s most famous units. Directorate “A” (Alpha Group) is the nation’s primary hostage rescue and direct-action counter-terrorism unit, comparable to Germany’s GSG 9 or the FBI’s HRT.9 Directorate “V” (Vympel Group), having lost its original foreign sabotage mission, was repurposed to focus on counter-terrorism at strategic locations, particularly nuclear facilities, and other high-risk security operations.10
  • Rosgvardiya (National Guard): Officially formed in 2016 by presidential decree, the Rosgvardiya is a powerful internal security force that reports directly to the President of Russia. It consolidated various forces from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), including OMON (Otryad Mobil’nyy Osobogo Naznacheniya), a gendarmerie-type force for riot control and public security, and SOBR (Spetsial’nyy Otryad Bystrogo Reagirovaniya), elite SWAT-like units designed for high-risk arrests and combating organized crime.28
  • Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR): The SVR, Russia’s external intelligence agency, is reported to maintain its own small, highly secretive special unit known as Zaslon. Its missions are believed to include covert action, high-threat diplomatic protection, and the extraction of Russian intelligence officers from hostile environments, analogous to the CIA’s Global Response Staff.25

This specialized structure was forged in the crucible of crisis. A series of traumatic national events exposed critical weaknesses in coordination, command, and control during complex hostage situations. The 2002 Nord-Ost theatre siege in Moscow and, most devastatingly, the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis, resulted in massive civilian casualties and were seen as tactical failures, despite the eventual neutralization of the terrorists.31 These events, coupled with the lackluster performance of the Russian military during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, which exposed continued deficiencies in intelligence, reconnaissance, and joint operations, created an undeniable impetus for radical reform at the highest levels of the Russian state.3

Table 1: Key Russian Special Designation Forces (Post-2000)

Controlling AgencyUnit(s)Primary Role
Ministry of Defence (GU/GRU)Spetsnaz GRU BrigadesMilitary Reconnaissance, Direct Action, Unconventional Warfare
Ministry of Defence (General Staff)Special Operations Forces (SSO/KSSO)Strategic Special Operations, Political/Hybrid Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense
Federal Security Service (FSB)TsSN Directorate “A” (Alpha)Domestic Counter-Terrorism, Hostage Rescue
Federal Security Service (FSB)TsSN Directorate “V” (Vympel)Counter-Terrorism at Strategic/Nuclear Sites, Special Security Operations
National Guard (Rosgvardiya)SOBRHigh-Risk Law Enforcement, Counter-Organized Crime
National Guard (Rosgvardiya)OMONParamilitary Riot Control, Public Order, Counter-Insurgency
Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR)ZaslonEmbassy/Officer Security, Covert Action, Personnel Recovery

Section 8: The KSSO – Russia’s “Tier 1” Asset

The analysis of the failures at Beslan and the shortcomings of the 2008 Georgian campaign led the Russian leadership to a critical conclusion: they lacked a dedicated, strategic-level special operations force that could be deployed rapidly, discreetly, and decisively for politically sensitive missions under the direct control of the national command authority. The existing GRU Spetsnaz were seen as army assets, integrated into the conventional military structure, while the FSB units were primarily domestic-focused. After studying the structure and application of Western special forces, particularly the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), Russia embarked on creating its own equivalent.32

The process began in 2009 with the creation of a Special Operations Directorate, formed by transferring elite personnel from the GRU’s 322nd Specialist Training Center at Senezh, near Moscow.34 This process culminated in the official announcement in March 2013 by the Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, of the establishment of the Special Operations Forces Command, or KSSO (Komandovanie Sil Spetsial’nykh Operatsii).33

The most crucial feature of the KSSO is its command structure. It is not subordinate to the GRU or any of the military service branches. Instead, it is a separate branch of the Armed Forces that reports directly to the Chief of the General Staff and, through him, to the Minister of Defence and the President.6 This deliberately flattened chain of command was a political choice, designed to create a force that could be used as a scalpel for strategic political objectives, free from the bureaucratic inertia of the traditional military. The KSSO is a much smaller and more selective organization than the broader Spetsnaz brigades, with an estimated strength of only 2,000-2,500 operators.31 Its mandate is to conduct the most complex, high-stakes, and clandestine missions, including foreign interventions, counter-proliferation, and foreign internal defense—tasks that define a “Tier 1” special operations force.25 The creation of the KSSO was the most significant evolution in Russian special forces since the Cold War, marking their transformation from a purely military tool into a primary instrument of geopolitics and statecraft in the era of hybrid warfare.

Section 9: The Hybrid Warfare Playbook in Crimea and Syria

The newly formed KSSO did not have to wait long for its operational debut, which would become the textbook example of 21st-century Russian hybrid warfare. In late February 2014, highly disciplined, well-equipped soldiers bearing no insignia appeared across Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. These “little green men,” or “polite people” as they were dubbed in Russian media, were operators from the KSSO and other Spetsnaz units.8 Moving with speed and precision, they seized the Crimean parliament, airports, and other strategic sites, effectively neutralizing the Ukrainian military presence on the peninsula with minimal violence.35 This coup de main created a political and military fait accompli, paving the way for a hastily organized referendum and Russia’s subsequent annexation of the territory. The operation was a masterful execution of plausible deniability and political warfare, achieving a major strategic objective without a formal declaration of war. In recognition of this success, President Vladimir Putin officially designated February 27th—the day the parliament building was seized—as the Day of the Special Operations Forces.34

If Crimea was the KSSO’s flawless debut, the Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, beginning in September 2015, became the live-fire laboratory where the full spectrum of modern Russian special forces capabilities was tested, refined, and proven.37 The deployment in Syria was not a single-mission operation but a long-term, multi-faceted campaign where Spetsnaz (from both the KSSO and GRU) performed a wide array of critical roles.38 They acted as forward air controllers, using advanced targeting systems to guide airstrikes from the Russian Air Force and cruise missile strikes from the Navy with deadly precision.34 They served as frontline military advisors, embedded with Syrian Army units to improve their combat effectiveness, and even established and trained new proxy forces like the “ISIS Hunters” to conduct offensive operations.3 They also engaged heavily in direct action, leading assaults and playing a pivotal role in key battles such as the multiple offensives to retake the ancient city of Palmyra from ISIS and the brutal urban fighting in Aleppo.31

These operations in Crimea and Syria are the practical application of what has become known in the West as the “Gerasimov Doctrine” of hybrid or non-linear warfare. This concept emphasizes the integrated use of military and non-military tools, with a particular focus on “military means of a concealed character, including… the actions of special-operations forces,” to achieve political and strategic goals in the “grey zone” below the threshold of conventional interstate war.8 The Syrian campaign, in particular, provided an invaluable opportunity to give a new generation of Russian officers and operators combat experience, test new equipment and tactics in a real-world environment, and perfect the TTPs for integrating SOF with airpower, conventional forces, and local proxies—a core set of lessons that would shape Russia’s preparations for future expeditionary conflicts.38

Section 10: The Ratnik Revolution and the Modern Arsenal

The reformation of Russian special forces in the 21st century was not merely doctrinal and structural; it was accompanied by a long-overdue technological revolution in the equipment of the individual soldier. For decades, the Russian infantryman, including the Spetsnaz operator, lagged significantly behind his Western counterparts in terms of personal protection, communications, and night-fighting capabilities. The “Ratnik” (Warrior) program was a comprehensive, systemic effort to close this gap and create a true “soldier of the future” system.45

First seen publicly on the “little green men” in Crimea in 2014, the Ratnik system began serial deliveries to the armed forces in 2015.45 It is not a single piece of equipment but a modular, integrated suite of over 50 components. At its core are two key elements that represent a quantum leap in survivability. The 6B45 body armor vest utilizes high-protection “Granit” ceramic plates, rated under the Russian GOST system to stop multiple hits from 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mmR rifle rounds, including armor-piercing variants.45 This is paired with the 6B47 aramid fiber helmet, a modern composite design that is lighter than previous steel models, offers superior ballistic protection, and is designed to easily integrate communications headsets and night vision devices.45

The futuristic element of Ratnik is the “Strelets” (Musketeer) command, control, and communications (C2) system. This suite provides the soldier and, critically, the squad leader with a tactical computer, GLONASS satellite navigation, and digital communications.46 It allows for real-time tracking of friendly forces on a digital map, secure voice and data messaging, and the ability to transmit images and target coordinates up the chain of command. This system transforms the infantry squad from a collection of individuals into a networked team, dramatically improving situational awareness and enabling precision fires—a fundamental shift toward network-centric warfare.46

This technological modernization extended to small arms. While the reliable AK-74M remains a workhorse, elite units began receiving the new AK-12 and AK-15 assault rifles as part of the Ratnik program.12 These rifles feature significantly improved ergonomics, a more effective muzzle brake, and, most importantly, integrated Picatinny rails for the standardized mounting of modern optics, lasers, and lights—a feature that was a major deficiency on legacy Kalashnikovs. In the realm of precision fire, the venerable SVD is being supplemented and replaced by a new generation of advanced rifles. These include the modern semi-automatic Chukavin SVCh designated marksman rifle and high-end domestic bolt-action sniper rifles from manufacturers like Lobaev Arms and Orsis, chambered in powerful long-range calibers like.338 Lapua Magnum.22 Demonstrating a new pragmatism, Russian SOF have also adopted top-tier foreign systems when a domestic equivalent was lacking, including Austrian Steyr SSG 08 sniper rifles and Glock 17 pistols.50 The outdated 9x18mm Makarov pistol has been largely phased out in frontline units in favor of more powerful 9x19mm sidearms like the domestic MP-443 Grach, while the PP-19 Vityaz-SN has become the standard modern submachine gun.12

Table 2: Comparative Evolution of Spetsnaz Small Arms

EraPrimary RifleSuppressed SystemDMR/Sniper RifleKey Technical Driver
Cold War (pre-1979)AKM (7.62x39mm)AKM + PBS-1 SuppressorSVD (7.62x54mmR)Mass Production, Standardization
Afghanistan/Late Soviet (1979-1991)AK-74 (5.45x39mm)VSS Vintorez / AS Val (9x39mm)VSS Vintorez / SVDNeed for Stealth & Armor Penetration
Chechnya/Early Post-Soviet (1992-2008)AK-74M (5.45x39mm)VSSM / AS Val-MSV-98 (7.62x54mmR)Urban CQB Requirements
Modern/Hybrid War (2009-Present)AK-12 / AK-15 (5.45/7.62mm)VSSM / AS Val-MSVCh, Orsis T-5000, Steyr SSG 08 (.338 LM)Modularity, Optics Integration, Network-Centric Ops

Table 3: Evolution of Individual Protection Systems

EraHelmetBody ArmorProtection Level
Soviet (1980s)SSh-68 (Steel)6B2 / 6B3 (Flak Vest)Fragmentation Only
Early Post-Soviet (1990s)Sfera STSh-81 (Titanium)Various commercial vests (e.g., Korund)Limited/Variable Rifle Protection
Early Modern (2000s)6B7 (Aramid-Composite)6B23 / 6B43 (General Issue Plates)Enhanced Rifle Protection
Ratnik System (2014-Present)6B47 (Aramid)6B45 (Advanced Ceramic Plates)Integrated System, Full Rifle/AP Protection

Part IV: The Future of Russian Special Forces (2022 and Beyond)

The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 represents another pivotal, and perhaps the most challenging, inflection point in the history of Russian special forces. The nature of this high-intensity, peer-level conflict has subjected their doctrines, structures, and technologies to the most severe test they have ever faced. The initial phases of the war exposed critical flaws in their employment, while the realities of the modern, drone-saturated battlefield have created an existential crisis for the very concept of traditional special operations. In response, Russia is accelerating its push towards an unmanned and cyber-centric future, envisioning a new type of special operator for a new era of warfare.

Section 11: The Meat Grinder – Lessons from High-Intensity War in Ukraine

The opening days of the 2022 invasion were marked by the catastrophic misuse of Russia’s most elite forces. In a stark departure from their intended role as specialized reconnaissance and surgical strike assets, units from the GRU Spetsnaz and the VDV were employed as conventional shock troops, tasked with leading frontal assaults on heavily defended objectives. The disastrous helicopter assault on Hostomel Airport near Kyiv, where elements of the 45th Guards Spetsnaz Brigade were mauled by Ukrainian defenders, is a prime example of this doctrinal failure.53 This repeated use of highly trained, experienced, and difficult-to-replace special operators as assault infantry resulted in devastatingly high attrition rates, particularly within the NCO and junior officer corps that form the backbone of any professional force.54 This squandering of a strategic asset represents a significant degradation of Russia’s special operations capability that will take years, if not a decade, to reconstitute.55

This misuse may stem from a catastrophic failure of initial planning, but it could also reveal a deeper, more troubling aspect of Russian military thought: a residual Soviet-era command culture that, despite the professionalization of recent decades, still views even its most elite soldiers as ultimately expendable in pursuit of a strategic goal. This stands in stark contrast to the Western approach, which treats its SOF personnel as precious, strategic assets to be deployed with great care and preserved.

Beyond the human cost, the conflict in Ukraine has created a fundamental, perhaps existential, crisis for traditional special forces doctrine. The ubiquitous presence of thousands of reconnaissance and FPV (first-person view) attack drones by both sides has created a “transparent battlefield”.56 On this battlefield, the core tenets of special operations—stealth, surprise, and the ability to operate undetected deep behind enemy lines—have been rendered nearly obsolete. A small Spetsnaz team attempting a deep infiltration is now highly likely to be detected by a persistent drone loitering overhead, turning a clandestine mission into a desperate fight for survival. This reality forces a doctrinal reckoning for all special forces globally, but especially for Russia’s: how can SOF remain relevant when they can no longer reliably hide? In response, their roles have been forced to adapt, shifting away from deep reconnaissance and towards tasks in the immediate “grey zone,” such as directing precision drone and artillery strikes, hunting high-value targets with their own FPV drones, and conducting small-scale raids supported by overwhelming unmanned aerial support.

Section 12: The Unmanned and Cyber Frontier

The war in Ukraine has unequivocally demonstrated that the future of warfare is unmanned. After initially lagging, Russia has responded to this new reality with urgency, dramatically scaling up the production, innovation, and integration of unmanned systems.56 Russian forces now extensively use a variety of UAVs for reconnaissance, real-time artillery spotting, and direct kinetic strikes using FPV drones and Lancet loitering munitions.57 To counter Ukraine’s formidable electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, Russian engineers are rapidly developing and fielding new technologies, such as fiber-optic guided drones that are immune to jamming and “sleeper” drones that can be pre-positioned near a target in a dormant state before being activated for a surprise attack.57

Recognizing that this is a permanent paradigm shift, Russia announced in late 2024 its intention to create a new, dedicated branch within its armed forces: the Unmanned Vehicle Troops, with a target completion date of late 2025.60 This move will formalize doctrine, centralize training, and streamline procurement and development for unmanned systems across all domains—air, land, and sea. This development suggests that the future role of the Spetsnaz operator will evolve from being a direct kinetic actor to a forward “systems integrator.” They will be the highly skilled human-in-the-loop at the tactical edge, capable of commanding and coordinating a network of disparate assets: directing swarms of autonomous attack drones, deploying unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) for reconnaissance and assault, and designating targets for long-range precision fires.62

This unmanned frontier is complemented by Russia’s formidable capabilities in cyberspace, which have become an integral tool of modern special operations. The GRU, in particular, operates some of the world’s most notorious state-sponsored cyber units, including Unit 26165 (also known as APT28 or Fancy Bear) and Unit 74455 (Sandworm).3 These units are primary instruments of hybrid warfare, conducting a spectrum of operations from espionage and election interference to disruptive and destructive cyberattacks. Their attack on the Viasat satellite communications network, which disrupted Ukrainian military command and control in the opening hours of the 2022 invasion, demonstrates the critical role of cyber warfare as a preparatory and supporting element for both special and conventional military operations.64

Section 13: Speculative Futures – Doctrine, Structure, and the ‘Sotnik’ Soldier

Despite the profound tactical lessons of the Ukraine war, current Russian military discourse suggests a reluctance to fundamentally alter pre-war strategic concepts. The prevailing view among the military elite appears to be that their failures were the result of poor execution and underestimation of Western support for Ukraine, not a flawed core doctrine.58 Consequently, their focus is not on abandoning the concept of rapid, decisive operations but on enabling it through technological overmatch. The goal is to leverage advanced technologies—next-generation unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, and sophisticated EW—to suppress enemy ISR and strike capabilities, thereby creating temporary windows of opportunity for maneuver and decisive action.58 For future special forces doctrine, this means a heavy emphasis on counter-drone and counter-ISR TTPs, as well as mastering the deployment of their own autonomous systems to seize and maintain a temporary information advantage on the battlefield. The overarching framework of the “Gerasimov Doctrine,” with its seamless integration of military and non-military tools, will almost certainly remain the guiding strategic principle.44

The physical embodiment of this future vision is the next generation of combat equipment being developed to succeed the Ratnik system. The “Sotnik” (Centurion) combat system, projected for service around 2025, is designed to create an operator who is not just a soldier, but a networked sensor-shooter platform, fully integrated with robotic systems.48 Key projected features of Sotnik, and its even more distant successor “Legioner,” include:

  • Integrated Exoskeleton: A lightweight, likely passive, exoskeleton to enhance the operator’s physical capabilities, reduce fatigue, and allow for carrying heavier loads, including more batteries and electronic systems.67
  • Advanced Protection and Concealment: Lighter and stronger composite body armor, reportedly designed to defeat.50 caliber rounds, and mine-proof footwear. The uniform will likely incorporate materials that reduce the soldier’s thermal and radar signatures, providing a degree of “invisibility” to enemy sensors.48
  • Human-Machine Teaming: The system will be fully integrated with micro-drones and other robotic platforms, with critical data and video feeds projected directly onto the operator’s helmet visor or augmented reality goggles.67
  • AI Integration: Future iterations will likely incorporate artificial intelligence to assist with target recognition, threat prioritization, and navigation.63

The race to develop and field this technology underscores the Russian military’s core conclusion from the war in Ukraine: physical toughness and traditional martial skill, while still necessary, are no longer sufficient for victory. The future battlefield will be dominated by the side that achieves technological superiority in the domains of ISR, counter-ISR, robotics, and artificial intelligence. The feasibility of mass-producing and fielding such a complex and expensive system as Sotnik remains a significant question, especially under sanctions. However, the doctrinal vector is clear. The future of Russian special operations lies in the complete fusion of the human operator with autonomous and artificially intelligent systems, transforming the Spetsnaz soldier from a warrior into the master of a robotic pack.

Conclusion

The history of Russian special designation forces is a story of continuous, often brutal, evolution, driven by the shifting demands of the state and the harsh realities of the battlefield. From their dual origins as the political enforcers of the Cheka and the military scouts of the Red Army, they have morphed and adapted through successive eras of conflict. During the Cold War, they were forged into a strategic weapon, a scalpel aimed at the nuclear heart of NATO. In the mountains of Afghanistan, they were reforged into a hardened counter-insurgency force, mastering the art of the helicopter assault. In the rubble of Grozny, they became premier urban warriors, learning the bitter lessons of close-quarters combat.

In the 21st century, under a new political leadership, they were reformed again, emerging as the deniable “little green men” of Crimea and the multi-role operators of Syria—the primary instruments of a new “hybrid” way of war. This period saw the creation of the KSSO, a true strategic asset, and the technological empowerment of the individual soldier through the Ratnik system, closing a long-standing gap with their Western counterparts.

Today, these forces face their greatest challenge yet on the transparent, drone-saturated battlefields of Ukraine. The catastrophic losses and the erosion of their traditional methods have forced another painful but necessary evolution. The future of Russian special forces is now inextricably linked to the unmanned and cyber frontiers. The Spetsnaz operator of tomorrow will be less of a clandestine saboteur and more of a forward systems integrator, a human-in-the-loop commanding swarms of autonomous drones and robotic ground systems. Their success or failure will hinge not just on their legendary toughness, but on their ability to master the technologies that will define the next generation of conflict, and on their political masters’ ability to learn the enduring lesson that even the most elite forces cannot overcome a flawed strategy. The journey from sword and shield to scalpel and algorithm is far from over; it has simply entered a new, more complex, and more lethal chapter.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

Works cited

  1. Spetsnaz – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spetsnaz
  2. KGB: History, Structure and Operations – Grey Dynamics, accessed August 21, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/kgb-history-structure-and-operations/
  3. Understanding Russia’s Intelligence Agencies Part 3: The GRU explained – Jeremy Fernandez, accessed August 21, 2025, https://jeremy-fernandez.medium.com/understanding-russias-intelligence-agencies-part-3-the-gru-explained-c969d2871a36
  4. GRU (Russian Federation) – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU_(Russian_Federation)
  5. Soviet Front Special Purpose Troops: An Historical Perspective – DTIC, accessed August 21, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA232825.pdf
  6. Spetsnaz GRU – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spetsnaz_GRU
  7. Russian Special Forces | What Are Spetsnaz? – SOFREP, accessed August 21, 2025, https://sofrep.com/news/russian-special-forces-what-are-spetsnaz/
  8. Spetsnaz: Operational Intelligence, Political Warfare, and Battlefield …, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/security-insights/spetsnaz-operational-intelligence-political-warfare-and-battlefield-role-0
  9. Alpha Group – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Group
  10. FSB Vympel: Russia’s Secretive Unit – Grey Dynamics, accessed August 21, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/fsb-vympel-russias-secretive-unit/
  11. Strategic Utility of the Russian Spetsnaz – DTIC, accessed August 21, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1030678.pdf
  12. Weapons of the Russian Special Forces | Navy SEALs, accessed August 21, 2025, https://navyseals.com/5283/weapons-of-the-russian-special-forces/
  13. Guns of the Spetsnaz: Specially-Designed Silenced Long Guns …, accessed August 21, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/guns-of-the-spetsnaz-specially-designed-silenced-long-guns/
  14. What was the reason why NATO so underestimated Soviet body armor technology? – Reddit, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1bidqn6/what_was_the_reason_why_nato_so_underestimated/
  15. In what ways was the Soviet Army effective in the Soviet-Afghan War? In what ways was it ineffective? : r/AskHistorians – Reddit, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/37zzth/in_what_ways_was_the_soviet_army_effective_in_the/
  16. How good were the Spetsnaz in the Soviet-Afghanistan War? – Quora, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.quora.com/How-good-were-the-Spetsnaz-in-the-Soviet-Afghanistan-War
  17. Operation Curtain – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Curtain
  18. The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan, – DTIC, accessed August 21, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA316729.pdf
  19. Russia’s Chechen Wars 1994-2000: Lessons from Urban … – RAND, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1289/RAND_MR1289.pdf
  20. The War in Chechnya: A Military Analysis, accessed August 21, 2025, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/sa/sa_aug00bag01.html
  21. Guns of the Spetsnaz: Specially Designed CQB Rifles – Small Arms Defense Journal, accessed August 21, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/guns-of-the-spetsnaz-specially-designed-cqb-rifles/
  22. List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces
  23. Any tips for a Chechen War-era GRU Spetsnaz kit : r/MilSim – Reddit, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MilSim/comments/jev01z/any_tips_for_a_chechen_warera_gru_spetsnaz_kit/
  24. Russian Special Operations Forces in Crimea and Donbas – USAWC Press, accessed August 21, 2025, https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2917&context=parameters
  25. Different roles of Russian special forces units and their US equivalents? : r/WarCollege, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/krtjfc/different_roles_of_russian_special_forces_units/
  26. Russian Special Forces – Russia Military Analysis – WordPress.com, accessed August 21, 2025, https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/russian-special-forces/
  27. Unveiling the Secrets: Inside Russia’s Elite Special Forces Operation Heroes, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.thingscope.cs.columbia.edu/russian-elite-special-forces
  28. National Guard of Russia – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_Russia
  29. SOBR – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOBR
  30. Rosgvardiya | OSW Centre for Eastern Studies, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/point-view/2020-05-14/rosgvardiya
  31. The KSSO: Russia’s Special Operations Command – Grey Dynamics, accessed August 21, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/the-ksso-russias-special-operations-command/
  32. The Advent of the Russian Special Operations Command – dtic.mil, accessed August 21, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1083710.pdf
  33. DEVELOPMENTS IN RUSSIAN SPECIAL OPERATIONS, accessed August 21, 2025, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/mdn-dnd/D4-10-21-2017-eng.pdf
  34. Special Operations Forces (Russia) – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_(Russia)
  35. Conflict in Ukraine: A timeline (2014 – eve of 2022 invasion) – House of Commons Library, accessed August 21, 2025, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9476/
  36. What to know about Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula seized by Russia from Ukraine over a decade ago, accessed August 21, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/crimea-ukraine-russia-war-putin-d6c9d21427844a0aae9253e94ea055c4
  37. Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
  38. The Russian Military’s Lessons Learned in Syria | Institute for the Study of War, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.understandingwar.org/report/russian-military%E2%80%99s-lessons-learned-syria
  39. The Barbarism of Hybrid Warfare | Wilson Center, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/barbarism-hybrid-warfare
  40. Insight 5-5 | Russian Hybrid War vs. Clausewitz’s “Ideal War”, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.thekcis.org/publications/insights/insight-5-5
  41. Russian Hybrid Warfare | Institute for the Study of War, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.understandingwar.org/report/russian-hybrid-warfare
  42. Defining HYBRID WARFARE – George C. Marshall European Center …, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.marshallcenter.org/sites/default/files/files/2020-05/pC_V10N1_en_Wither.pdf
  43. Russia’s hybrid war against the West – NATO Review, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html
  44. Gerasimov doctrine – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerasimov_doctrine
  45. Ratnik (program) – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnik_(program)
  46. ‘Ratnik’ system improving the battle space situation awareness, connectivity, survivability and combat effectiveness of Russian Army – International Defense Security & Technology, accessed August 21, 2025, https://idstch.com/military/army/ratnik-system-improving-battle-space-situation-awareness-connectivity-survivability-combat-effectiveness-russian-army/
  47. Ratnik: Russia’s Modern Warrior Program – Grey Dynamics, accessed August 21, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/ratnik-russias-modern-warrior-program/
  48. Russia’s Ratnik soldier system – Global Defence Technology | Issue 130 | December 2021, accessed August 21, 2025, https://defence.nridigital.com/global_defence_technology_dec21/ratnik_soldier_system
  49. Unveiling the History: Decoding the Secrets of Russian Army …, accessed August 21, 2025, https://thingscope.cs.columbia.edu/russian-army-helmets
  50. Some of the Kit and Equipment used by various Russian SOF units : r/SpecOpsArchive, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpecOpsArchive/comments/1erx2th/some_of_the_kit_and_equipment_used_by_various/
  51. New Sniper Rifles for Russian Airborne Spetsnaz Units – Firearms News, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/new-sniper-rifles-for-russian-airborne-spetsnaz-units-2/78450
  52. List of modern Russian small arms and light weapons – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_Russian_small_arms_and_light_weapons
  53. Question about SSO : r/SpecOpsArchive – Reddit, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpecOpsArchive/comments/1ic228u/question_about_sso/
  54. SOF Should Not Be Used as Assault Troops: Lessons from the Russo-Ukraine Conflict, accessed August 21, 2025, https://irregularwarfarecenter.org/publications/insights/sof-should-not-be-used-as-assault-troops-lessons-from-the-russo-ukraine-war/
  55. Russian Armed Forces – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces
  56. Has Russia’s military improved enough to take on NATO? – Al Jazeera, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/9/30/has-russias-military-improved-enough-to-take-on-nato
  57. Russian Drone Innovations are Likely Achieving Effects of Battlefield …, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-drone-innovations-are-likely-achieving-effects-battlefield-air-interdiction
  58. Russian Concepts of Future Warfare Based on Lessons from the …, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.cna.org/analyses/2025/08/russian-concepts-of-future-warfare-based-on-lessons-from-the-ukraine-war
  59. A Perspective on Russia – Proliferated Drones – CNAS, accessed August 21, 2025, https://drones.cnas.org/reports/a-perspective-on-russia/
  60. The Evolution Of Russian Unmanned Vehicle Doctrine In Ukraine | TRADOC G2 Operational Environment Enterprise, accessed August 21, 2025, https://oe.tradoc.army.mil/product/the-evolution-of-russian-unmanned-vehicle-doctrine-in-ukraine/
  61. Russia to Form New Troops for Unmanned Systems – Defense Mirror, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.defensemirror.com/news/38397
  62. Killing machines: how Russia and Ukraine’s race to perfect deadly pilotless drones could harm us all – The Guardian, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/25/ukraine-russia-autonomous-drones-ai
  63. Advanced military technology in Russia | 06 Military applications of …, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/advanced-military-technology-russia/06-military-applications-artificial-intelligence
  64. Cyberwarfare by Russia – Wikipedia, accessed August 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia
  65. From Georgia to Ukraine: Seventeen Years of Russian Cyber Capabilities at War, accessed August 21, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/from-georgia-to-ukraine-seventeen-years-of-russian-cyber-capabilities-at-war/
  66. Cyber Operations in Russia’s War against Ukraine – Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2023C23/
  67. Russia: After Ratnik comes Sotnik – SPARTANAT.com, accessed August 21, 2025, https://spartanat.com/en/russland-nach-ratnik-kommt-sotnik
  68. «Сотник» – комплект боевой экипировки 3-го поколения В настоящее время на вооружении российской армии находится.. 2025 | ВКонтакте, accessed August 21, 2025, https://vk.com/wall-35933299_210118
  69. Экипировка «Легионер». Будущая замена для перспективного «Сотника», accessed August 21, 2025, https://topwar.ru/202847-jekipirovka-legioner-buduschaja-zamena-dlja-perspektivnogo-sotnika.html
  70. Иностранцы в шоке от новейшей российской боевой экипировки “Сотник” – YouTube, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTW-D2L96gI
  71. Искусственный интеллект в военном деле – TAdviser, accessed August 21, 2025, https://www.tadviser.ru/index.php/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%B2_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5