Tag Archives: Russia

The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marks the first peer-level, industrial-scale war of the 21st century, fundamentally reshaping the global understanding of modern combat. It has served as a brutal corrective to two decades of Western military focus on counter-insurgency and limited interventions, reintroducing the grim realities of large-scale combat operations (LSCO). This conflict, characterized by staggering attrition and a dynamic interplay of old and new technologies, provides an invaluable, if tragic, laboratory for the future of warfare. This report offers a comprehensive military analysis of the key lessons learned thus far, structured through the analytical framework of People, Process, and Technology.

The most critical lessons are stark. Across the People domain, the war has reaffirmed the primacy of the human element. The “will to fight,” leadership quality, and the institutional strength of a professional Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) corps have proven more decisive than pre-war calculations of material strength. Russia’s initial strategic failures were rooted in a catastrophic underestimation of Ukrainian resolve and a flawed, top-down command culture that stifled initiative. Conversely, Ukrainian resilience, bolstered by a more adaptive command philosophy, proved to be a decisive asymmetric advantage.

In the Process domain, the conflict signals the definitive return of industrial-scale attrition. The initial Russian plan for a swift, maneuver-based victory collapsed, giving way to a grinding war of exhaustion. This has exposed the profound inadequacy of Western defense industrial bases, which are optimized for peacetime efficiency rather than the mass production of munitions and equipment required for a protracted peer conflict. The battlefield itself has become a hyper-lethal, fortified landscape where the defender holds a significant advantage, making large-scale offensive operations immensely costly and difficult.

Finally, the Technology domain has witnessed both revolutionary change and the reinforcement of timeless principles. The proliferation of inexpensive drones and the transparency afforded by commercial space assets have created a “transparent battlefield” where concealment is nearly impossible and massed forces are exceptionally vulnerable. The electromagnetic spectrum has emerged as a primary warfighting domain, where electronic warfare is not an ancillary capability but a prerequisite for survival. This technological shift has created a new class of “attritable” systems, challenging the dominance of expensive legacy platforms and forcing a re-evaluation of force design and risk calculus.

The primary takeaway from this conflict is that success in future LSCO will depend on a nation’s ability to synthesize three critical elements: the industrial mass required to sustain a long war, the advanced technology needed to compete on a transparent and networked battlefield, and a military culture of rapid adaptation. Underpinning all of this is the necessity of a resilient industrial base and the national will to endure a long, hard fight. The lessons from Ukraine are a stark warning against assumptions of short, decisive wars and a call for a fundamental re-examination of Western military doctrine, force structure, and industrial preparedness.

Introduction: The Return of Great Power Conflict

The war in Ukraine is not an anomaly. It is a violent reintroduction to the enduring nature of war as described by the Prussian theorist Carl von Clausewitz: a domain governed by friction, chance, hostility, and political will.¹ For a generation of military and political leaders shaped by the post-Cold War era, the conflict has shattered the illusion that major state-on-state warfare was a relic of the past. The sheer scale of the fighting, the staggering casualty rates, and the reversion to trench warfare have provided a sobering reminder that technology changes the character of war, but not its fundamental nature.³

This analysis proceeds from a position of profound respect for the human tragedy unfolding. The disastrous cost in lives, infrastructure, and treasure is the necessary context for any military assessment.³ It is precisely because the stakes are so high that a sober, fact-based examination of the military lessons is imperative. Failure to learn from the real-time example in Eastern Ukraine could result in a needless loss of blood and treasure in a future conflict.⁶

To dissect the complex interplay of factors that have defined this war, this report utilizes an analytical framework structured around three core domains:

People: Examining the human dimension of the conflict, including leadership, morale, training, force generation, and the intangible “will to fight.”
Process: Analyzing the operational and strategic art of the war, including planning, doctrine, logistics, industrial capacity, and the shift from maneuver to attrition.
Technology: Assessing the impact of new and existing technologies, from drones and space-based assets to electronic warfare and precision munitions, on the character of modern combat.

By examining the war through this lens, we can identify the critical mistakes, key improvements, and durable lessons that will shape the preparation for, and conduct of, future large-scale conflicts.

I. The Human Domain: Will, Skill, and Mass

Despite the proliferation of advanced technology, the war in Ukraine has unequivocally reaffirmed that war is, and always will be, a human endeavor.³ The conflict’s trajectory has been shaped more by the quality of leadership, the resilience of soldiers, the effectiveness of training, and a nation’s ability to mobilize its population than by any single piece of hardware. The initial phases of the war, in particular, were a stark demonstration that the moral and conceptual components of fighting power can overcome material deficits.

I.A. Leadership and Command Culture: Centralization vs. Adaptation

The starkest contrast between the two belligerents has been in their command philosophies. Russia entered the war with a rigid, centralized command structure inherited from its Soviet past, while Ukraine has benefited from a more flexible, decentralized approach fostered since 2014.⁷

Russia’s initial invasion plan was a catastrophic failure born of this rigid culture. The concept of a swift coup de main was predicated on flawed intelligence and the hubristic assumption that the Ukrainian state was fragile and would quickly collapse.⁷ The command and control (C2) system designed to execute this plan proved brittle, slow, and incapable of adapting to unexpected resistance. Russian C2 nodes were often static for long periods, unable to operate effectively on the move, which rendered them exceptionally vulnerable to Ukrainian intelligence and precision strikes.⁹ This led to a systematic and relentless assault on Russian command posts across all tactical echelons, resulting in an unprecedented rate of attrition among senior and mid-level officers, which further degraded C2 and paralyzed decision-making.⁹ This systemic dysfunction was exacerbated by a deep-seated culture of bureaucratic sycophancy and corruption. Subordinates, fearful of reprisal, were unwilling to report bad news up the chain of command, creating a profound disconnect between President Putin’s strategic assumptions and the grim reality on the battlefield.⁷

In contrast, Ukraine’s armed forces have been on a journey of transformation since 2014, moving away from their own Soviet legacy and toward a Western-style model of mission command.¹¹ This philosophy emphasizes decentralized execution, empowering junior leaders to exercise initiative and adapt to rapidly changing tactical situations. While the adoption of this culture is incomplete—Ukraine has struggled to scale mission command effectively due to a shortage of well-trained staff officers at the battalion and brigade levels, often leading to a reversion to more centralized control under the immense pressure of LSCO—its influence has been undeniable.¹¹ The tactical initiative and flexibility demonstrated by Ukrainian units were key factors in the successful defense of Kyiv in 2022 and the stunningly effective Kharkiv counteroffensive later that year.⁸

The performance gap between the two forces reveals a fundamental truth: the “Westernization” of a military is less about acquiring advanced equipment and more about adopting a different philosophy of command and empowerment. This cultural “software” is more decisive than the “hardware” it employs. For nations engaged in military assistance and partnership building, this implies that training focused on mission command, NCO development, and decentralized decision-making is likely to provide a greater return on investment than simply providing high-end platforms. The people and processes of a military enable its technology to be effective, not the other way around.

To provide a foundational context for these differences, the following table distills the core philosophical and structural attributes of the belligerents compared to the idealized NATO standard. It moves beyond simple equipment counts to the cultural and doctrinal DNA of the armies, explaining the why behind many of the successes and failures observed.

Attribute	Russian Federation (Adapted Soviet Model)	Ukrainian Armed Forces (Hybrid/Transitioning Model)	NATO Standard (Ideal)
Command Philosophy	Centralized, Top-Down Control ⁷	Hybrid: Aspiring to Mission Command, often centralized at operational level ¹¹	Mission Command (Decentralized Execution) ¹⁴
NCO Role	Enforcer/Specialist; limited leadership initiative ¹⁴	Growing leadership role, but corps not fully developed ¹²	Backbone of the force; empowered tactical leaders ¹⁴
Logistics System	“Push” system (centralized allocation) ¹⁵	Hybrid; adapting to “pull” system with Western aid ¹⁵	“Pull” system (demand-based) ¹⁵
Force Generation	Mass Conscription/Mobilization ¹⁴	Professional core with mass mobilization ¹²	Professional All-Volunteer Force (with reserve components)
Combined Arms	Doctrinally central but poorly executed ⁷	Improving through experience and Western training ¹¹	Core competency; highly synchronized ¹¹

I.B. Force Generation in Attritional Warfare: Relearning the Art of Mass

The failure of Russia’s initial maneuver-based strategy forced both sides into a protracted war of attrition, a mode of conflict for which most Western militaries are institutionally and industrially unprepared.¹⁴ In attritional warfare, victory is determined not by tactical brilliance or operational maneuver, but by a state’s ability to replace its losses in personnel and materiel and generate new formations more effectively than its adversary.¹⁴ The conflict becomes a contest of national resilience and industrial capacity.

This reality suggests that the most effective force structure for a protracted, high-intensity conflict is a hybrid model. This model combines a medium-sized, highly professional pre-war army with a large mass of draftees or reservists available for mobilization.¹⁴ In this construct, the professional forces act as a “fire brigade,” deployed to critical sectors to stabilize the front or conduct decisive offensive actions. Meanwhile, the newly mobilized, lower-end formations hold the line in secondary sectors, gaining invaluable combat experience over time and gradually increasing their quality.¹⁴ Victory is ultimately achieved by forging the highest quality low-end formations possible.

The war has provided several hard-learned principles for this process of force generation in an attritional environment ¹⁴:

Adequate Training Time: New formations, even if manned by reservists with prior individual training, require a minimum of six months of collective training before being committed to combat. Conscripts require even longer.
Preservation of Experience: Experience is a priceless and finite resource. To preserve it, combat formations should not be allowed to fall below 70% of their authorized strength. Withdrawing units from the line early allows combat veterans to integrate with and train new replacements, proliferating skills throughout the force. Allowing a unit to be attrited to destruction means its collective experience is lost forever.
Prioritizing Replacements: It is more effective to prioritize sending individual replacements to bring experienced units back up to strength than it is to create entirely new, green formations from scratch.
Strategic Misallocation of Experience: Ukraine’s 2023 summer counteroffensive was significantly hampered by a failure to adhere to these principles. Experienced, combat-proven brigades were used to hold the static front line, while the main breakthrough effort was assigned to newly raised brigades that, despite being equipped with Western hardware, lacked the requisite combat experience to execute complex combined arms operations under intense fire.¹⁶

The conflict reveals a fundamental tension for modern militaries between the quality needed for complex combined arms operations (empowered NCOs, mission command) and the quantity required to endure protracted attritional warfare (mass mobilization). A key lesson is that a military cannot “surge” a high-quality command culture or an experienced NCO corps in a crisis. These are the products of decades of deliberate, sustained institutional investment. This presents a critical vulnerability for Western militaries, whose qualitative edge in personnel is a “wasting asset” in a long war. A doctrine that relies heavily on a small cadre of exquisitely trained professionals may prove brittle when confronted with the casualty rates seen in Ukraine, forcing a difficult re-evaluation of mobilization plans, reserve component training, and the balance between an all-volunteer force and some form of national service.

I.C. Training, Doctrine, and the NCO Corps: The Widening Gulf

One of the most significant, yet often overlooked, differentiators between the Russian and Ukrainian forces is the role and quality of their respective NCO corps. Modern NATO doctrine is fundamentally dependent on a corps of professional, empowered, and highly trained NCOs who serve as the backbone of small-unit leadership.¹⁴ These leaders are responsible for translating officers’ intent into tactical action, maintaining discipline, and training soldiers. Such a corps takes years, if not decades, to build and is exceptionally difficult to replace at scale in a high-attrition environment.¹⁴

The Russian military, despite numerous reform efforts since the 2008 Georgia War, largely retains a Soviet-era model where the NCO is a junior specialist or enforcer with minimal leadership authority or initiative.¹⁴ This systemic weakness has manifested in poor small-unit tactics, a lack of discipline, and an inability to adapt on the battlefield.

Ukraine, by contrast, has been working with NATO partners since 2014 to build a professional NCO corps modeled on Western standards. While this effort has yielded significant improvements, the corps is not yet fully developed or scaled across the entire armed forces.¹² This has created inconsistencies in performance and presents ongoing challenges in executing complex operations that require a high degree of small-unit cohesion and leadership.

The war has repeatedly and brutally demonstrated that competency matters as much as, if not more than, technology.¹⁷ Tactical proficiency, sound operational planning, coherent strategy, and the leadership to execute them are often more decisive than a marginal advantage in equipment. These intangible human factors are also the most difficult to accurately assess in peacetime, meaning military analysts must develop better techniques for measuring them before a conflict begins.¹⁷

I.D. The Will to Fight: Miscalculations and the Moral Component

Perhaps the most profound strategic failure of the Russian campaign was its gross underestimation of Ukrainian national will and the corresponding overestimation of its own troops’ morale.³ This was not a failure unique to Moscow; U.S. and Western intelligence assessments in the lead-up to the invasion also widely predicted a swift Ukrainian collapse, demonstrating a collective failure to properly assess the moral component of fighting power.³

War remains, at its core, a Clausewitzian contest of opposing and irreconcilable wills.³ It is fundamentally about people, their motivations, their belief in their cause, and their resilience under the extreme physical and psychological pressures of combat. This moral dimension proved decisive in the early days of the war, enabling outnumbered and outgunned Ukrainian defenders to halt the Russian advance on Kyiv, and it continues to be a critical factor in the ongoing struggle.¹³

The Russian military leadership has demonstrated a callous disregard for the lives of its soldiers, treating its infantry as an expendable resource to be thrown into frontal assaults.¹⁸ This approach has resulted in staggering casualties. By some estimates, Russia will likely hit the grim milestone of 1 million casualties (killed and wounded) by the summer of 2025.⁵ Such losses, while reflecting a high tolerance for attrition, are corrosive to morale and long-term combat effectiveness.

II. The Operational Domain: Process, Planning, and Protraction

The operational level of war—the domain of campaigns and major operations—has been a theater of profound miscalculation, painful adaptation, and the rediscovery of hard-won historical lessons. Russia’s failure to achieve its initial strategic objectives forced a reversion to a brutal, attritional form of warfare that has tested the logistical and industrial limits of both sides and their international partners.

II.A. Strategic Miscalculation: The Failure of the Initial “Special Military Operation”

Russia’s invasion plan in February 2022 was predicated on a series of catastrophic intelligence and strategic failures. The Kremlin leadership fundamentally misunderstood the political and social reality of Ukraine, assuming the population was passively awaiting “liberation” and that the government would crumble at the first show of force.⁷ This led to a deeply flawed operational concept: a rapid, multi-axis advance aimed at a swift decapitation of the Ukrainian government in Kyiv.¹³

The primary formation intended to execute this plan was the Battalion Tactical Group (BTG). However, the use of BTGs for rapid, deep offensive maneuvers was doctrinally unsound without first achieving air superiority and ensuring robust, protected logistical support.⁷ The result was the disastrous “race to Kyiv,” where long, unescorted Russian armored columns were channeled onto a few main roads, making them highly vulnerable to ambushes by mobile Ukrainian anti-tank teams and artillery strikes.²⁰

Ukraine’s successful defense of its capital was a masterclass in asymmetric warfare. Ukrainian forces leveraged their local knowledge, the defensive advantages of urban terrain, and tactical initiative to disrupt, delay, and ultimately defeat a numerically and technologically superior invader.¹³ They effectively targeted Russia’s vulnerable logistics and command structure, turning the invaders’ planned lightning strike into a logistical and operational quagmire.

II.B. The Attritional Stalemate: The Primacy of Fires and Fortifications

With the failure of its initial maneuver-based campaign, the conflict devolved into a grinding war of attrition, particularly in the Donbas and southern Ukraine. This phase of the war has been characterized by the return of extensive, World War I-style trench networks, heavy reliance on massed artillery fire, and largely static front lines.³

This attritional form of warfare operates on a different logic than a war of maneuver. The primary objective is not the seizure of territory for its own sake, but rather the systematic destruction of the enemy’s personnel and equipment at a favorable exchange ratio.¹⁴ It is a contest of industrial output and demographic endurance, a war ultimately won by the economies and societies that can sustain the generation of combat power over a prolonged period.¹⁴

In this environment, defensive engineering has become a critical, war-winning capability. Russian forces, drawing on deep-rooted Soviet doctrine, have proven highly proficient in constructing complex, multi-layered defensive belts.⁶ These defenses typically consist of two to three lines of trenches, infantry fighting positions, and extensive, intricately designed minefields, all covered by pre-planned artillery fires. This is one of the few areas where the Russian military has performed largely according to its Cold War-era doctrine and has done so with considerable effect.⁶

II.C. The Challenge of the Offensive: Breaching Modern Defenses in Depth

The immense difficulty of conducting successful offensive operations against a prepared, modern defense is one of the most significant lessons of the war. The Ukrainian summer counteroffensive of 2023 provides a stark case study in the modern defender’s advantage.¹⁶

The original Ukrainian concept of operations was doctrinally sound: a concentrated armored and mechanized thrust on a narrow 30-kilometer front, designed to achieve a rapid breakthrough, isolate the key logistical hub of Tokmak within a week, and then exploit the success by advancing south towards Melitopol.¹⁶ The plan relied on tempo to prevent Russia from bringing the bulk of its reserves to bear. However, this concept was not implemented as planned, due to a combination of Ukrainian and partner errors.¹⁶

The offensive ultimately failed to achieve its strategic objectives for several key reasons:

Inadequate Enablers: Ukraine and its international partners failed to assemble the doctrinal minimum of critical enabling assets required for a successful combined arms breach. This included a severe lack of air superiority, insufficient numbers of engineering and mine-clearing vehicles, and inadequate stockpiles of artillery ammunition.¹⁶
Inexperienced Assault Forces: As previously noted, the main assault brigades were largely newly raised formations. While equipped with Western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, they lacked the deep, collective combat experience necessary to execute highly complex and dangerous breach operations under constant enemy fire, leading to tactical errors and high initial equipment losses.¹⁶
Loss of Operational Security: The offensive was one of the most widely anticipated military operations in recent history. Poor operational security meant that Russia knew precisely where and approximately when the main effort would take place, allowing it to prepare its defenses and concentrate its reserves accordingly.¹⁶
Density and Sophistication of Obstacles: Russian engineers created obstacle belts of unprecedented density and depth. These belts, often ranging up to 1,000 meters deep and sometimes much more, were interlaced with multiple types of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, often rigged with anti-tampering devices.⁶ Russian engineers also adapted their tactics in real-time, for example, by “double-stacking” anti-tank mines to more quickly disable and destroy Ukrainian mine-clearing equipment.⁶

The modern battlefield, as demonstrated in Ukraine, has become a “defender’s paradise.” The combination of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) from drones and satellites, long-range precision fires, and sophisticated, deep obstacle belts has dramatically shifted the cost-ratio of offense to defense. An attacker must now expend a disproportionate amount of resources and accept immense attrition for even minor territorial gains. The traditional military planning assumption of a 3:1 attacker-to-defender ratio for a successful breach may now be a gross underestimate. The true ratio could be significantly higher, or perhaps the concept itself is becoming irrelevant if the attacker cannot first achieve dominance in the information and fires domains to blind and suppress the defender before the assault begins. This has profound implications for future force sizing, equipment procurement, and operational planning for any military, including that of the United States, which may have a massive shortfall in the bridging and breaching resources required for such an operation.⁶

II.D. Logistics and the Industrial Engine of War: The Decisive Rear Battle

The conflict has served as a brutal reminder of the old military axiom that amateurs talk strategy while professionals talk logistics. The war has been defined by staggering rates of ammunition consumption, particularly for artillery, that have dwarfed all pre-war planning assumptions and exposed the systemic fragility of Western stockpiles and defense production capacity.⁷

A central lesson of this war is that victory in a protracted LSCO is impossible without a robust, scalable, and resilient defense industrial base (DIB). Russia, recognizing the conflict would be a long one, began transitioning to a war economy as early as May 2022, placing its industry on a footing to sustain a multi-year effort.¹⁶ In contrast, Ukraine’s international partners were slow to recognize the industrial demands of the conflict and to take the necessary steps to ramp up their own production lines, creating critical shortages of key munitions at pivotal moments.¹⁶

The conflict also validates the long-standing doctrinal need for a “high-low” mix of military equipment.¹⁴ Expensive, technologically sophisticated “high-end” systems like advanced fighter jets and precision missiles are crucial for achieving specific effects, but they are difficult and time-consuming to manufacture and cannot be produced in the sheer numbers required for a war of attrition. Mass, which is a quality of its own, is achieved with cheaper, simpler, and more easily manufactured “low-end” weapons and munitions.¹⁴

Furthermore, the transparency of the battlefield has made logistics a contested domain. Once offensive operations are committed, ground lines of communication (GLOCs) become predictable and highly targetable by enemy long-range precision fires and drone attacks.¹⁶ This ability to strike deep into an opponent’s operational rear collapses the tempo of operations and makes sustaining an advance incredibly difficult.

This reality signals the probable end of the “short, sharp war” paradigm that has dominated Western military thinking since the end of the Cold War. Future peer conflicts are likely to be protracted, industrial-scale wars of attrition. This elevates a nation’s DIB and its ability to mobilize its economy from a supporting element of military strategy to the strategic center of gravity. National security strategy must now be inextricably linked with a robust industrial policy focused on creating peacetime excess capacity, securing supply chains for critical components, and maintaining a skilled manufacturing workforce. A nation without the ability to mass-produce basic munitions and equipment cannot sustain a high-intensity fight, regardless of how technologically advanced its frontline forces may be at the outset.

III. The Technological Domain: Disruption, Transparency, and Contestation

The war in Ukraine has been a crucible for military technology, accelerating innovation cycles and providing a real-world testbed for new systems and concepts. It has demonstrated how technology can both revolutionize battlefield dynamics and, paradoxically, reinforce timeless principles of warfare. The modern battlefield has become transparent and hyper-lethal, the electromagnetic spectrum has solidified its status as a primary warfighting domain, and new, cheaper technologies are fundamentally challenging the dominance of expensive, legacy platforms.

III.A. The Ubiquitous Drone: Revolutionizing the Tactical and Operational Levels

The single most transformative technology of the conflict has been the proliferation of cheap, effective, and versatile Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Combined with the widespread availability of commercial satellite imagery, drones have rendered the battlefield almost completely transparent, making traditional concepts of surprise and concealment incredibly difficult to achieve.³ Any force that masses or breaks cover is likely to be seen and targeted within minutes.

This has led to a “democratization of airpower.” Small, inexpensive First-Person-View (FPV) drones, often assembled by soldiers and volunteers from commercially available parts, have become a primary means of reconnaissance, artillery spotting, and direct attack.⁷ These “kamikaze” drones have given small infantry units a persistent, organic precision-strike capability that was previously the exclusive domain of air forces or specialized artillery units, and at a fraction of the cost.¹⁸

This represents a profound asymmetric threat. A drone costing a few thousand dollars can locate and destroy a multi-million dollar main battle tank, air defense system, or artillery piece.⁷ This dynamic has forced a radical re-evaluation of the survivability and cost-effectiveness of expensive legacy platforms, which were designed for a less transparent battlefield.²¹

Crucially, the cycle of technological innovation and tactical adaptation in drone warfare is occurring at a blistering pace. Ukrainian forces report updating drone software nightly and making hardware changes every few weeks based on direct feedback from the front lines.²³ This rapid, bottom-up innovation cycle is orders of magnitude faster than the traditional, top-down military acquisition processes of Western nations, presenting a significant challenge for maintaining a technological edge.²³

III.B. The Electronic Battlefield: The Contest for the Spectrum

The proliferation of drones, sensors, and networked communications has made Electronic Warfare (EW) a central and indispensable component of modern combat. The fight for control of the electromagnetic spectrum is no longer an ancillary activity; it is a core competency essential for survival and success.²⁴ EW is critical for jamming enemy drones to disrupt their command links and navigation, for interfering with enemy communications to degrade their C2, and for protecting friendly forces from detection and targeting.

EW has also become a decisive factor in the duel between precision munitions and their targets. Russia, after initially struggling, has successfully adapted its EW capabilities to degrade the accuracy of GPS-guided munitions supplied to Ukraine, including GMLRS rockets and Excalibur artillery shells.¹⁶ This demonstrates that even significant technological advantages can be fleeting and are subject to the continuous development of effective countermeasures. The reliance of modern military forces on the electromagnetic spectrum for C2, ISR, and precision strike makes them inherently vulnerable to jamming and interference. This underscores the need for future systems to be agile, software-defined, and resilient, with the ability to operate in a degraded or denied spectrum environment.¹⁶

III.C. Fires and Counter-Fires: The Evolving Duel of Precision and Mass

At its heart, the conflict in Ukraine is an artillery war.²¹ Massed artillery fire remains the primary cause of casualties and destruction on the battlefield. The war has been a contest between the precision of Western-supplied systems and the sheer mass of Russian artillery.

The introduction of Western Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) systems, most notably the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), had a significant operational impact early on. These systems allowed Ukraine to strike high-value Russian targets—such as command posts, ammunition depots, and logistical hubs—deep in the operational rear, disrupting Russian operations and degrading their combat capability.⁹

However, no single system is a “wonder weapon.” The Russian military adapted to the HIMARS threat by dispersing its logistics into smaller, more numerous depots, hardening its command posts, and improving its EW capabilities to interfere with the GPS guidance of the rockets.¹⁶ This adaptation reduced, though did not eliminate, the effectiveness of these systems over time, highlighting the constant cat-and-mouse game of measure and countermeasure that defines modern warfare.

In a more recent adaptation, Russia has evolved its aerial campaign into a “new salvo war.” This strategy involves launching massed, combined salvos of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and one-way attack drones—sometimes exceeding 700 munitions in a single strike—to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses through sheer volume and complexity.¹⁹ This approach underscores the critical importance of deep magazines of interceptor missiles and the need for more cost-effective air defense solutions to counter the threat of cheap but numerous drones.

III.D. The High Ground: The Unprecedented Role of Space and Cyber Assets

The conflict has unequivocally demonstrated that space is a critical warfighting domain.²⁵ The war has seen the unprecedented integration of space-based services—including satellite communications (SATCOM), positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) from systems like GPS, and satellite-based ISR—into tactical and operational planning.

A truly game-changing development has been the decisive role of commercial space capabilities. Ukraine’s ability to leverage Western commercial space assets has been a significant force multiplier, allowing it to offset Russia’s considerable advantages in national military space capabilities.²⁵ The provision of the Starlink satellite internet service provided resilient battlefield communications when terrestrial networks were destroyed or jammed. Likewise, access to high-resolution commercial satellite imagery provided Ukrainian forces with invaluable intelligence on Russian force dispositions and movements.

However, these space assets are not invulnerable. The war began with a major Russian cyberattack against the Viasat satellite network, which disrupted Ukrainian military communications in the opening hours of the invasion.²³ GPS jamming by Russian EW systems is a constant feature of the conflict, affecting everything from drone navigation to the accuracy of guided munitions.²⁶ This highlights the vulnerability of relying on a small number of exquisite satellites and reinforces the need for more resilient, proliferated satellite architectures that are harder to disrupt or destroy. Cyber warfare has been a constant, integrated feature of the conflict, with attacks targeting military, government, and critical infrastructure on both sides, confirming that cyber operations are now an integral part of modern combined arms warfare.²⁴

The conflict has introduced a new category of military asset that sits between “expendable” (like a bullet) and “survivable” (like a fighter jet): the “attritable” system.¹⁸ These are platforms like FPV drones or unmanned surface vehicles that are inexpensive enough to be lost in large numbers to achieve tactical effects, yet sophisticated enough to have an operational impact. This fundamentally changes the risk calculus for commanders. They can accept risks with these systems—such as one-way reconnaissance or saturation attacks—that would be unthinkable with a manned aircraft or a main battle tank. Future force design and acquisition must account for this new category. Militaries will need to invest not just in exquisite, survivable platforms, but also in a vast number of cheap, effective, and attritable systems that can provide mass, saturate enemy defenses, and impose disproportionate costs on an adversary.

III.E. The Underperformance of “Classical” Air and Sea Power

One of the greatest surprises of the war has been the striking underperformance of Russia’s conventional air and sea power, which were widely expected to dominate their respective domains.

Despite possessing one of the world’s largest and most modern air forces, the Russian Air Force (VKS) failed to achieve air superiority over Ukraine in the opening days of the war, and has been unable to do so since.²¹ This failure can be attributed to a combination of poor planning, ineffective Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) operations, a lack of precision-guided munitions, and the surprising resilience and tactical ingenuity of Ukraine’s mobile, layered air defense network.²¹ The inability of either side to establish control of the air has resulted in a mutually denied airspace. This has forced both air forces to operate cautiously, often at low altitudes and for limited periods over the front lines, severely limiting their effectiveness and contributing to the attritional stalemate on the ground.²¹

In the maritime domain, the war has been a showcase for asymmetric naval warfare. Ukraine, despite having virtually no functional navy at the start of the full-scale invasion, has successfully challenged the dominance of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. It has sunk numerous vessels, including the fleet’s flagship, the cruiser Moskva, and forced the remainder of the fleet to retreat from the northwestern Black Sea, effectively reopening a maritime corridor for grain exports.²³ This remarkable achievement was accomplished through the innovative and integrated use of land-based anti-ship cruise missiles and, critically, domestically produced unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) used in “kamikaze” attacks.²³ This demonstrates that smaller powers can effectively achieve sea denial against larger, more powerful navies by leveraging asymmetric, low-cost, and unmanned technologies.

The paradox of the “transparent battlefield” is that it dramatically increases the importance of old-fashioned, fundamental military skills. In an environment where everything can be seen by a vast array of sensors, the most effective weapon is to not be seen at all. This has led to a renaissance of techniques like camouflage, concealment, deception, and dispersal.³ Massed forces are quickly identified and destroyed.⁶ Survival depends on hiding. This is a reversion to pre-digital age tactics, but now supercharged by the hyper-lethality of the systems that will find and destroy you if you fail. Future military training must re-emphasize “fieldcraft” and active signature management (thermal, electronic, and physical) as core survival skills. Investment in advanced camouflage systems, realistic decoys, and strict emission control (EMCON) techniques may provide a higher survivability payoff than simply adding more armor to a vehicle.

IV. Synthesis and Key Military Lessons for Future Conflict

The Russia-Ukraine conflict provides a comprehensive, if brutal, dataset on the character of modern large-scale warfare. Synthesizing the lessons from the human, operational, and technological domains reveals a series of cross-cutting implications that should inform the doctrine, force structure, and strategic posture of Western militaries for decades to come.

IV.A. Key Russian Failures and Adaptations

Russia’s military performance has been a story of profound initial failure followed by a grinding, costly, but undeniable adaptation.

Initial Failures: The campaign was launched on a foundation of hubristic strategic planning and catastrophic intelligence failures regarding Ukraine’s will and ability to resist.⁷ This was compounded by a brittle, centralized C2 system that could not adapt to battlefield realities, woefully inadequate logistics, a systemic failure to conduct effective combined arms operations, and the inability of its vaunted air force to achieve air superiority.⁷
Subsequent Adaptations: Faced with the collapse of its initial plan, Russia adapted. It shifted from a flawed maneuver strategy to a brutal, grinding attritional strategy that played to its strengths in mass and a high tolerance for casualties.¹⁴ Its forces have excelled in defensive engineering, creating formidable obstacles that have proven exceptionally difficult to breach.⁶ They have improved their EW capabilities to counter Western precision munitions and have successfully mobilized their DIB and society for a long war, demonstrating a strategic resilience that many in the West underestimated.¹⁶

IV.B. Key Ukrainian Successes and Shortcomings

Ukraine’s defense has been a testament to national will and tactical ingenuity, but it has also revealed the inherent vulnerabilities of a smaller state reliant on external support.

Successes: The primary Ukrainian success has been its unbreakable national will and societal resilience.³ This has been translated into military effectiveness through tactical ingenuity and a culture of rapid, bottom-up adaptation. Ukrainian forces have demonstrated a remarkable ability to effectively integrate and employ Western-supplied systems, particularly LRPF, and have pioneered the use of commercial technology, such as drones and commercial space assets, for military effect.²³ Their success in asymmetric naval warfare against the Black Sea Fleet is a textbook example of this innovative spirit.²³
Shortcomings: Ukraine continues to face significant challenges. It has struggled to fully scale a Western-style mission command philosophy across its rapidly expanded forces.¹¹ It critically lacks the organic resources—particularly airpower, engineering assets, and a deep industrial base—to conduct sustained, large-scale offensive operations against prepared Russian defenses.¹⁶ This leads to a heavy and potentially precarious dependence on the political will and industrial capacity of its international partners. Finally, like Russia, it is suffering from the high attrition of its most experienced personnel, a loss that will be difficult to replace.¹²

IV.C. Cross-Cutting Implications for Western Militaries

The lessons from Ukraine are not just for the belligerents; they are a stark warning for all modern militaries, particularly those in the West that have been optimized for a different kind of warfare.

The Industrial Base is a Strategic Weapon: The DIB can no longer be considered a secondary, background concern. It is a primary determinant of strategic success in any protracted conflict. The ability to mass-produce munitions, drones, and replacement equipment is a core component of national power. Peacetime industrial policies and stockpile levels across NATO require an urgent and fundamental re-evaluation.¹⁴
Mass is a Quality of Its Own: For two decades, Western military thought has prioritized quality over quantity, resulting in smaller, highly professional, and technologically advanced forces. This conflict demonstrates that such forces, while potent, may be insufficient to absorb the attrition of LSCO and hold ground over vast fronts. Force structures, mobilization doctrines, and the balance between professional and reserve components need to be reviewed to ensure sufficient mass for a high-intensity fight.¹⁴
The Primacy of Counter-ISR and EW: On the transparent battlefield, the prerequisite for any successful operation, whether offensive or defensive, is the ability to win the counter-reconnaissance fight. Denying the enemy the ability to see and target you, while maintaining your own situational awareness, is paramount. This elevates EW and signature management from supporting roles to a central, decisive effort.¹⁶
Doctrine is Not Dogma: The war has shown that no pre-war doctrine perfectly anticipated the character of this conflict. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces have had to adapt or suffer the consequences. The most critical institutional attribute for a modern military is the ability to learn and adapt faster than the enemy.³ While NATO’s operational-level doctrine may be sound in principle, the alliance’s ability to resource and implement it over the course of a long, attritional war is a serious and open question.⁴

Conclusion: Preparing for the Next War

The war in Ukraine has been a brutal, clarifying event. It has stripped away assumptions and illusions about the nature of modern warfare, revealing a future that is a complex and lethal hybrid of industrial-age mass and information-age precision. It is a future where the battlefield is transparent, the electromagnetic spectrum is a contested battlespace, and attritional capacity is as important as maneuver skill.

The conflict serves as a stark and unequivocal warning against the persistent Western predilection for assuming future wars will be short, sharp, and decisive. It demands a return to the first principles of military science: the foundational importance of logistics, the unglamorous but essential role of industrial capacity, the grim necessity of mass, and, above all, the indomitable power of the human will to fight.

The most crucial preparation for the next war is therefore not merely the acquisition of new technology or the refinement of existing doctrine. It is the fostering of an institutional culture—across government, industry, and the military—that is intellectually humble, ruthlessly self-critical, and institutionally agile. It requires building a national security enterprise that is resilient, adaptable, and psychologically prepared for a long, hard fight. The soldiers in the trenches of Ukraine have relearned these lessons in blood. The West must now learn them in time.

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. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

Works cited

MWI Podcast: Clausewitz and the War in Ukraine – Modern War Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/mwi-podcast-clausewitz-and-the-war-in-ukraine/
RUSSIAN WAR AGAINST UKRAINE LESSONS LEARNED CURRICULUM GUIDE – NATO, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/12/pdf/231208-RusWar-Ukraine-Lessons-Curriculum.pdf
Human Domain Lessons from Russia-Ukraine | Conflict in Focus – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/human-domain-lessons-russia-ukraine-conflict-focus
Russia’s War in Ukraine: Emerging Insights for UK and NATO Joint Doctrine – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3400-1.html
Russia’s Battlefield Woes in Ukraine – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-battlefield-woes-ukraine
Engineer Lessons Learned From the War in Ukraine – Line of Departure, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Engineer/July-24-Engineer/Lessons-Ukraine/
Russia’s War in Ukraine: Misleading Doctrine and Misguided Strategy, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/dgris/Etude%20de%20fond%20n%C2%B01%20-%20Russia%E2%80%99s%20war%20in%20Ukraine.pdf
Russias War in Ukraine – Marine Corps University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-14-no-2/Russias-War-in-Ukraine/
The Russia-Ukraine Conflict Laboratory: Observations Informing IAMD, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-2024/Russia-Ukraine-Conflict-Laboratory/
Lessons learned from Ukraine Russia war : r/Military – Reddit, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/192f9r5/lessons_learned_from_ukraine_russia_war/
A Long, Hard Year: Russia-Ukraine War Lessons Learned 2023, accessed August 22, 2025, https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3890256/a-long-hard-year-russia-ukraine-war-lessons-learned-2023/
Ukrainian Military Performance and Outlook | Congress.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12150
The Battle of Kyiv, Three Years On: An Urban Warfare Project Case Study, accessed August 22, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-battle-of-kyiv-three-years-on-an-urban-warfare-project-case-study/
The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
How has the change to and from western military doctrine affected Russian gains in Ukraine? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1f92g7y/how_has_the_change_to_and_from_western_military/
Preliminary Lessons from Ukraine’s Offensive Operations, 2022–23 – RUSI, accessed August 22, 2025, https://static.rusi.org/lessons-learned-ukraine-offensive-2022-23.pdf
Dispersed, Disguised, and Degradable: The Implications of the Fighting in Ukraine for Future U.S.-Involved Conflicts – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3100/RRA3141-2/RAND_RRA3141-2.pdf
Air and Space Domain Lessons from Russia-Ukraine: Part One | Conflict in Focus – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/air-and-space-domain-lessons-russia-ukraine-part-one-conflict-focus
Ukraine War: Research & Analysis – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/topics/ukraine-war
The Russia-Ukraine War: It Takes a Land Force to Defeat a Land …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2025-ole/russia-ukraine-war/
The Military Lessons of the Russia-Ukraine War – OBSERVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/posts/pdf/20240119104743.pdf
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 14, 2025 | Institute for the Study of War, accessed August 22, 2025, https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-14-2025
Conflict in Focus: Lessons from Russia-Ukraine – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/conflict-focus-lessons-russia-ukraine
Lessons from the Ukraine Conflict: Modern Warfare in the Age of Autonomy, Information, and Resilience – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/lessons-ukraine-conflict-modern-warfare-age-autonomy-information-and-resilience
Lessons from the War in Ukraine for Space: Challenges and Opportunities for Future Conflicts – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2900/RRA2950-1/RAND_RRA2950-1.pdf
Lessons from the War in Ukraine for Space – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2950-1.html
The Russo-Ukrainian War: A Strategic Assessment Two Years into the Conflict – AUSA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/publications/russo-ukrainian-war-strategic-assessment-two-years-conflict

Analytics and Reports, China Analytics, Military Analytics, Russian & Soviet Analytics, Uncategorized

The New Battlespace: Gray Zone Conflict in an Era of Great Power Competition

August 28, 2025 RoninsGrips

The primary arena for great power competition has shifted from conventional military confrontation to a persistent, multi-domain struggle in the “gray zone” between peace and war. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the alternative forms of conflict employed by the United States, the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China. It moves beyond theoretical frameworks to assess the practical application and effectiveness of economic warfare, cyber operations, information warfare, proxy conflicts, and legal warfare (“lawfare”). The analysis reveals distinct strategic approaches: the United States acts primarily as a defender of the existing international order, using its systemic advantages for targeted coercion; Russia operates as a strategic disrupter, employing asymmetric tools to generate chaos and undermine Western cohesion; and China functions as a systemic revisionist, patiently executing a long-term strategy to displace U.S. influence and reshape global norms in its favor.

The key finding of this report is that while these gray zone methods have proven effective at achieving discrete objectives and managing escalation, their long-term strategic success is mixed. Critically, they often produce significant unintended consequences that are actively reshaping the global security and economic order. The use of broad economic sanctions and tariffs, for example, has accelerated the formation of an alternative, non-Western economic bloc and spurred efforts to de-dollarize international trade. Similarly, persistent cyber and information attacks, while achieving tactical surprise and disruption, have hardened defenses and eroded the trust necessary for international cooperation. The gray zone is not a temporary state of affairs but the new, permanent battlespace where the future of the international order will be decided. Navigating this environment requires a fundamental shift in strategy from crisis response to one of perpetual, integrated competition across all instruments of national power.

Section I: The Strategic Environment: Redefining Conflict in the 21st Century

From Open War to Pervasive Competition

The 21st-century strategic landscape is defined by a distinct shift away from the paradigm of declared, conventional warfare between major powers. The overwhelming military and technological superiority of the United States and its alliance network has created a powerful disincentive for peer competitors to engage in direct armed conflict.¹ Consequently, rivals such as Russia and China have adapted by developing and refining a sophisticated toolkit of alternative conflict methods. These strategies are designed to challenge the U.S.-led international order, erode its influence, and achieve significant strategic gains without crossing the unambiguous threshold of armed aggression that would trigger a conventional military response from the United States and its allies.¹ This evolution does not signify an era of peace, but rather a transformation in the character of conflict to a state of persistent, pervasive competition waged across every domain of state power, from the economic and digital to the informational and legal.

Anatomy of the Gray Zone

This new era of competition is primarily conducted within a strategically ambiguous space known as the “gray zone.” The United States Special Operations Command defines this arena as “competitive interactions among and within state and non-state actors that fall between the traditional war and peace duality”.³ The central characteristic of gray zone operations is the deliberate calibration of actions to remain below the threshold of what could be legally and politically defined as a use of force warranting a conventional military response under international law (jus ad bellum).²

Ambiguity and plausible deniability are the currency of the gray zone. Actions are designed to be difficult to attribute and interpret, thereby creating confusion and sowing hesitation within an adversary’s decision-making cycle.⁴ This calculated ambiguity is particularly effective against democratic nations. The legal and bureaucratic structures of democracies are often optimized for a clear distinction between peace and war, making them slow to recognize and counter threats that defy this binary.³ This can lead to policy paralysis or responses that are either disproportionately escalatory or strategically insignificant, a vulnerability that actors like Russia and China consistently exploit.³ The toolkit for gray zone operations is extensive, including but not limited to information operations, political coercion, economic pressure, cyberattacks, support for proxies, and provocations by state-controlled forces.¹ While many of these tactics are as old as statecraft itself, their integrated and synergistic application, amplified by modern information and communication technologies, represents a distinct evolution in the nature of conflict.¹

The Hybrid Warfare Playbook

If the gray zone is the strategic arena, “hybrid warfare” is the tactical playbook used to compete within it. While not a formally defined term in international law, it is widely understood to describe the synchronized use of multiple instruments of power—military and non-military, conventional and unconventional, overt and covert—to destabilize an adversary and achieve strategic objectives.² The objective is to create synergistic effects where the whole of the campaign is greater than the sum of its parts.²

The Russian strategic approach, often associated with Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, explicitly elevates the role of non-military means, viewing them as often more effective than armed force in achieving political and strategic goals.⁵ This doctrine was vividly demonstrated in the lead-up to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, where Russia combined a massive military buildup with a sophisticated disinformation campaign, cyberattacks, economic pressure on European energy markets, and nuclear blackmail to shape the strategic environment.²

It is essential to distinguish between these two concepts: the gray zone describes the operational space where competition occurs, while hybrid warfare describes the methods employed within that space.² Most hybrid tactics are deliberately applied in the gray zone precisely to exploit its ambiguity and avoid triggering a formal state of armed conflict as defined by international humanitarian law.³ This strategic choice is not an accident but a calculated effort to wage conflict in a manner that neutralizes the primary strengths of a conventionally superior adversary. The gray zone is, therefore, an asymmetric battlespace, deliberately crafted to turn the foundational pillars of the liberal international order—its commitment to the rule of law, open economies, and freedom of information—into exploitable vulnerabilities.

Section II: The Economic Arsenal: Geopolitics by Other Means

The US-China Tariff War: A Case Study in Economic Coercion

The economic competition between the United States and China escalated into open economic conflict in 2018, providing a clear case study in the use, effectiveness, and limitations of tariffs as a tool of modern statecraft.

Goals vs. Reality

The Trump administration initiated the trade war with a set of clearly articulated objectives: to force fundamental changes to what it termed China’s “longstanding unfair trade practices,” to halt the systemic theft of U.S. intellectual property, and to significantly reduce the large bilateral trade deficit.⁸ Beginning in January 2018 with tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, the conflict rapidly escalated. The U.S. imposed successive rounds of tariffs, eventually covering hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as its legal justification.⁸ China responded with immediate and symmetrical retaliation, targeting key U.S. exports with high political sensitivity, such as soybeans, pork, and automobiles, directly impacting the agricultural and manufacturing heartlands of the United States.⁸ This tit-for-tat escalation continued through 2019, culminating in a tense “Phase One” agreement in January 2020 that sought to de-escalate the conflict.⁸

Effectiveness Assessment: A Blunt Instrument

Despite the scale of the tariffs, the trade war largely failed to achieve its primary stated goals. The purchase commitments made by China in the Phase One deal were never fulfilled, with Beijing ultimately buying none of the additional $200 billion in U.S. exports it had pledged.⁸ Rigorous economic analysis has demonstrated that the economic burden of the tariffs was borne almost entirely by U.S. firms and consumers, not by Chinese exporters.¹¹ This resulted in higher prices for a wide range of goods and was estimated to have reduced U.S. real income by $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018.¹²

Furthermore, the pervasive policy uncertainty generated by the conflict had a chilling effect on global business investment and economic growth.¹³ Companies, unable to predict the future of the world’s most important trade relationship, delayed capital expenditures, disrupting global supply chains and slowing economic activity far beyond the borders of the two belligerents.¹³ The trade war thus serves as a powerful example of how broad-based tariffs function as a blunt and costly instrument, inflicting significant self-harm while yielding limited strategic gains.

Unintended Consequences

The most profound and lasting impacts of the trade war were not its intended effects but its unintended consequences. Rather than forcing a rebalancing of the U.S.-China economic relationship, the conflict accelerated a process of strategic decoupling. It compelled multinational corporations to begin the costly and complex process of diversifying their supply chains away from China, a trend that benefited manufacturing hubs in other parts of Asia, particularly Vietnam.¹⁵

Perhaps more significantly, the trade war reinforced Beijing’s conviction that it could not rely on an open, rules-based global economic system dominated by the United States. In response, China has intensified its national drive for technological self-sufficiency in critical sectors like semiconductors, a move that could, in the long term, diminish U.S. technological and economic leverage.¹⁶ By sidelining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in favor of unilateral action, the United States also weakened the very multilateral institutions it had built, encouraging a global shift toward protectionism and regional trade blocs.¹⁴

The Sanctions Regime Against Russia: Testing Economic Containment

The Western response to Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine represents the most comprehensive and coordinated use of economic sanctions against a major power in modern history. This campaign serves as a critical test of the efficacy of economic containment in the 21st century.

Targeting the War Machine

The sanctions regime implemented by the United States and a broad coalition of allies was designed with a clear purpose: to cripple the Russian Federation’s ability to finance and technologically sustain its war of aggression.¹⁹ The measures were unprecedented in their scope and speed, targeting the core pillars of the Russian economy. Key actions included freezing hundreds of billions of dollars of the Russian Central Bank’s foreign reserves, disconnecting major Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system, imposing a near-total ban on the export of high-technology goods like semiconductors, and implementing a novel price cap on Russian seaborne crude oil exports.²¹ This multi-pronged assault aimed to deny Moscow the revenue, financing, and technology essential for its military-industrial complex.²⁰

The Limits of Efficacy and Russian Adaptation

While the sanctions have inflicted undeniable and significant damage on the Russian economy, they have failed to deliver a knockout blow or compel a change in Moscow’s strategic objectives. Estimates suggest that Russia’s GDP is now 10-12% smaller than it would have been without the invasion and subsequent sanctions.²² However, the Russian economy has proven far more resilient than initially expected.¹⁹

Moscow’s adaptation has been threefold. First, it transitioned its economy onto a full war footing, with massive increases in defense spending fueling industrial production and stimulating GDP growth, albeit in an unsustainable manner.¹⁹ Second, it proved adept at sanctions evasion. Russia successfully rerouted the majority of its energy exports from Europe to new markets in China and India, often selling at a discount but still generating substantial revenue.²¹ It also developed a “shadow fleet” of oil tankers operating outside of Western insurance and financial systems to circumvent the G7 price cap.²² Third, and most critically, it leveraged its partnership with China to procure essential dual-use technologies, such as microelectronics and machine tools, that were cut off by Western export controls.²⁰

Strategic Realignment

The most significant long-term consequence of the sanctions regime has been a fundamental and likely irreversible strategic realignment of the Russian economy. Forced out of Western markets and financial systems, Moscow has dramatically deepened its economic, technological, and financial integration with China. Bilateral trade has surged to record levels, and the Chinese yuan has increasingly replaced the U.S. dollar in Russia’s trade and foreign reserves.¹⁷ This has accelerated the consolidation of a powerful Eurasian economic bloc positioned as a direct counterweight to the U.S.-led financial and trade system. The sanctions, intended to isolate Russia, have inadvertently catalyzed the creation of a more robust and resilient alternative economic architecture, thereby spurring global de-dollarization efforts and potentially weakening the long-term efficacy of U.S. financial power.¹⁹

This dynamic illustrates a central paradox of modern economic warfare: the aggressive use of systemic economic power, while effective at inflicting short-term pain, simultaneously provides a powerful incentive for adversaries to build parallel systems designed to be immune to that very power. Each application of sanctions against Russia or tariffs against China acts as a catalyst for the construction of an alternative global economic order, eroding the foundations of U.S. leverage over time.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Influence Through Investment

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a cornerstone of its foreign policy and a primary instrument of its economic statecraft. While often portrayed through a simplistic lens, its strategic function is nuanced and far-reaching.

Beyond the “Debt-Trap” Narrative

In Western strategic discourse, the BRI is frequently characterized as a form of “debt-trap diplomacy”.²⁷ This narrative posits that China intentionally extends unsustainable loans to developing nations for large-scale infrastructure projects. When these nations inevitably default, Beijing allegedly seizes control of the strategic assets—such as ports or railways—thereby expanding its geopolitical and military footprint.²⁷ The case of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port is consistently cited as the primary evidence for this strategy.²⁷

A Nuanced Reality

A detailed examination of the Hambantota Port case, however, reveals a more complex reality that undermines the simplistic debt-trap thesis. The proposal for the port originated with the Sri Lankan government, not with Beijing, as part of a long-standing domestic development agenda.²⁷ Furthermore, Sri Lanka’s severe debt crisis in the mid-2010s was not primarily caused by Chinese lending, but by excessive borrowing from Western-dominated international capital markets and unsustainable domestic fiscal policies.²⁷ Chinese loans constituted a relatively small portion of Sri Lanka’s overall foreign debt.²⁷

Crucially, the port was not seized in a debt-for-equity swap. Instead, facing a balance of payments crisis, the Sri Lankan government chose to lease a majority stake in the port’s operations to a Chinese state-owned enterprise for 99 years in exchange for $1.1 billion in hard currency.²⁷ These funds were then used to shore up Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves and service its more pressing debts to Western creditors.²⁷

While the debt-trap narrative is an oversimplification, it does not mean the BRI is benign. It is a powerful instrument of geoeconomic influence. By becoming the primary financier and builder of critical infrastructure across the developing world, China creates long-term economic dependencies, secures access to resources, opens new markets for its companies, and builds political goodwill that can be translated into diplomatic support on the international stage.³⁰ The BRI allows China to systematically expand its global footprint and embed its economic and, increasingly, technological standards across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, thereby challenging the post-Cold War economic order.

Section III: The Digital Frontlines: Cyber and Electronic Warfare

The cyber domain has emerged as a central theater for great power competition, offering a low-cost, high-impact, and plausibly deniable means of projecting power and undermining adversaries. Russia and China have both developed sophisticated cyber capabilities, but they employ them in pursuit of distinct strategic objectives, reflecting their different geopolitical positions and long-term goals.

Russia’s Doctrine of Disruption

Russia’s approach to cyber warfare is fundamentally asymmetric and disruptive, designed to compensate for its relative weakness in the conventional military and economic domains. Its cyber operations prioritize psychological impact and the creation of societal chaos over permanent destruction.

This doctrine has been demonstrated through a series of high-profile operations against the United States. The cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2015-2016 were not merely an act of espionage but an influence operation designed to disrupt the U.S. presidential election and erode public trust in the democratic process.³² The 2020 SolarWinds supply chain attack represented a new level of sophistication, compromising the networks of numerous U.S. government agencies and thousands of private sector companies by inserting malicious code into a trusted software update.³⁴ This operation provided Russia with widespread, persistent access for espionage and potential future disruption. Similarly, the 2021 ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline, while attributed to a criminal group, highlighted the profound vulnerability of U.S. critical infrastructure to disruptive cyberattacks, causing widespread fuel shortages along the East Coast.³⁴

The strategic objective underpinning these actions is the generation of uncertainty and the degradation of an adversary’s will to act.³⁷ By demonstrating the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and democratic institutions, Russia aims to create a psychological effect that far exceeds the direct technical damage, sowing division and decision-making paralysis within the target nation.³⁷ Joint advisories from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) repeatedly confirm that Russian state-sponsored actors are persistently targeting U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, including energy, finance, and defense, for both espionage and disruptive purposes.³⁸

China’s Strategy of Espionage and Exploitation

In contrast to Russia’s disruptive tactics, China’s cyber strategy is characterized by its industrial scale, persistence, and systematic focus on long-term intelligence gathering and intellectual property (IP) theft. It is not primarily a tool of chaos but a core component of China’s comprehensive national strategy to supplant the United States as the world’s leading economic and military power.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) maintains dedicated units, such as the infamous Unit 61398 (also known as APT1), tasked with conducting large-scale cyber espionage campaigns against foreign targets.⁴² These operations have successfully exfiltrated vast quantities of sensitive data from the United States. Notable examples include the systematic theft of design data for numerous advanced U.S. weapons systems, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-22 Raptor, and the Patriot missile system.³⁴ This stolen IP directly fuels China’s own military modernization, allowing it to reverse-engineer and replicate advanced technologies, thereby leapfrogging decades of costly research and development and rapidly eroding America’s qualitative military edge.³⁴

Beyond military secrets, China’s cyber espionage targets a wide array of sectors to advance its economic goals. This includes the theft of trade secrets from leading U.S. companies in industries ranging from energy to pharmaceuticals.³⁴ The massive 2015 breach of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which compromised the sensitive personal data of over 21 million current and former federal employees, provided Beijing with an invaluable database for identifying, targeting, and recruiting intelligence assets for decades to come.³⁴ Recent intelligence reports indicate a dramatic surge in Chinese cyber espionage operations, with a 150% increase in 2024 alone, highlighting the unabated intensity of this campaign.⁴⁴

Effectiveness and Asymmetry

Both Russia and China have successfully weaponized the cyber domain as a highly effective asymmetric tool. It allows them to contest U.S. power and impose significant costs while operating below the threshold of armed conflict and maintaining a degree of plausible deniability.⁴⁵ The difficulty of definitive, public attribution for cyberattacks creates a permissive environment for aggression, allowing state sponsors to operate with relative impunity.⁴⁵

This reality reveals a critical divergence in strategic timelines. Russia’s cyber doctrine is optimized for the short term, employing disruptive attacks to achieve immediate political and psychological effects that can shape a specific crisis or event. China, in contrast, is waging a long-term, strategic campaign of attrition. Its patient, industrial-scale espionage is designed to fundamentally alter the global balance of technological, economic, and military power over the course of decades. The United States, therefore, faces a dual cyber threat: Russia’s acute, shock-and-awe style disruptions and China’s chronic, corrosive campaign of exploitation. Effectively countering these divergent threats requires distinct strategies, mindsets, and capabilities.

Section IV: The War for Minds: Information and Influence Operations

In the gray zone, the cognitive domain is a primary battlefield. The strategic manipulation of information to shape perceptions, control narratives, and undermine societal cohesion has become a central pillar of modern conflict. Russia and China, while often collaborating in this space, pursue fundamentally different long-term objectives with their information and influence operations.

Russia’s “Active Measures 2.0”

Russia’s contemporary information warfare is a direct evolution of the Soviet Union’s “active measures,” updated for the digital age.³⁷ The core strategy is not to persuade foreign audiences of the superiority of the Russian model, but to degrade and disrupt the political systems of its adversaries from within.³⁷

The 2016 U.S. presidential election serves as the canonical example of this doctrine in practice. The operation, directed by President Vladimir Putin, was multifaceted, combining the cyber theft of sensitive information with a sophisticated social media campaign.³³ The GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, hacked the computer networks of the DNC and Clinton campaign officials, subsequently leaking the stolen emails through fronts like Guccifer 2.0 and platforms like WikiLeaks to generate damaging news cycles.³³

Simultaneously, the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), a state-sponsored “troll farm,” created thousands of fake social media accounts to impersonate American citizens and political groups.³³ The IRA’s primary tactic was not to spread pro-Russian propaganda, but to identify and inflame existing societal fault lines in the United States, particularly those related to race, gun control, immigration, and religion.⁵⁰ By creating and amplifying hyper-partisan content on both the far-left (e.g., supporting Black Lives Matter) and the far-right (e.g., supporting secessionist movements), the IRA’s goal was to deepen polarization, foster distrust in institutions, suppress voter turnout among targeted demographics, and ultimately undermine faith in the American democratic process itself.⁵⁰ This approach is highly effective because it acts as a social parasite, feeding on and magnifying organic divisions within an open society, making it difficult for citizens and policymakers to distinguish foreign manipulation from authentic domestic discourse.³⁷

China’s Quest for “Discourse Power”

China’s information strategy is more systematic, ambitious, and long-term than Russia’s. It is explicitly guided by the doctrine of the “Three Warfares”: public opinion warfare (shaping public perception), psychological warfare (influencing the cognition and decision-making of adversaries), and legal warfare (using law to seize the “legal high ground”).⁵⁴ The ultimate goal of this integrated strategy is to achieve what the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) calls “discourse power” (话语权).⁵⁶

Discourse power is the ability to shape global norms, values, and narratives to create consensus around a new, China-led international order.⁵⁶ This involves a multi-pronged effort to legitimize China’s authoritarian governance model and present it as a superior alternative to what it portrays as the chaotic and declining system of Western liberal democracy.⁵⁶ The CCP pursues this goal through several mechanisms:

Massive Investment in State Media: Beijing has poured billions of dollars into expanding the global reach of its state-controlled media outlets, such as CGTN and Xinhua, to broadcast the CCP’s narratives directly to international audiences.⁵⁴
United Front Work: The CCP’s United Front Work Department orchestrates a vast, global effort to co-opt and influence foreign elites, including politicians, academics, business leaders, and media figures, to advocate for China’s interests and silence criticism.⁵⁴
Digital Dominance: China seeks to shape the global digital ecosystem by exporting its model of “cyber sovereignty,” which prioritizes state control over the free flow of information, and by promoting its own technical standards for next-generation technologies like 5G and AI.⁵⁶

While Russia’s information operations are often opportunistic and focused on tactical disruption, China’s are patient, strategic, and aimed at a fundamental, long-term revision of the global information order.⁵⁸ Russia seeks to burn down the existing house; China seeks to build a new one in its place, with itself as the architect.

The U.S. Response: Public Diplomacy

The primary instrument for the United States in the information domain is public diplomacy, executed largely through the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). The USAGM oversees a network of broadcasters, including Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and Radio Free Asia (RFA).⁶⁰ The stated mission of these entities is to provide accurate, objective, and comprehensive news and information to audiences in countries where a free press is restricted, thereby serving as a counterweight to state propaganda and supporting the principles of freedom and democracy.⁶⁰ However, the USAGM has historically faced challenges, including internal political disputes and questions regarding its strategic effectiveness in a modern, saturated, and highly fragmented digital media landscape.⁶¹

This reveals a fundamental divergence in strategic approaches. Russian information warfare is a strategy of cognitive disruption, designed to confuse, divide, and ultimately paralyze an opponent by turning its own open information environment against it. Chinese information warfare is a strategy of cognitive displacement, a long-term project aimed at methodically replacing the norms, values, and narratives of the liberal international order with its own. Countering the former requires tactical resilience and societal inoculation against division, while countering the latter requires a sustained, global competition of ideas and a compelling reaffirmation of the value of the democratic model.

Section V: Conflict by Other Means: Proxies and Lawfare

Beyond the economic and digital realms, great powers continue to engage in conflict through indirect means, leveraging third-party actors and legal frameworks to advance their interests while avoiding direct confrontation. Proxy warfare and lawfare are two prominent tools in the gray zone playbook, used to alter the strategic landscape and impose costs on adversaries without resorting to open hostilities.

The Modern Proxy War

Proxy warfare, a hallmark of the Cold War, has been adapted to the contemporary environment. States support and direct non-state or third-party state actors to wage conflict, allowing the sponsoring power to achieve strategic objectives with limited direct risk and cost.

Syria as a Microcosm

The Syrian Civil War serves as a stark example of modern, multi-layered proxy conflict. The Russian Federation intervened militarily in 2015 with the explicit goal of preserving the regime of its client, Bashar al-Assad, which was on the verge of collapse.⁶³ This intervention was a direct pushback against U.S. and Western influence, as it placed Russian forces and their proxies, including the Wagner Group, in direct opposition to various Syrian opposition groups that were receiving support from the United States and its regional partners.⁶³ This created a complex and dangerous battlespace where the proxies of two nuclear powers were engaged in active combat. Throughout this period, the People’s Republic of China played a crucial supporting role for Russia, using its position on the UN Security Council to provide diplomatic cover. Beijing repeatedly joined Moscow in vetoing resolutions that would have condemned or sanctioned the Assad regime, demonstrating a coordinated Sino-Russian effort to thwart Western policy objectives in the Middle East.⁶⁵

Ukraine and the “Proxy Supporter” Model

The war in Ukraine represents a different but equally significant model of proxy conflict. The United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a classic proxy war, providing massive military, financial, and intelligence support to Ukraine to enable its defense against direct Russian aggression.²⁵ A critical evolution in this conflict is the role played by China as a “proxy supporter” for Russia. While Beijing has refrained from providing large quantities of direct lethal aid, its comprehensive economic and technological support has been indispensable to sustaining Russia’s war effort.²⁵ China has become the primary destination for sanctioned Russian energy, the main supplier of critical dual-use components like microelectronics for Russia’s military-industrial complex, and a key diplomatic partner in shielding Moscow from international condemnation.¹⁷ This support, while falling short of a formal military alliance, effectively makes China a co-belligerent in a gray-zone context. The dynamic is further complicated by North Korea’s role as a direct arms supplier to Russia, providing vast quantities of artillery shells and even troops, illustrating a multi-layered proxy network designed to sustain Russia’s war and bleed Western resources.²⁵

China’s Lawfare in the South China Sea

“Lawfare” is the strategic use of legal processes and instruments to achieve operational or geopolitical objectives.⁶⁹ China has masterfully employed lawfare in the South China Sea as a primary tool to assert its expansive territorial claims and challenge the existing international maritime order.

Challenging the International Order

China’s strategy is centered on enforcing its “nine-dash line” claim, which encompasses nearly the entire South China Sea. This claim was authoritatively invalidated in 2016 by an arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a ruling that Beijing has rejected and ignored.⁶⁹ China’s lawfare is a systematic effort to create a new legal reality that conforms to its territorial ambitions.

Tactics of Creeping Jurisdiction

Beijing’s lawfare tactics are methodical and multi-faceted, designed to create a state of perpetual contestation and gradually normalize its control:

Domestic Legislation as International Law: China passes domestic laws that treat the international waters of the South China Sea as its own sovereign territory. For example, its 2021 Coast Guard Law authorizes its forces to use “all necessary means,” including lethal force, against foreign vessels in waters it claims, in direct contravention of UNCLOS.⁷⁰
Creating “Facts on the Water”: China has engaged in a massive campaign of land reclamation, building and militarizing artificial islands on submerged reefs and shoals. These outposts serve as forward operating bases for its military, coast guard, and maritime militia, allowing it to project power and physically enforce its claims.⁶⁹
Reinterpreting Legal Norms: China actively seeks to redefine long-standing principles of international law. It argues that the right to “freedom of navigation” applies only to commercial vessels and does not permit foreign military activities within its claimed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a position contrary to the consensus interpretation of UNCLOS.⁷⁰

This strategy of lawfare is not merely a legal or diplomatic maneuver; it is a foundational element of China’s gray zone strategy. By passing domestic laws that criminalize the lawful activities of other nations in international waters, China is attempting to create the legal and political pretext for future military action. This approach aims to reframe a potential act of aggression—such as firing on a Philippine or Vietnamese vessel—not as a violation of international law, but as a legitimate domestic law enforcement action within what it defines as its own jurisdiction. This calculated ambiguity is designed to paralyze the decision-making of adversaries and their allies, most notably the United States, thereby achieving a key objective of gray zone conflict.

Section VI: Strategic Assessment and Outlook

The preceding analysis demonstrates that the contemporary security environment is characterized by persistent, multi-domain competition in the gray zone. The United States, Russia, and China have each developed distinct doctrines and toolkits to navigate this new battlespace, with varying degrees of success and significant long-term consequences for the international order.

Comparative Analysis of National Strategies

The strategic approaches of the three major powers can be synthesized into a comparative framework that highlights their overarching goals and preferred methods across the key domains of conflict. The United States generally acts to preserve the existing international system from which it derives significant benefit, using its power for targeted enforcement and coercion. Russia, as a declining power with significant conventional limitations, acts as a disrupter, seeking to create chaos and exploit divisions to weaken its adversaries. China, as a rising and patient power, acts as a systemic revisionist, seeking to methodically build an alternative order and displace U.S. leadership over the long term.

Conflict Domain	United States Approach	Russian Approach	Chinese Approach
Economic	Systemic dominance (dollar, SWIFT), targeted sanctions, alliance-based trade pressure.	Asymmetric coercion (energy), sanctions evasion, strategic pivot to China, weaponization of food/commodities.	Systemic competition (BRI), supply chain dominance, technological self-sufficiency, targeted economic coercion.
Cyber	Intelligence gathering, offensive/defensive operations, alliance-based threat sharing.	Disruption of critical infrastructure, sowing chaos, psychological impact, election interference.	Industrial-scale espionage for economic/military gain, IP theft, strategic pre-positioning in critical networks (Volt Typhoon).
Information	Public diplomacy (USAGM), countering disinformation, promoting democratic values.	“Active Measures 2.0”: Exploiting and amplifying existing societal divisions, tactical disinformation.	“Discourse Power”: Long-term narrative shaping, censorship, promoting authoritarian model, co-opting elites.
Proxy	Support for state/non-state partners (e.g., Ukraine, Syrian opposition) to uphold international order.	Direct intervention with proxies (Wagner) and state forces to prop up clients and challenge U.S. influence.	Economic/military support to partners (e.g., Russia), avoiding direct military entanglement, using proxies for resource access.
Legal	Upholding international law (e.g., FONOPs), use of legal frameworks for sanctions.	Manipulation of legal norms, undermining international bodies, using legal pretexts for aggression.	“Lawfare”: Using domestic law to rewrite international law, creating new “facts on the ground” to legitimize claims.

What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why

A critical assessment of these strategies reveals clear patterns of effectiveness and failure.

What Works:

Asymmetric and Low-Cost Tools: For Russia and China, gray zone tools like cyber operations, information warfare, and the use of proxies have proven highly effective. They impose significant strategic, economic, and political costs on the United States and its allies at a relatively low cost and risk to the aggressor.⁷³ These methods are particularly potent because they are designed to exploit the inherent openness and legal constraints of democratic societies.
Incrementalism and Patience: China’s strategy of “creeping” aggression, particularly its lawfare and island-building campaign in the South China Sea, has been effective at changing the physical and strategic reality on the ground. By avoiding any single, dramatic action that would demand a forceful response, Beijing has incrementally advanced its position over years, achieving a significant strategic gain through a thousand small cuts.⁷⁴
Targeted, Multilateral Coercion: For the United States, economic and diplomatic actions are most effective when they are targeted, multilateral, and leverage the collective weight of its alliance network. The initial shock of the coordinated financial sanctions against Russia demonstrated the immense power of this collective approach, even if its long-term coercive power has been blunted by Russian adaptation.¹⁹

What Doesn’t Work:

Broad, Unilateral Economic Pressure: The U.S.-China trade war demonstrated that broad, unilateral tariffs are a blunt instrument that often inflicts more economic pain on the imposing country than on the target, while failing to achieve its core strategic objectives and producing negative unintended consequences for the global trading system.¹²
A Purely Defensive Posture: A reactive and defensive strategy is insufficient to deter persistent gray zone aggression. Russia’s continued campaign of sabotage and subversion in Europe, despite heightened defensive measures, indicates that without the credible threat of proactive and costly consequences, adversaries will continue to operate in the gray zone with relative impunity.⁴⁷
Building Compelling Alternative Narratives: While Russia is effective at disruptive information warfare and China is effective at censorship and control, both have largely failed to build a compelling, positive narrative that resonates with audiences in democratic nations. Their influence operations are most successful when they are parasitic on existing grievances rather than when they attempt to promote their own models.⁵⁹

Recommendations for the United States

To compete more effectively in this new battlespace, the United States must adapt its strategic posture. The following recommendations are derived from the analysis in this report:

Embrace Pervasive Competition: The U.S. national security apparatus must shift from a traditional crisis-response model to a posture of continuous, proactive competition across all domains. This requires institutional and cultural changes that recognize the gray zone as the primary arena of conflict.
Strengthen Societal Resilience: The most effective defense against information warfare and foreign influence is a resilient society. This requires a national effort to enhance media literacy, secure critical election infrastructure, and address the deep-seated domestic social and political divisions that adversaries so effectively exploit.
Integrate All Instruments of National Power: Gray zone threats are inherently multi-domain; the response must be as well. The U.S. must break down bureaucratic silos and develop a national strategy that seamlessly integrates economic, financial, intelligence, diplomatic, legal, and military tools to impose coordinated costs on adversaries.
Leverage Alliances Asymmetrically: The U.S. alliance network remains its greatest asymmetric advantage. This network must be leveraged not just for conventional military deterrence, but for gray zone competition. This includes building coalitions for coordinated cyber defense, developing joint strategies for economic security and supply chain resilience, and crafting unified diplomatic and informational campaigns to counter authoritarian narratives.

Future Trajectory of Conflict

The trends identified in this report are likely to accelerate and intensify. The proliferation of advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, will supercharge gray zone conflict. AI will enable the creation of hyper-personalized disinformation campaigns, deepfakes, and autonomous cyber weapons at a scale and speed that will overwhelm current defenses.⁵⁸ The ongoing fragmentation of the global economic and technological landscape will create more clearly defined blocs, turning the economic domain into an even more central and contentious battlefield. The gray zone is not a passing phase of international relations. It is the new, enduring reality of great power competition, a permanent battlespace where ambiguity is the weapon, attribution is the prize, and the contest for influence is constant.

Works cited

Gray Zone Project | CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/programs/gray-zone-project
Metaphors, Rules and War: Making Sense of Hybrid Threats and Grey Zone Conflict, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ejiltalk.org/metaphors-rules-and-war-making-sense-of-hybrid-threats-and-grey-zone-conflict/
Grey-zone (international relations) – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-zone_(international_relations)
‘Hybrid threats’, ‘grey zones’, ‘competition’, and ‘proxies’: When is it …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/01/16/hybrid-threats-grey-zones-competition-and-proxies-when-is-it-actually-war/
Hybrid Warfare: Aggression and Coercion in the Gray Zone | ASIL, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/21/issue/14/hybrid-warfare-aggression-and-coercion-gray-zone
“Hybrid Warfare: How to Escape the Conceptual Gray-Zone” by …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol17/iss1/1/
Russia’s hybrid war against the West – NATO Review, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html
China–United States trade war – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war
A Timeline of the U.S.-China Trade War During Trump’s Second Term – Time Magazine, accessed August 22, 2025, https://time.com/7292207/us-china-trade-war-trump-tariffs-timeline/
US-China Trade War | PIIE, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.piie.com/research/trade-investment/us-china-trade-war
Trade Wars: History, Pros & Cons, and U.S.-China Example – Investopedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade-war.asp
The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare – National Bureau of Economic Research, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25672/w25672.pdf
Five Economists Explain: Impacts of the U.S.-China Trade War – NCUSCR, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ncuscr.org/podcast/economists-explain-trade-war/
The global costs of the US-China tariff war are mounting. And the worst may be yet to come – Down To Earth, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/economy/the-global-costs-of-the-us-china-tariff-war-are-mounting-and-the-worst-may-be-yet-to-come
Four years into the trade war, are the US and China decoupling? | PIIE, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2022/four-years-trade-war-are-us-and-china-decoupling
The New U.S.-China Trade War: Strategic Motives, Domestic Consequences, and Global Ramifications | Beyond the Horizon ISSG, accessed August 22, 2025, https://behorizon.org/the-new-u-s-china-trade-war-strategic-motives-domestic-consequences-and-global-ramifications/
A Protracted U.S.-China Trade War Would Be a Gift to Moscow, accessed August 22, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/05/russia-china-trade-wars-opportunities?lang=en
Trade War – CEPR, accessed August 22, 2025, https://cepr.org/system/files/publication-files/60137-trade_war_the_clash_of_economic_systems_threatening_global_prosperity.pdf
The Economic Impact of Russia Sanctions – Congress.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12092
How Sanctions Have Reshaped Russia’s Future – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-sanctions-have-reshaped-russias-future
Three Years of War in Ukraine: Are Sanctions Against Russia Making a Difference?, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/three-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference
Sanctions effectiveness: what lessons three years into the war on Ukraine?, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.economicsobservatory.com/sanctions-effectiveness-what-lessons-three-years-into-the-war-on-ukraine
US sanctions against Russia – Brookings Institution, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/collection/us-sanctions-against-russia/
Sanctions and Russia’s War: Limiting Putin’s Capabilities | U.S. Department of the Treasury, accessed August 22, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/sanctions-and-russias-war-limiting-putins-capabilities
Ukraine Is Now a Proxy War for Asian Powers – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/11/ukraine-is-now-a-proxy-war-for-asian-powers.html
How the Latest Sanctions Will Impact Russia—and the World …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/06/finance-sanctions-russia-currency?lang=en
Debunking the Myth of ‘Debt-trap Diplomacy’ | 4. Sri Lanka and the BRI, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy/4-sri-lanka-and-bri
China’s Debt-Trap Diplomacy in Central Asia – CACI Analyst, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13823-chinas-debt-trap-diplomacy-in-central-asia.html
Full article: Chinese debt trap diplomacy: reality or myth? – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19480881.2023.2195280
Debt Distress on the Road to “Belt and Road” – Wilson Center, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/debt-distress-road-belt-and-road
Belt and Road Initiative – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
Democratic National Committee cyber attacks – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Cyber Clash with China (NSC) | CFR Education – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed August 22, 2025, https://education.cfr.org/learn/simulation/cyber-clash-china-nsc/background
CrowdStrike Chaos Highlights Key Cyber Vulnerabilities with Software Updates | U.S. GAO, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/blog/crowdstrike-chaos-highlights-key-cyber-vulnerabilities-software-updates
Russian Cyber Threats to U.S. Critical Infrastructure – SecuLore, accessed August 22, 2025, https://seculore.com/resources/russian-cyber-threats-to-u-s-critical-infrastructure/
Russian Cyber Information Warfare – Marine Corps University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-12-no-1/Russian-Cyber-Information-Warfare/
Russia Threat Overview and Advisories | CISA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/advanced-persistent-threats/russia
Russia State-Sponsored Cyber Threat: Advisories – CISA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nation-state-cyber-actors/russia/publications
Russian Military Cyber Actors Target US and Global Critical Infrastructure – CISA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa24-249a
Russian Military Cyber Actors Target U.S. and Global Critical Infrastructure – Department of Defense, accessed August 22, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/05/2003537870/-1/-1/0/CSA-Russian-Military-Cyber-Target-US-Global-CI.PDF
Cyberwarfare and China – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_China
A Discussion on the Defense Department’s 2024 China Military Power Report – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/discussion-defense-departments-2024-china-military-power-report
Significant Cyber Incidents | Strategic Technologies Program | CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/significant-cyber-incidents
Cyberwarfare and the United States – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_the_United_States
CYBER THREATS FROM CHINA, RUSSIA, AND IRAN: PROTECTING AMERICAN CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE | Congress.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/event/113th-congress/house-event/LC801/text
Russia’s Shadow War Against the West – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west
Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident – DNI.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election – Department of Justice, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl?inline=
Fact Sheet: What We Know about Russia’s Interference Operations – German Marshall Fund, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.gmfus.org/news/fact-sheet-what-we-know-about-russias-interference-operations
The IRA and Political Polarization in the United States – DemTech, accessed August 22, 2025, https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/posts/the-ira-and-political-polarization-in-the-united-states/
New Evidence Shows How Russia’s Election Interference Has Gotten More Brazen, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-evidence-shows-how-russias-election-interference-has-gotten-more
What’s Old Is New Again: Cold War Lessons for Countering Disinformation, accessed August 22, 2025, https://tnsr.org/2022/09/whats-old-is-new-again-cold-war-lessons-for-countering-disinformation/
To Win without Fighting – Marine Corps University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/Expeditions-with-MCUP-digital-journal/To-Win-without-Fighting/
Political Warfare against Intervention Forces – Air University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/
CHINESE DISCOURSE POWER: AMBITIONS AND REALITY IN THE DIGITAL DOMAIN – Atlantic Council, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Chinese-Discourse-Power-Ambitions-and-Reality-in-the-Digital-Domain.pdf
Asked and Answered: China’s Strategy of Political Warfare – CSIS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/asked-and-answered-chinas-strategy-political-warfare
Chinese information operations and information warfare – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_information_operations_and_information_warfare
Sino-Russian Convergence in Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference: A Global Threat to the US and Its Allies – CEPA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sino-russian-convergence-in-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference/
United States Agency for Global Media – U.S. Government Manual, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/Agency?EntityId=oPpn5fYQYfM=&ParentEId=+klubNxgV0o=&EType=jY3M4CTKVHY=
United States Agency for Global Media – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Global_Media
U.S. Agency for Global Media: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46968
Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
Russia’s Strategic Success in Syria and the Future of Moscow’s Middle East Policy, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/russias-strategic-success-syria-and-future-moscows-middle-east-policy
China’s Role in the Middle East, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/events/chinas-role-middle-east
China’s Evolving Stance on Syria – Middle East Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/chinas-evolving-stance-syria
The potential and limitations of Russia-China cooperation in the Middle East, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/potential-and-limitations-russia-china-cooperation-middle-east
US ambassador: China believes it is waging a proxy war through Russia – Atlantic Council, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/us-ambassador-china-believes-it-is-waging-a-proxy-war-through-russia/
What Has China’s Lawfare Achieved in the South China Sea? – ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ISEAS_Perspective_2023_51.pdf
Lawfare: China’s new gambit for global power – Universidad de Navarra, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.unav.edu/web/global-affairs/lawfare-china-s-new-gambit-for-global-power
2023/51 “What Has China’s Lawfare Achieved in the South China Sea?” by Christian Schultheiss – ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2023-51-what-has-chinas-lawfare-achieved-in-the-south-china-sea-by-christian-schultheiss/
Chinese Lawfare in the South China Sea | Journal of Political Risk, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.jpolrisk.com/chinese-lawfare-in-the-south-china-sea-a-threat-to-global-interdependence-and-regional-stability/
Hybrid warfare – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare
The Changing Face of Conflict: What is Hybrid Warfare? – Global Security Review, accessed August 22, 2025, https://globalsecurityreview.com/hybrid-and-non-linear-warfare-systematically-erases-the-divide-between-war-peace/
Russia is Winning the Global Information War | Royal United Services Institute – RUSI, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russia-winning-global-information-war
how the US, China, and Russia are using artificial intelligence in their information warfare and influence operations – ResearchGate, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378764079_Artificial_intelligence_and_information_warfare_in_major_power_states_how_the_US_China_and_Russia_are_using_artificial_intelligence_in_their_information_warfare_and_influence_operations

The 100-Series: A Technical Analysis of the Kalashnikov Platform’s Bridge to the 21st Century

August 10, 2025 RoninsGrips

The Kalashnikov AK-100 series of assault rifles, introduced in the mid-1990s, represents a critical evolutionary juncture in the history of this iconic firearm platform. It was not a revolutionary leap in technology but rather a pragmatic and commercially-driven modernization born from the geopolitical and economic realities of a post-Soviet Russia. To fully comprehend the engineering and strategic rationale behind the AK-100 family, one must first analyze its direct progenitor, the AK-74M, and the new market imperatives that faced its manufacturer, the Izhevsk Machine-Building Plant (Izhmash), in an era of diminished state funding and burgeoning global competition.

The AK-74M as a Modernized Baseline

The immediate technological foundation for the AK-100 series was laid with the adoption of the AK-74M in 1991.¹ The “M” in its designation stood for Modernizirovanny (“Modernized”), and it served as a comprehensive update to the AK-74 platform, which had been in service since the 1970s. The primary achievement of the AK-74M was not a change in the core operating mechanism but a strategic consolidation of features that had previously existed across four different full-size AK-74 variants.¹

Prior to the AK-74M, the Soviet military fielded AK-74s with fixed laminated wood stocks, as well as AKS-74 variants with folding skeletonized metal stocks intended for airborne and mechanized troops. Specialized versions with receiver-mounted optics rails (designated with an ‘N’ suffix) were also produced for night fighting and designated marksmen.³ This diversity of models created logistical and manufacturing inefficiencies. The AK-74M program unified these disparate features into a single, universal service rifle.¹

The two most significant features standardized by the AK-74M were a solid, side-folding polymer buttstock and a universal Warsaw Pact-style optics mounting rail on the left side of the receiver.¹ The folding stock, made from a durable black polymer, offered the compactness of the old AKS-74 for transport and use in confined spaces, but provided the superior cheek weld and stability of a fixed stock when deployed.³ The standardized optics rail meant that any infantryman could be issued an optical or night-vision sight without needing a specialized rifle. These features, combined with the replacement of all laminated wood furniture with black polymer, created a single, feature-complete rifle “chassis”.¹

This act of industrial consolidation was the critical prerequisite for the AK-100 concept. By creating a single, streamlined production line for a universal rifle, Izhmash established the manufacturing template that made the subsequent development of a multi-caliber family of weapons both economically and logistically feasible. Without the efficiencies gained from the AK-74M program, the ambition of producing multiple variants for different ammunition types would have been prohibitively complex and expensive for the nascent and financially constrained Russian Federation.

A Platform for a New Market

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the massive, guaranteed state orders that had sustained the Izhmash factory for decades evaporated. The Russian military, possessing a surplus of some 17 million AK-74 rifles in storage and facing severe budget cuts, had no immediate need for large-scale procurement of new small arms.⁴ To survive, Izhmash had to pivot from being a state arsenal to a commercial enterprise competing on the global arms market. The AK-100 series, developed in the early 1990s and officially introduced in 1994, was the direct result of this strategic shift.⁶

The primary design goal of the AK-100 family was to capture the export market by offering a modernized, reliable, and cost-effective platform that could meet the logistical needs of a wide range of potential customers.⁷ The core concept was production standardization and simplification.⁴ Using the AK-74M chassis as the base, Izhmash engineered a family of rifles with a high degree of parts interchangeability across different calibers.⁶ The main differences between the models were confined to the components directly related to the cartridge: the barrel, bolt, and magazine.⁴

This family was offered in the three most prevalent intermediate calibers in the world ⁷:

5.45x39mm: The standard Russian military cartridge, carried over in the AK-74M and the new compact AK-105.

AK-105 at the Interpolitex-2009 show. Photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin – my favorite Russian military photo journalist. You can see more on his website at: https://www.vitalykuzmin.net. Image obtained from Wikimedia.

7.62x39mm: The classic Kalashnikov cartridge, re-introduced in a modernized platform as the AK-103 and compact AK-104, catering to nations who still used the M43 round.

AK-103 with GP-34 under barrel grenade launcher. Photo by Mike1979 Russia. Image obtained from Wikimedia.

5.56x45mm NATO: The most significant addition, offered in the AK-101 and compact AK-102.

AK-101 at the Engineering Technologies 2012 show. Photo by Mike1979 Russia. Image obtained from Wikimedia.

The inclusion of a 5.56x45mm NATO variant was a clear and unambiguous commercial strategy.⁹ It was an attempt to penetrate markets historically aligned with the West or those seeking ammunition commonality with NATO forces. It offered foreign armies the opportunity to acquire the legendary reliability of the Kalashnikov system without having to abandon their existing 5.56mm logistical chain.⁹

While the AK-100 series was not adopted as the standard-issue rifle for the Russian armed forces, which retained the AK-74M, it proved to be a successful export product. It was adopted or purchased in significant quantities by numerous countries, including Venezuela, Syria, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, validating its design philosophy as a versatile platform for the global market.⁶ The AK-100 series thus marks a fundamental pivot in Russian small arms design: from a focus on a single, massive conscript army to a flexible, market-driven approach centered on commercial survival and profitability.

Core Engineering and Material Science of the AK-100 Platform

The AK-100 series, while externally appearing as a modernized Kalashnikov, is defined by specific engineering choices and material science advancements that distinguish it from its predecessors. Its internal mechanism is a testament to the philosophy of prioritizing absolute reliability, while its external construction represents a full embrace of modern industrial polymers.

A Unified System: The Long-Stroke Gas Piston Heart

At its core, the AK-100 series is mechanically identical to the AK-74M, utilizing the same proven long-stroke gas piston operating system that has defined the Kalashnikov rifle since its inception.⁶ The operation is simple and robust. Upon firing, propellant gases are bled from the barrel through a port into a gas cylinder located above the barrel. These gases act upon a long piston which is permanently affixed to the bolt carrier. The rearward thrust of the piston and carrier assembly imparts a powerful momentum that performs the functions of unlocking the rotating bolt, extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case, and cocking the hammer.¹⁴

A key design feature retained from the AK-74 is a brief, 5.5 mm of free travel for the gas piston and bolt carrier assembly before the bolt begins to rotate and unlock. This slight delay allows chamber pressures to drop to a safe level before the seal between the bolt and chamber is broken, aiding in smoother extraction.¹⁴ The gas block itself is set at a 90-degree angle to the bore axis, a feature standardized from the AK-74 that reduces bullet shear at the gas port compared to the 45-degree gas blocks of some earlier AKM models.¹⁰ The system is intentionally over-gassed and lacks a user-adjustable gas valve; excess gases are simply vented through ports in the gas tube.¹⁴ This design choice is central to the platform’s legendary reliability.

The decision to retain the long-stroke gas piston system, rather than exploring potentially more accurate short-stroke or direct impingement systems, was a conscious one. The substantial mass of the combined piston and bolt carrier assembly provides a powerful and positive action that is highly tolerant of fouling, carbon buildup, variations in ammunition quality, and extreme environmental conditions. For an export rifle intended for military and security forces with potentially inconsistent maintenance schedules or ammunition supplies, this “soldier-proof” reliability is the platform’s primary selling point and competitive advantage.⁷ The cyclic rate is a controllable 600-650 rounds per minute.⁷

The “Black AK”: Glass-Reinforced Polyamide Construction

The most visually striking feature of the AK-100 series is its universal use of black polymer furniture, earning it the moniker “Black AK”.³ This was not merely a cosmetic change but a significant technological upgrade in materials science. The material used is a glass-reinforced polyamide, a type of engineering thermoplastic commonly known as nylon.⁵

This material offers a superior combination of properties compared to the laminated wood of the AKM or the early AG-4S thermoset plastics used on some AK-74s. Glass-filled polyamides exhibit exceptionally high mechanical strength, rigidity, hardness, and resistance to creep (deformation under sustained load).¹⁶ Crucially for a military firearm intended for global service, the material is dimensionally stable across a wide range of temperatures (rated from -30°C to 120°C) and is highly resistant to moisture, solvents, and cleaning oils.¹⁷ This means the handguards, pistol grip, and stock will not swell, shrink, warp, or crack when exposed to jungle humidity, desert heat, or arctic cold, ensuring a consistent fit and function in any operational environment.

The solid, side-folding buttstock is a hallmark of the series. It is far more robust than the earlier stamped-metal skeleton stock of the AKS-74 and provides a stable and comfortable cheek weld comparable to a fixed stock.³ It folds to the left side of the receiver, allowing the weapon to be fired with the stock folded and not interfering with the operation of the safety lever or charging handle.⁵ The adoption of glass-filled polyamide was as central to the modernization of the Kalashnikov platform as its multi-caliber capability, enhancing durability, reducing weight, and streamlining manufacturing while improving the weapon’s resilience in the diverse and harsh climates of its intended export markets.

Differentiating the Family: Barrels, Muzzle Devices, and Gas Systems

The AK-100 family is logically divided into two primary configurations: full-length assault rifles and compact carbines, each with distinct components tailored to their intended tactical roles.⁶

The full-length rifles—the AK-101 (5.56mm), AK-103 (7.62mm), and the baseline AK-74M (5.45mm)—all feature a 415 mm (16.3-inch) cold hammer-forged, chrome-lined barrel.⁵ This barrel length provides an effective engagement range of 300 to 400 meters, and the rifles are fitted with tangent rear sights optimistically graduated to 1,000 meters.⁵ A defining feature of these rifles is the large, two-chamber muzzle brake derived from the AK-74. This device is highly effective at reducing recoil and counteracting muzzle rise during automatic fire by venting gases upwards and to the side.⁹

The carbine variants—the AK-102 (5.56mm), AK-104 (7.62mm), and AK-105 (5.45mm)—were a new development for the series. They were engineered to fill a tactical niche between the full-length rifles and the extremely compact AKS-74U “Krinkov”.⁶ The AKS-74U, with its very short 206.5 mm (8.1-inch) barrel, suffered from significant velocity loss, a punishing muzzle blast, and a limited effective range.¹⁰ The AK-100 carbines were designed with a 314 mm (12.4-inch) barrel, providing a “Goldilocks” solution.⁷ This length is significantly more compact than the full-size rifle, making it ideal for vehicle crews, special forces, and close-quarters battle, but it retains enough length to achieve more useful ballistics and a longer sight radius than the AKS-74U.¹⁸ The effective range is a more practical 200 to 300 meters, and the rear sights are graduated to 500 meters.⁵

To ensure reliable functioning with the shorter barrel and reduced gas dwell time, the carbines are fitted with a distinctive conical muzzle booster derived from the AKS-74U.⁹ This device serves a dual purpose: it acts as an expansion chamber to increase back-pressure within the gas system to cycle the action reliably, and it directs the concussive blast and flash forward, away from the shooter. The unification of the gas block design across the family meant that its position did not need to be moved rearward for the carbine length, a key simplification for manufacturing.¹⁸ This thoughtful engineering compromise made the AK-100 platform more versatile, offering a weapon class specifically tailored for modern combat roles where compactness is required without a crippling sacrifice in performance.

Table 1: AK-100 Series Primary Variant Specifications

Specification	AK-101	AK-102	AK-103	AK-104	AK-105
Cartridge	5.56x45mm NATO	5.56x45mm NATO	7.62x39mm	7.62x39mm	5.45x39mm
Role	Rifle	Carbine	Rifle	Carbine	Carbine
Barrel Length	415 mm	314 mm	415 mm	314 mm	314 mm
Overall Length (Extended)	943 mm	824 mm	943 mm	824 mm	824 mm
Overall Length (Folded)	704 mm	586 mm	704 mm	586 mm	586 mm
Weight (Empty)	3.6 kg	3.2 kg	3.6 kg	3.2 kg	3.2 kg
Muzzle Velocity	910 m/s	850 m/s	715 m/s	670 m/s	840 m/s
Cyclic Rate of Fire	~600-650 rpm	~600-650 rpm	~600-650 rpm	~600-650 rpm	~600-650 rpm
Sighting Range	1,000 m	500 m	1,000 m	500 m	500 m
Muzzle Device	AK-74 Style Brake	AKS-74U Style Booster	AK-74 Style Brake	AKS-74U Style Booster	AKS-74U Style Booster

Sources: ³

A Divergent Evolution: The Balanced Automatics Recoil System (BARS)

Concurrent with the development of the conventional 100-series rifles, Izhmash designers also pursued a far more radical and mechanically sophisticated branch of the Kalashnikov family tree: the BARS-equipped rifles. These weapons, designated AK-107, AK-108, and AK-109, represented a fascinating attempt to solve the problem of automatic fire control through advanced engineering rather than simple compensation.

The AK-107/108: Engineering a Counter-Recoil Solution

The AK-107 (chambered in 5.45x39mm), AK-108 (5.56x45mm NATO), and the later AK-109 (7.62x39mm) are externally similar to their conventional 100-series counterparts but are internally revolutionary.²² They employ the Balanced Automatics Recoil System (BARS), a concept that actually predates the AK-74, having been developed in the 1960s and trialed in the AL-7 experimental rifle in the 1970s.²³ The design is credited to engineer Youriy Alexandrov, and the “AK” in this context is sometimes referred to as Alexandrov Kalashnikov.²²

The BARS mechanism is a direct application of Newton’s Third Law of Motion to counteract the forces that cause muzzle rise and felt recoil.²⁴ In a standard AK, the massive bolt carrier group slams rearward upon firing and then forward to chamber the next round, creating a “push-pull” cycle that causes the muzzle to oscillate.²⁵ The BARS system cancels this effect by introducing a second reciprocating mass. It works as follows:

The system uses two gas pistons. The lower piston is attached to the bolt carrier as in a standard AK. An upper piston is attached to a counter-weight that sits above the bolt carrier.²²
When the rifle is fired, gas from the barrel simultaneously drives the bolt carrier assembly rearward and the counter-weight assembly forward.²²
The key to the system is a small, star-shaped synchronizing sprocket or gear that links the two moving assemblies. This gear ensures that the rearward-moving bolt carrier and the forward-moving counter-weight move in perfect opposition and reach their respective points of maximum travel at the exact same instant.²²

By having two masses of similar weight moving in opposite directions, the internal impulses are effectively cancelled out. Instead of the sharp kick and muzzle climb of a conventional rifle, the shooter experiences a smooth, steady push. The system virtually eliminates felt recoil and muzzle rise, dramatically improving the weapon’s controllability and accuracy, especially during sustained automatic or burst fire.²² Due to the shorter travel distance of the reciprocating parts, the cyclic rate is significantly higher than a standard AK, at 850-900 rounds per minute.²²

An Innovation Too Far?: The BARS in Military Context

Despite its demonstrable engineering excellence and superior performance in controlling automatic fire, the BARS-equipped rifles failed to achieve widespread adoption. The reasons for this failure are rooted in the intersecting realities of military doctrine, economics, and logistics.

The original AL-7 prototype was trialed against the rifle that would become the AK-74 in the 1970s but was ultimately rejected as being too complex and expensive for mass production by the Soviet military.²³ History repeated itself in the 1990s. The AK-107 and AK-108 were offered for export but failed to attract any significant customers.²⁶ The Russian military also passed on the design, adhering to a procurement philosophy governed by the law of diminishing returns.⁴

While the BARS system offered a quantifiable improvement in controllability, this improvement was not deemed significant enough to justify the substantial increase in cost, manufacturing complexity, and maintenance burden. The system introduced more moving parts—a second piston, a counter-weight, and the critical synchronizing gear—which all required precise manufacturing and timing, and represented more potential points of failure than the brutally simple standard AK action.²⁶ For a military doctrine that prioritizes rugged simplicity, ease of maintenance, and the ability to equip a massive army, the standard AK-74M was already “good enough.” Its recoil in 5.45x39mm was already low and manageable, and its effectiveness was proven. In the context of the severe financial constraints of the 1990s and a vast surplus of existing rifles, the marginal gain in performance offered by BARS could not overcome the massive increase in cost and logistical complexity. It was a classic case of engineering brilliance being sidelined by economic and doctrinal pragmatism.

Critical Assessment: Flaws and Limitations of the AK-100 Design

While the AK-100 series was a successful modernization and a robust export platform, it was not without its flaws. These can be divided into two categories: deficiencies inherited from its half-century-old design lineage, and specific performance critiques that arose from its inherent characteristics and, in some cases, manufacturing variations.

Inherited Deficiencies

The primary weakness of the AK-100 series was its failure to fully address the ergonomic and modularity demands of the modern battlefield, limitations it carried over directly from the AK-47 and AK-74.²⁷ By the mid-1990s, Western militaries were rapidly adopting the M1913 Picatinny rail system, transforming the rifle into a modular “weapons system” capable of easily integrating a vast array of optics, aiming lasers, illuminators, and vertical grips. The AK-100 was born already behind this curve.

Its sole provision for mounting accessories was the Warsaw Pact-style dovetail rail riveted to the left side of the receiver.¹ While functional, this system had several drawbacks. Optics sat high and off-center, often compromising a proper and consistent cheek weld.⁴ Furthermore, the stability and zero-retention of side-mounts, particularly after being detached and reattached, could be inconsistent compared to an integral top rail. The very design of the Kalashnikov, with its removable sheet-metal receiver cover, made a stable, zero-holding top rail a significant engineering challenge.⁴

Ergonomically, the platform retained its legacy features. The right-side reciprocating charging handle required the shooter to remove their firing hand from the pistol grip to operate it. The large selector lever, while positive and durable, was not as easily manipulated as the thumb-operated selectors on Western rifles.²⁷ Magazine changes, requiring the “rock-and-lock” motion, were slower than the straight-insertion method of AR-15 style rifles. The platform also lacked a last-round bolt hold-open feature, slowing reloads.²⁷ This “modularity gap” and its dated ergonomics were the AK-100’s single greatest weaknesses and would be the primary drivers for the development of its successors.

Performance and In-Service Critiques

In terms of performance, the AK-100 series upheld the Kalashnikov reputation for reliability but was not infallible. Like any mechanical device, it is susceptible to failures, with documented instances of light primer strikes, often traced to worn hammer springs, and ammunition-related malfunctions like squib loads.²⁸

The platform’s accuracy is generally considered “average,” sufficient for its intended role as an infantry rifle but not capable of the high degree of precision found in many Western counterparts.⁷ The design is not conducive to a free-floated barrel, a key element for mechanical accuracy, as the handguard and gas tube assembly interact with the barrel. While the AK-74 style muzzle brake on the full-length rifles is very effective at mitigating recoil, it produces a significant and concussive side-blast that is harsh on adjacent personnel.¹⁴

It is also critical to distinguish between flaws in the original Izhmash design and flaws in manufacturing execution by other entities. Many critiques of the platform arise from lower-quality commercial clones or licensed copies. For example, some US-made rifles marketed as “100-series” have exhibited issues such as improperly set rivets, non-chrome-lined gas blocks, and bolts or firing pins made from improperly heat-treated metal, leading to premature wear, peening, and pierced primers.³⁰ These are not failures of the Kalashnikov design itself, but failures of a specific manufacturer to adhere to the correct material and process specifications, such as the use of hammer-forged, chrome-lined barrels and properly hardened steels for critical components.⁵ The robustness of an authentic AK-100 is contingent on it being built to the correct military-grade standard.

The Path Forward: The AK-200 and AK-12 as Corrective Successors

The identified limitations of the AK-100 series, particularly its modularity gap, did not go unaddressed. Kalashnikov Concern embarked on a clear evolutionary path, first with an incremental upgrade in the form of the AK-200 series, and then with a more comprehensive redesign for the Russian military, the AK-12.

The AK-200 Series: A Direct Response to Modernization Demands

Initially conceived as the “AK-100M,” the AK-200 series was officially unveiled in 2017 as a direct modernization of the 100-series platform.⁶ It is not a new generation of rifle but a deep product improvement, designed to bring the proven AK-100 up to contemporary standards, primarily for the export market and domestic law enforcement agencies.³¹

The AK-200 series retains the heart of its predecessor: the same barrel, long-stroke gas system, and core receiver of the AK-74M/AK-100 family.⁶ The upgrades are focused almost exclusively on solving the modularity and ergonomic problems. The most important change is the integration of Picatinny rails. The series features a new, hinged receiver cover that is more rigid than the original and incorporates a long M1913 rail for mounting optics in the optimal position.⁶ The handguard is also redesigned with Picatinny rails at the top, bottom, and sides for the attachment of tactical accessories.²¹

Other ergonomic improvements include a new, more comfortable pistol grip with an internal storage compartment and a multi-position, adjustable, and telescoping folding stock, allowing the rifle to be adapted to the individual shooter’s body armor and physique.⁶ The series is offered in the same full-length and carbine configurations and in the same three calibers as the AK-100 family (e.g., AK-203 for 7.62mm, AK-204 for the 7.62mm carbine, etc.).³¹ This evolutionary approach is best understood as Kalashnikov Concern officially adopting the modernization trends that had been popular in the aftermarket for years. Companies like Zenitco in Russia had long offered railed handguards and dust covers to fix the AK’s flaws.⁴ The AK-200 is essentially the factory acknowledging this demand and offering a complete, integrated “Zenitco-style” package from the outset. It proved to be a successful strategy, culminating in a massive contract with India to locally produce the AK-203 assault rifle.⁶

The AK-12/15: A Fifth-Generation Kalashnikov

While the AK-200 was a modernization for the export market, the AK-12 was developed specifically to meet the requirements of the Russian military’s “Ratnik” future soldier program.³² Its development was tumultuous. The initial prototypes, revealed between 2012 and 2015, were radical and complex redesigns that suffered from cost and reliability issues and were ultimately rejected.³²

Success was only achieved when designers abandoned the revolutionary approach and reverted to a more pragmatic evolution based on the proven Kalashnikov system. The final production model of the AK-12 is based on a prototype known as the AK-400, which itself was an evolution of the 100/200 series.³² The AK-12 (in 5.45x39mm) and its sibling, the AK-15 (in 7.62x39mm), were officially adopted by the Russian military in 2018.¹⁴

The production AK-12 represents a synthesis of the classic AK’s reliability with targeted solutions to its most persistent flaws. Like the AK-200, it features a rigid, railed top cover and an adjustable stock. However, it goes further by introducing a free-floating handguard (the handguard does not contact the barrel, only the receiver and a more rigid gas tube), which improves the rifle’s potential for mechanical accuracy.³⁴ The traditional tangent leaf sight was replaced with a more precise aperture-style (diopter) rear sight, which was moved to the rear of the receiver cover to create a longer sight radius.²¹ Ergonomics were improved with a new finger-operable shelf on the safety selector, allowing for faster manipulation.²¹ Early models featured a two-round burst mode, though this was later removed from the 2023 production model based on combat feedback from the conflict in Ukraine, which also prompted other refinements like a new flash hider/suppressor mount.³²

The story of the AK-12’s development underscores a key theme: the most effective path forward for the Kalashnikov was not to reinvent it, but to systematically and intelligently solve its known problems while preserving its core strengths. The final AK-12 is the culmination of the evolutionary path that began with the AK-74M’s modernization, was commercialized with the AK-100, and was brought up to modern standards with the AK-200.

Conclusion and Synthesis

The Kalashnikov AK-100 series occupies a crucial but often misunderstood position in the lineage of Russian small arms. It was not a weapon of revolution, but one of evolution and survival. Emerging from the industrial and economic turmoil of the 1990s, the platform served three vital functions that ensured the Kalashnikov rifle’s continued relevance into the 21st century.

First, it was an exercise in production rationalization. Building upon the unified template of the AK-74M, the 100-series streamlined the manufacturing process at Izhmash, allowing for a family of weapons in multiple calibers to be built with a high degree of parts commonality. This industrial efficiency was essential for a defense enterprise that could no longer rely on massive, monolithic state orders.

Second, it was a commercial lifeline. The AK-100 series was a successful export product that generated vital foreign currency for its manufacturer. By offering the world’s most popular intermediate cartridges—including the 5.56x45mm NATO round—in a modernized, reliable, and cost-effective package, Izhmash leveraged its most famous brand to compete effectively on the global stage.

Third, and most importantly, it served as the indispensable technological bridge between the late-Soviet era and the current generation of Russian service rifles. It was the platform on which modern glass-reinforced polymers became standard, and it served as the direct, foundational baseline from which the corrective AK-200 and the fifth-generation AK-12 were developed. The flaws of the AK-100, particularly its lack of modularity, directly informed the improvements seen in its successors.

While it may be overshadowed by the historical significance of the AK-47 or the technological advancements of the AK-12, the creation of the AK-100 series was a defining moment for the modern Kalashnikov Concern. It was a pragmatic and successful response to a new geopolitical reality, ensuring the platform’s survival, its continued evolution, and its enduring presence on battlefields around the world.

Works cited

Kalashnikov AK-74M | Weaponsystems.net, accessed August 2, 2025, https://weaponsystems.net/system/1036-Kalashnikov+AK-74M
AK Series – Jake’s Gun Reviews, accessed August 2, 2025, https://jakesgunreviews.weebly.com/ak-series.html
AK-100 Series – Small Arms Survey, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/SAS-weapons-assault-rifles-AK-100-series.pdf
How superior are the recent Russian Assault Rifles compared to the AK47 and AK74 models they’ve been replacing, particularly the AK15 and AK12? – Reddit, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/wljyy6/how_superior_are_the_recent_russian_assault/
THE 100-SERIES KALASHNIKOVS: A PRIMER – Small Arms Review, accessed August 2, 2025, https://smallarmsreview.com/the-100-series-kalashnikovs-a-primer/
AK-100 (rifle family) – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-100_(rifle_family)
AK-100 | Weaponsystems.net, accessed August 2, 2025, https://old.weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/AA04%20-%20AK-100.html
Kalashnikov AK-100 – Weaponsystems.net, accessed August 2, 2025, https://weaponsystems.net/system/1206-Kalashnikov+AK-100
AK Models: Ultimate Guide to Kalashnikov Rifles – Pew Pew Tactical, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.pewpewtactical.com/ak-models/
Exploring The World Of AK Variants, accessed August 2, 2025, https://blog.primaryarms.com/guide/ak-variants-explored/
AK 100 series – An Overview – Iron Curtain Customs, accessed August 2, 2025, https://ironcurtaincustoms.com/blogs/gunsmithing/ak-100-series-an-overview
The AK-101 Assault Rifle | PDF – Scribd, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/137559094/The-AK-101-Assault-Rifle
AK-102 – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-102
AK-74 – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74
Russian plum glass filled polyamide Izhmash pistol grip – russiansurplus.net, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.russiansurplus.net/product_p/izzy-polyamide-grips.htm
Glass filled polyamides (GF) – Ensinger, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.ensingerplastics.com/en-us/shapes/modified-plastics-/glass-filled-polyamides
AK-74 & AK-100 – Polenar Tactical, accessed August 2, 2025, https://polenartactical.com/shop/296-ak-74-ak-100
Аssault rifles AK 100 series – ﬁrearms – Scribd, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/781547338/%D0%90ssault-rifles-AK-100-series
What is the difference between the AK 101 through to the AK 105? : r/EscapefromTarkov, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapefromTarkov/comments/9p0oe8/what_is_the_difference_between_the_ak_101_through/
AK-105 || Kalashnikov Group, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.kalashnikovgroup.ru/catalog/boevoe-strelkovoe-oruzhie/avtomaty/avtomat-kalashnikova-ak105
Defense products, accessed August 2, 2025, https://kalashnikovgroup.ru/upload/iblock/8d2/Defense%20products.pdf
AK-107 – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107
AL-7 – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL-7
The AK-107 Assault Rifle | PDF | Personal Weapons – Scribd, accessed August 2, 2025, https://ru.scribd.com/document/137559229/The-AK-107-Assault-Rifle
How the AK-107 recoil counterbalance system works : r/guns – Reddit, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/1neaad/how_the_ak107_recoil_counterbalance_system_works/
History and Function of Counter-Balanced Assault Rifles – Sturgeon’s House – ipbhost.com, accessed August 2, 2025, https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1575-history-and-function-of-counter-balanced-assault-rifles/
What Are the Different Types of AKs? – Guns.com, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.guns.com/news/what-are-ak-variants
AKs Are Supposed to be Reliable, Right? – YouTube, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpJZSta5wP8
Top 10 AK Malfunctions (4 are Deadly) – YouTube, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNzYNYMtPs
Problem with PSAK Rivets? – Page 2 – AK-47 / AK-74 – Palmetto State Armory | Forum, accessed August 2, 2025, https://palmettostatearmory.com/forum/t/problem-with-psak-rivets/30814?page=2
Evolution of Kalashnikov AK Assault Rifle (AK47 -AK200) – YouTube, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9rf-iuwOOg
AK-12 – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-12
New Series of Kalashnikov Assault Rifles being promoted – Overt Defense, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/02/11/new-series-kalashnikov-assault-rifles-promoted/
Raifus in Real Life: AK-12 (AK-12 / 6П70) : r/girlsfrontline – Reddit, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/girlsfrontline/comments/frbkpm/raifus_in_real_life_ak12_ak12_6%D0%BF70/
AK-12 – Kalashnikov Group, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.kalashnikovgroup.ru/catalog/boevoe-strelkovoe-oruzhie/avtomaty/avtomat-kalashnikova-ak-12
AK-12 Assault Rifle- Kalashnikova 2012 Автомат Калашникова образца 2012 года, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.shootersreport.com/rifle/History-and-Development-of-AK-12-Assault-Rifle.htm

AK Analytics, Ammunition, Ammunition Analytics, Analytics and Reports, Russia and also USSR, Russian & Soviet Analytics

The History, Chemistry, and Strategic Imperative of Soviet Corrosive Ammunition

July 30, 2025 RoninsGrips

The decision by any military to adopt a particular ammunition technology is never made in a vacuum. It is the result of a complex interplay between historical experience, technological capability, strategic doctrine, and fundamental chemistry. The Soviet Union’s long-standing reliance on corrosive-primed ammunition is a quintessential example of this process. To comprehend this choice, one must first understand the chemical problem that Soviet ordnance experts, and their counterparts worldwide, were trying to solve. The story of corrosive ammunition does not begin with a choice for corrosion, but a choice against the critical failures of the preceding technology: mercuric primers.

1.1 A Brief History of Primer Evolution: From Mercury to Chlorate

The evolution of the firearm primer is a direct line from the unreliable external ignition of flintlocks to the self-contained, instantaneous reliability of the modern cartridge.¹ The first major leap towards modern primers was the percussion cap, developed in the early 19th century. These small copper cups contained a shock-sensitive compound, almost universally mercury fulminate (Hg(CNO)2), which provided a far more reliable ignition source than flint and steel.¹ Inventors like Hiram Berdan and Edward Boxer further refined this concept by integrating the primer into a metallic cartridge case, creating the centerfire systems still in use today.¹

However, as military technology transitioned from black powder to more powerful and less-fouling smokeless propellants in the late 19th century, two catastrophic flaws with mercury fulminate became apparent. The first was chemical instability. Fulminate of mercury was discovered to degrade over time, especially when stored in warm climates. While it could reliably ignite forgiving black powder even when partially degraded, it often failed to provide a powerful enough flash to consistently ignite the more stable smokeless powders. This led to an unacceptable rate of misfires and dangerous hang-fires (a delay between the firing pin strike and the cartridge firing).⁵ For a military, ammunition that cannot be trusted to fire after long-term storage is a logistical nightmare.

The second flaw was metallurgical. Upon detonation, the mercury in the primer would vaporize and, under immense pressure and heat, amalgamate with the zinc component of the brass cartridge case. This mercury-brass amalgam rendered the case extremely brittle and prone to cracking, making it unsafe and unsuitable for reloading.² At a time when many armies, including the U.S. Army, reloaded spent cartridges for training and to conserve resources, this was a significant economic and logistical drawback.⁶

Faced with these mission-critical failures, ordnance departments worldwide sought a replacement. The solution was found in chlorate-based compounds. In 1898, the U.S. Army’s Frankford Arsenal, after experiencing the unreliability of mercuric primers, adopted a new non-mercuric formula based on potassium chlorate (KClO3) as the primary oxidizer.⁵ This new primer composition, exemplified by the famous FA-70 primer, was exceptionally stable in long-term storage and provided a powerful, reliable ignition flash for smokeless powders.⁶ It solved the problems of the mercuric era, but in doing so, it introduced a new, well-understood, and—in the eyes of military planners—manageable problem: corrosive residue.

1.2 The Reaction and its Residue: The Science of Salt-Induced Rust

The term “corrosive ammunition” is technically a misnomer. The unfired cartridge is inert and harmless to a firearm.⁸ The corrosive potential is created only after ignition, as a direct byproduct of the primer’s chemical reaction. A typical chlorate-based primer consists of three main components: a shock-sensitive explosive initiator (like lead styphnate), a fuel (like antimony sulfide), and a powerful oxidizer to provide the oxygen for the intense, rapid burn.⁴ In corrosive primers, this oxidizer is potassium chlorate (KClO3) or, in some formulations, sodium perchlorate (NaClO4).⁹

When the firing pin strikes the primer, it crushes the compound and initiates detonation. The potassium chlorate decomposes in a violent exothermic reaction, releasing its abundant oxygen atoms to fuel the flash that ignites the main powder charge. The chemical equation for this decomposition is:

2KClO3(s)→2KCl(s)+3O2(g)

The critical byproduct of this reaction is potassium chloride (KCl), a stable salt left behind as a fine, crystalline residue.⁹ This salt is chemically very similar to sodium chloride (NaCl), or common table salt, and it is the sole agent of corrosion.⁵

The mechanism of corrosion is often misunderstood. The potassium chloride salt is not, in itself, an acid that “eats” the steel of the firearm.¹¹ Instead, its destructive power comes from its hygroscopic nature. Like table salt, KCl is extremely effective at attracting and holding water molecules from the surrounding atmosphere.⁵ This property means that even in environments not perceived as overtly damp, the salt residue will pull moisture from the air and create a thin, invisible film of highly concentrated salt water on the steel surfaces of the barrel, chamber, bolt face, and gas system—anywhere the propellant gases have touched.

This salt water film acts as a powerful electrolyte, dramatically accelerating the electrochemical process of oxidation (rusting). Steel is primarily iron (Fe), and in the presence of an electrolyte and oxygen, the iron atoms readily give up electrons, forming iron oxides. The salt solution does not participate in the final rust product, but its ions make the water far more electrically conductive, speeding up the electron transfer and thus the rate of corrosion by orders of magnitude. The result is rapid and severe pitting and rusting, which can begin to form in a matter of hours in humid conditions and can permanently damage a firearm’s bore and critical components if left unattended.¹² This was the trade-off: in exchange for long-term stability and reliable ignition, militaries accepted the burden of dealing with this aggressive, salt-based residue.

Section 2: The Strategic Imperative: Why the Soviets Chose and Retained Corrosive Primers

The Soviet Union’s adherence to corrosive-primed ammunition, long after Western powers had transitioned away from it, is often cited by casual observers as evidence of a lagging technological base. This interpretation is fundamentally flawed. The Soviet choice was not a sign of backwardness but a deliberate and deeply logical decision rooted in the unique pillars of their military doctrine, geography, industrial philosophy, and the hard-won lessons of 20th-century warfare. It was a calculated risk, deemed not only acceptable but optimal for the specific challenges the Soviet military expected to face.

2.1 The Doctrine of Mass and Longevity: “Store and Forget”

At the heart of Soviet military planning was the concept of a massive, continent-spanning war against NATO. This doctrine required the prepositioning of colossal quantities of war materiel, especially ammunition, sufficient to sustain high-intensity combat for a prolonged period.¹⁷ The Soviet logistical model was not based on a “just-in-time” supply chain but on a “store and forget” principle. Ammunition was produced in vast numbers, hermetically sealed in iconic tin “spam cans,” and stored in depots stretching from Eastern Europe to the Pacific. These stockpiles were expected to remain viable for decades, ready for immediate issue in a crisis.¹⁷

For this grand strategy to work, the absolute, unquestionable reliability of the ammunition after decades in storage was paramount. Here, the chemical properties of the primers were the deciding factor. Corrosive primers, based on the chemically stable salt potassium chlorate, offered unparalleled long-term stability.¹² In contrast, the early non-corrosive primer formulations developed in the West were known to be less stable. They were prone to chemical degradation over long storage periods, which could lead to a loss of sensitivity and result in the very misfires and hang-fires that chlorate primers were designed to prevent.⁵ The U.S. military itself experienced these failures with early non-corrosive lots, which failed to meet stringent storage requirements, validating the Soviet concern and delaying their own full transition.⁵ For the Soviets, the theoretical risk of a conscript failing to clean his rifle was far more acceptable than the strategic risk of entire ammunition dumps becoming unreliable over time.

2.2 Reliability in Extremis: The “General Winter” Factor

Soviet military doctrine was forged in the crucible of the Eastern Front of World War II, where “General Winter” was as formidable an adversary as any army. The vast expanses of the Soviet Union and its potential European battlefields are subject to extreme cold, with temperatures regularly dropping to levels where the performance of mechanical and chemical systems can be severely degraded.

A critical and often overlooked advantage of chlorate-based corrosive primers was their superior performance in these frigid conditions.¹² The ignition of smokeless powder charges becomes significantly more difficult as temperatures plummet. Corrosive primer compositions were known to produce a hotter, more energetic, and more voluminous ignition flash compared to their early non-corrosive counterparts.⁴ This ensured positive and consistent ignition of the main propellant charge, even in the depths of a Russian winter. This was not a minor benefit; it was a mission-critical operational requirement for an army that expected to fight and win in any weather. The potential for sluggish or failed ignition from non-corrosive primers in sub-zero temperatures was a risk the Red Army was unwilling to take.¹⁹ The reliability of the soldier’s rifle in the most extreme cold was a non-negotiable priority that directly favored the proven performance of corrosive primers.

2.3 The Economics of Scale and Simplicity

The Soviet military was an enterprise of unprecedented scale, comprising a massive standing army and the forces of the entire Warsaw Pact. Arming this colossal force required the production of ammunition on a scale of billions of rounds per year. This reality placed a premium on cost-effectiveness and manufacturing simplicity.¹⁷

Corrosive primer compounds based on potassium chlorate were chemically simpler and therefore cheaper and easier to manufacture in bulk than the more complex non-corrosive formulas available at the time.²¹ The Soviets utilized the Berdan priming system, where the anvil is part of the cartridge case itself, which is highly efficient for mass production but difficult for individuals to reload.¹ This choice was perfectly aligned with a military doctrine that did not envision reloading by individual soldiers.

This philosophy of prioritizing proven, economical, large-scale production was evident in other aspects of their ammunition design. The decision to standardize on steel-cased cartridges for rounds like the 7.62x39mm was driven by the lower cost of steel compared to brass and the ability to repurpose some of the industrial machinery already producing the 7.62x25mm Tokarev cartridge.²² This industrial inertia and focus on cost-effective mass production naturally extended to the primer, the heart of the cartridge. Changing the primer formulation would have required significant retooling and investment for a perceived benefit (reduced maintenance) that was seen as secondary to the primary requirements of cost, storage life, and all-weather reliability.

2.4 A Divergent Path: A Comparative Timeline of Primer Transition

The Soviet decision-making process is thrown into sharp relief when compared to the timelines of other major military powers. Each nation’s path was dictated by its own unique set of priorities, experiences, and industrial capabilities, demonstrating that the Soviet choice was not an anomaly but one of several rational, albeit different, solutions to the same technological challenge.

Country	Key Transition Period	Representative Corrosive Ammo	Representative Early Non-Corrosive Ammo	Strategic Rationale & Notes
Soviet Union / Russia	~1990s – Present	7.62x54R, 7.62x39mm (M43), 5.45x39mm (7N6)	5.45x39mm (7N10, 7N22, 7N24), Modern Commercial Exports	Priority: Extreme long-term storage stability and cold-weather performance. Transition driven by post-Cold War modernization, not replacement of existing stockpiles.¹⁷
United States	1950 – 1956	WWII-era.30-06 Springfield,.45 ACP	.30 Carbine (from inception, WWII), Post-1952/54.30-06 &.45 ACP, 7.62mm NATO	Priority: Reduce field maintenance burden. Transition was delayed until non-corrosive primer stability could meet military storage requirements.⁵
Germany	Mixed use, WWI–WWII	Some WWI/WWII era 7.92x57mm Mauser	Many WWI/WWII era 7.92x57mm Mauser	Priority: Early technological innovation. Patented a non-corrosive formula in 1928. Early versions suffered from short shelf life, leading to mixed use during wartime.⁶
United Kingdom	~Early 1960s	.303 British (Cordite loads)	.303 British MkVIIZ (NC loads), 7.62mm NATO	Priority: Gradual transition aligned with shift from Cordite to Nitrocellulose propellants. Evidence suggests a later transition than the US.²⁶

This comparative analysis reveals that there was no single “correct” time to transition. The United States, with its global logistics chain and less extreme climate concerns, prioritized reducing the maintenance burden on its soldiers once the technology was mature enough.⁵ Germany was a clear technological pioneer but faced early reliability challenges that forced a pragmatic, mixed approach.⁶ The Soviet Union, facing the unique demands of its geography and grand strategy, made a perfectly rational decision to prioritize absolute reliability and shelf-life over maintenance convenience, retaining a proven technology that perfectly suited its needs.

Section 3: A System of Mitigation: People, Processes, and Technology

The Soviet leadership and ordnance corps were not naive about the risks posed by their ammunition. They understood the chemistry of chlorate primers and the destructive potential of the resulting salt residue. Their decision to retain this ammunition was viable only because they simultaneously engineered and implemented a comprehensive, multi-layered system of mitigation. This system treated the firearm, the soldier, the cleaning tools, and the chemical solvents as a single, integrated whole, designed to systematically manage and neutralize the risk of corrosion. The corrosive primer was never intended to be used in a vacuum; it was one component of a complete and robust risk-management strategy.

3.1 The Soldier and the Manual (The Human Factor & Processes)

The first line of defense in the Soviet system was the soldier himself, forged by rigid discipline and unwavering doctrine. The official Soviet military manuals, known as the Наставление по стрелковому делу (Manual on Small Arms), were unequivocal. Weapon cleaning was not a suggestion to be followed when convenient; it was a mandatory, immediate-action drill.²⁷

According to doctrine, a soldier’s rifle was to be cleaned immediately after any firing session. In a combat environment, this meant cleaning during any lull in the fighting.²⁰ Even if a weapon was not fired, it was to be cleaned at least once a week.²⁷ This relentless discipline was instilled in every conscript as a fundamental tenet of military life, on par with marksmanship itself. A clean, functional weapon was a prerequisite for survival, and the manuals provided a clear, step-by-step process: disassemble the weapon, thoroughly clean all parts exposed to propellant gases (barrel, chamber, gas piston, gas tube, bolt), lubricate, and reassemble.²⁷

The Soviet manuals also contained instructions that demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the corrosion process, details often overlooked in Western analyses. One such instruction concerned bringing a weapon from a cold environment into a warm one. The manual specified that the weapon should be allowed to “sweat”—that is, to have condensation form on its cold metal surfaces—and then be cleaned before this condensation could evaporate.²⁹ This procedure cleverly used the ambient moisture to begin the process of dissolving the hygroscopic salts, making them easier to remove.

Furthermore, some procedures described leaving the barrel “under alkali” for a period of two to four hours.²⁹ This was intended to allow time for the occluded gases and salt residues trapped within the microscopic pores of the steel to leach out and be neutralized by the cleaning solution. This goes far beyond a simple surface wipe, indicating a deep appreciation for the pervasive nature of the corrosive salts and the need for a thorough chemical neutralization process.

3.2 The Solution in the Bottle (Chemical Technology)

The second layer of the mitigation system was chemical. Soviet soldiers were not merely issued “soap and water.” They were provided with a specifically formulated alkaline cleaning solution known as РЧС (RCHS), an acronym for Раствор для чистки стволов (Solution for Cleaning Barrels).²⁷ This was a purpose-built chemical countermeasure.

The official composition of RCHS, to be mixed fresh for use within a 24-hour period, was ³⁰:

Water (Вода): 1 liter. The universal solvent, essential for dissolving the primary corrosive agent, potassium chloride (KCl).
Ammonium Carbonate (Углекислый аммоний): 200 grams. This compound forms a weak alkaline solution that effectively neutralizes any acidic residues left by the combustion of the smokeless powder.
Potassium Dichromate (Двухромовокислый калий / хромпик): 3-5 grams. This is the most sophisticated component. Potassium dichromate is a powerful oxidizing agent that acts as a corrosion inhibitor. It works by passivating the surface of the steel, forming a microscopic, non-reactive oxide layer that provides temporary protection against rust after the salts have been washed away and before the final layer of oil is applied.

The RCHS solution was a far more advanced formulation than the simple water-based cleaners often assumed. It addressed the problem from multiple angles: dissolving the salt, neutralizing acidic powder fouling, and chemically protecting the bare steel. This debunks the common Western shooter’s myth that Windex with ammonia is an ideal cleaner for corrosive residue.¹¹ While the water in Windex does the primary work of dissolving the salts, the small amount of ammonia does little to neutralize the stable KCl salt and primarily serves to speed evaporation.⁸ The Soviet RCHS was a true, multi-component chemical weapon cleaning solvent.

In the field, when RCHS was unavailable, soldiers were trained to use effective expedients. The most common and effective was hot water, which dissolves salts more quickly than cold water and evaporates faster, minimizing the time the metal is wet.⁸ In its absence, soapy water, solutions of wood ash (which is alkaline), or even saliva were understood to provide a weak alkaline wash that could help neutralize acidic residue and begin dissolving salts.³⁵

3.3 The Tool for the Job (Mechanical Technology)

The third layer of the system was the provision of standardized, purpose-built tools. Every Soviet infantryman was issued a compact cleaning kit, known colloquially as the Пенал (“Pencil Case”), which was ingeniously stored in a compartment within the rifle’s buttstock.³⁶ This ensured that the means to perform the mandatory cleaning ritual were always with the soldier and the weapon.

The standard kit for rifles like the AKM and AK-74 was a model of utilitarian design, containing all the essential tools ³⁷:

Container/Handle: The cylindrical metal case itself featured holes and slots, allowing it to be used as a T-handle for the cleaning rod, providing better leverage.
Sectional Cleaning Rod: A multi-piece steel rod that was typically clipped onto the rifle’s barrel, ready for assembly and use.
Jag/Wiper (Протирка): A slotted tip that screwed onto the end of the rod, designed to securely hold a patch of cleaning cloth (ветошь) or a wad of tow (пакля).
Bore Brush (Ершик): A nylon bristle brush to scrub fouling from the bore and chamber.
Combination Tool: A brilliant piece of multi-purpose engineering, this flat tool served as a screwdriver, a wrench for the gas system, and a key for adjusting the elevation of the front sight post.
Punch (Выколотка): A simple pin punch used to drift out the various pins required for detailed disassembly of the rifle.

Complementing the Пенал was the iconic two-chambered metal oiler, the Масленка.³⁸ This bottle was not a design quirk; it was a physical manifestation of the two-step cleaning doctrine. One compartment was filled with the alkaline RCHS solution for cleaning and neutralization, while the other held a neutral gun oil or grease for lubrication and final preservation.³⁹ The soldier had everything required: the tools to disassemble, the chemicals to clean and neutralize, and the lubricant to protect.

3.4 The Armor Within (Firearms Technology)

The final, and arguably most critical, layer of the Soviet mitigation strategy was technological and built directly into the firearms themselves: hard chrome plating. From the World War II-era PPSh-41 submachine gun and well into the modern era, the vast majority of Soviet-designed military small arms—including the SKS carbine, the entire Kalashnikov family of rifles (AK-47, AKM, AK-74), the RPD and PK machine guns, and the SVD designated marksman rifle—featured barrels and gas system components that were hard chrome lined.⁴¹

This was not a cosmetic feature or a mere convenience. It was an essential engineering decision that made the long-term use of corrosive ammunition feasible. The process involves electrolytic deposition, where the barrel is placed in a galvanic bath and a thin, uniform layer of hard chromium is plated onto the interior surfaces of the bore, chamber, and often the gas piston.⁴⁵

This layer of hard chrome acts as a suit of armor for the vulnerable steel underneath. Chromium is significantly harder, slicker, and more corrosion-resistant than the carbon steel of the barrel.⁴⁴ It is also far less porous.⁴⁵ This provides two crucial protective functions. First, it creates a robust physical barrier, preventing the hygroscopic salt particles and acidic propellant gases from making direct contact with the steel and initiating the electrochemical process of rust.⁴⁵ Second, the extremely smooth, non-porous surface of the chrome makes cleaning far more effective and efficient. Fouling and salt residue have less to adhere to and are more easily swabbed out, ensuring that the mandatory cleaning process is successful.⁴⁴

While it is true that the process of applying a plated layer can, in theory, slightly degrade the maximum potential accuracy of a high-precision match-grade barrel, this is an irrelevant concern for a standard-issue military service rifle.⁴⁶ The immense gains in barrel life, resistance to erosion, and, most importantly, protection from corrosive ammunition far outweighed any marginal loss in theoretical precision. The chrome lining was the ultimate technological safeguard, the passive defense that underpinned the entire system and allowed the Soviet Union to confidently field a reliable weapons system based on corrosive-primed ammunition.

Section 4: The Legacy and the Modern Transition

The Soviet doctrine of producing and stockpiling vast quantities of corrosive-primed ammunition had profound and lasting consequences that extended far beyond the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a legacy in the form of a global surplus market, while the evolution of the Russian military in the post-Soviet era has driven a fundamental shift away from the very doctrine that made corrosive ammunition the logical choice for so long.

4.1 The Enduring Stockpile: A Flood of Surplus

The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the subsequent downsizing of former Soviet bloc armies in the 1990s unleashed a torrent of military surplus onto the international civilian firearms market. Central to this flood were the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of rounds of corrosive ammunition that had been sealed in their airtight “spam cans” and stored for decades in preparation for a war that never came.⁵

This surplus ammunition became immensely popular with civilian shooters in the West, particularly in the United States, for one primary reason: it was incredibly inexpensive.¹³ Shooters could purchase cases of 1,000 or more rounds for a fraction of the cost of newly manufactured commercial ammunition. This surplus is most commonly found in classic Soviet-era calibers, including 7.62x54R for the Mosin-Nagant rifle, 7.62x39mm (from sources like Yugoslavia, China, and Russia), and 5.45x39mm (primarily the Russian 7N6 variant).⁵

The availability of this cheap ammunition fueled the popularity of the corresponding surplus rifles, like the SKS and AK variants. However, it also created a new imperative for civilian owners: they had to learn and diligently apply the same cleaning regimen that was drilled into every Soviet conscript. Failure to do so would result in the rapid and destructive rusting of their firearms.¹⁰ This has led to the creation of a vast body of community knowledge—and misinformation—about proper cleaning techniques. While methods using hot water, water-based solvents, or oil-water emulsions like Ballistol are effective at dissolving the salts, myths such as using Windex to “neutralize” the corrosive residue persist, a testament to the enduring legacy of this ammunition in the civilian world.⁸

4.2 The Shift to Non-Corrosive in Modern Russia

The modern Russian Federation’s military is a different entity from its Soviet predecessor. The strategic emphasis has shifted from maintaining a massive, conscript-based force for a continental war to fielding a more professional, modern, and rapidly deployable army. This doctrinal shift has been accompanied by a corresponding evolution in ammunition technology.¹⁷

While Russia undoubtedly still possesses vast stockpiles of older corrosive ammunition, evidence strongly indicates that newly developed and manufactured military cartridges are non-corrosive. This transition appears to have begun in the early 1990s with the development of enhanced 5.45x39mm rounds. The 7N10 “Improved Penetration” variant, developed around 1991-1992, and subsequent armor-piercing versions like the 7N22 (“BP”) and 7N24 (“BS”) are widely understood to use modern, non-corrosive Berdan primers.¹⁷

The drivers for this change are multifaceted. First, primer chemistry has advanced significantly. Modern non-corrosive primer compounds can now meet or exceed the stringent military requirements for long-term storage stability and all-weather performance that previously gave corrosive primers the edge.¹⁷ Second, for a more professional military force, reducing the maintenance burden and the risk of equipment damage from neglect becomes a higher priority. Finally, the reduced need to supply the entire Warsaw Pact alliance has lessened the extreme cost pressures that favored the older, cheaper technology.¹⁷

This capability is further proven by the Russian commercial ammunition industry. Major manufacturers like the Tula Cartridge Works, Barnaul Cartridge Plant (brand names like Bear and Monarch), and Vympel (brand name Red Army Standard) have for years produced steel-cased, Berdan-primed ammunition for the lucrative Western export market that is explicitly and reliably non-corrosive.¹⁷ This confirms that the technology and manufacturing capability have long been in place; its application to military production was simply awaiting a shift in doctrinal priorities. The transition away from corrosive primers in new-production Russian military ammunition is not merely a technological update; it is a direct reflection of a fundamental evolution in Russia’s military strategy and posture in the post-Cold War world.

Section 5: Conclusion: A System, Not a Flaw

The enduring image of Soviet-era ammunition in the West has often been one of “cheap, dirty, and corrosive,” a stereotype that implies a technological and qualitative inferiority. This analysis, drawing upon technical specifications, historical context, and an understanding of Soviet military doctrine, demonstrates that this perception is a fundamental misinterpretation. The Soviet Union’s decades-long reliance on corrosive-primed ammunition was not a technological deficiency, an economic necessity born of desperation, or a careless oversight. It was a deliberate, pragmatic, and highly successful engineering choice that was part of a holistic and intelligently designed system.

The core thesis of this report is that the corrosive primer was merely one component in a fully integrated, multi-layered risk mitigation strategy. Its selection was viable only because of the simultaneous and mandatory implementation of the other elements of the system.

Passive Defense (Technology): The near-universal application of hard chrome lining in the bores, chambers, and gas systems of their small arms provided a robust, permanent barrier against corrosive attack.
Active Defense (Chemistry): The standard-issue RCHS alkaline cleaning solution was a chemically sophisticated countermeasure, specifically formulated to dissolve the harmful salt residue, neutralize acidic fouling, and passivate the steel surface.
Human Factor (Discipline): The rigid, uncompromising training of the Soviet soldier ensured that the correct cleaning procedures were applied immediately and thoroughly, providing the final, crucial layer of defense.

To analyze the primer in isolation from the chrome-lined barrel, the specialized cleaning solution, and the soldier’s doctrinal manual is to miss the point entirely. The Soviets did not simply accept corrosion; they actively managed it through a defense-in-depth approach. They made a calculated trade-off, prioritizing the absolute certainty of ammunition performance after decades of storage and in the most extreme climates over the convenience of reduced field maintenance. For their specific strategic context—preparing for a massive, prolonged, all-weather war across the Eurasian landmass—this was not just a logical choice, but arguably the optimal one.

The legacy of this decision is still felt today in the millions of rounds of surplus ammunition enjoyed by civilian shooters, who must replicate a portion of the Soviet cleaning doctrine to protect their firearms. The modern Russian military’s transition to non-corrosive ammunition for its newer cartridges does not invalidate the old system; rather, it reflects a shift in that same strategic context. By leveraging both English and Russian-language technical and historical sources, this report has aimed to replace the myth of “commie ammo” with an evidence-based appreciation for a pragmatic and effective engineering and logistical solution. The Soviet system worked as intended for over half a century, arming one of the largest military forces in history and proving that, within its intended context, it was a system, not a flaw.

Works cited

Berdan vs Boxer Primer: A History of the Modern Primer -, accessed July 29, 2025, https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/berdan-vs-boxer-primer-a-history-of-the-modern-primer/
Origin of A Primer Ballistic | PDF | Technology & Engineering – Scribd, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/322943425/Origin-of-a-primer-Ballistic-docx
A Bit Of History On Primers – Tactical Ordnance – TACTICOR LLC, accessed July 29, 2025, https://tacticor.com/blog/a-bit-of-history-on-primers/
Primers – A Quick Study – Top Brass Reloading Supplies, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.topbrass-inc.com/blogs/news/primers-a-quick-study
Corrosive Ammunition: Don’t Ruin a Good Gun – The Shooter’s Log, accessed July 29, 2025, https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/corrosive-ammunition-dont-ruin-good-gun/
Corrosive Ammo – Milsurps, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=54129
Corrosive Mil-surplus ammo and Mercury – Milsurps, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=45477
Corrosive Ammunition Guide (Learn About Pros and Cons), accessed July 29, 2025, https://ammo.com/primer-type/corrosive-ammo
Corrosive Ammo Explained – Calibre Magazine, accessed July 29, 2025, https://calibremag.ca/corrosive-ammunition-what-it-is-how-to-spot-it-how-to-clean-it-and-what-to-expect-if-you-dont/
What Are Corrosive Ammo Primers? – SSP Firearms, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.sspfirearms.com/2023/12/08/what-are-corrosive-ammo-primers/
Shooting Corrosive Ammo? Learn How to Protect Your Guns – Accurate Shooter Bulletin, accessed July 29, 2025, https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2024/10/shooting-corrosive-ammo-learn-how-to-protect-your-guns/
How or where can I tell if a certain ammunition is corrosive? – Quora, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.quora.com/How-or-where-can-I-tell-if-a-certain-ammunition-is-corrosive
How to Clean Corrosive Ammo – Pew Pew Tactical, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.pewpewtactical.com/clean-corrosive-ammunition/
Tech Tip: Corrosive Ammo – YouTube, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqwdtBVFs-o
All About Corrosive Ammunition – The Shooter’s Log, accessed July 29, 2025, https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/corrosive-ammunition/
Corrosive ammo : r/SKS – Reddit, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SKS/comments/18opnzx/corrosive_ammo/
Russian military still using newly made corrosive ammo? – Reddit, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ammo/comments/8i2erm/russian_military_still_using_newly_made_corrosive/
When did they stop making corrosive ammo? – Quora, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.quora.com/When-did-they-stop-making-corrosive-ammo
What was the purpose of making corrosive ammo? : r/guns – Reddit, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/2kn23u/what_was_the_purpose_of_making_corrosive_ammo/
Corrosive Ammo: Why? : r/milsurp – Reddit, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/milsurp/comments/u1um73/corrosive_ammo_why/
Corrosive/Non-Corrosive Ammunition | USCCA, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/terminology/decoding%20ammunition%20boxes/corrosive-non-corrosive/
7.62×39mm – Wikipedia, accessed July 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm
Why do some gun ranges forbid the use of Russian ammo? – The Gun Club, accessed July 29, 2025, https://thegunclub.quora.com/Why-do-some-gun-ranges-forbid-the-use-of-Russian-ammo
U.S. GI Non-Corrosive Primers, accessed July 29, 2025, http://www.odcmp.org/1101/usgi.pdf
Primer Composition and Gunshot Residue – Office of Justice Programs, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/primer-composition-and-gunshot-residue
.303 Corrosive/Non-Corrosive Database? – Milsurps, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=77765
Чистка и смазка автомата, задержки при стрельбе, accessed July 29, 2025, https://bezpekavip.com/chistka-i-smazka-avtomata-zaderzhki-pri-strelbe
Чистка АК-74М. Начальная военная подготовка. – YouTube, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz3_Zmt8mnA
Техническое обслуживание стволов стрелкового оружия Текст научной статьи по специальности «Науки об образовании – КиберЛенинка, accessed July 29, 2025, https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tehnicheskoe-obsluzhivanie-stvolov-strelkovogo-oruzhiya
Раствор чистки стволов (РЧС, ТРЧС). Наша компания выпускает ряд средств для чистки оружия. Это средства для.. 2025 | ВКонтакте, accessed July 29, 2025, https://vk.com/wall-72413978_696
Как ухаживать за оружием: правильная чистка Оружие чистят так …, accessed July 29, 2025, https://vk.com/wall-36540424_18244
A Case for Corrosive Ammo | An Official Journal Of The NRA – Shooting Illustrated, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/a-case-for-corrosive-ammo/
Ammonia & Corrosive Ammo. : r/guns – Reddit, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/2hjg0n/ammonia_corrosive_ammo/
What’s the deal with corrosive primers in ammo, and why do they make immediate cleaning so important? – Quora, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-deal-with-corrosive-primers-in-ammo-and-why-do-they-make-immediate-cleaning-so-important
Правильная чистка оружия – методы, средства, правила – Guns.Club, accessed July 29, 2025, https://guns.club/lib/oruzhie/chistka-ognestrelnogo-oruzhiya/
Чистка карабина Тигр и винтовки СВД с помощью штатной принадлежности, accessed July 29, 2025, https://zastava-izhevsk.ru/3/ispolzovanie-shtatnoy-prinadlezhnosti-dlya-obsluzhivaniya-tigra/
Набор для чистки АК 47, калибр.7.62 в пенале: продажа, цена в …, accessed July 29, 2025, https://sportmarathon.com.ua/p984081101-nabor-dlya-chistki.html
Масленка для ухода за оружием однокамерная (СССР, армейская). – Pnevmat.by, accessed July 29, 2025, https://pnevmat.by/p61019546-maslenka-dlya-uhoda.html
Масленка оружейная купить на OZON по низкой цене, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.ozon.ru/category/maslenka-oruzheynaya/
Нейтральное и щелочное масло – НПФ АКСИОМА – Средства по уходу за оружием, accessed July 29, 2025, https://npfaxioma.ru/page/neytralnoe_i_schelochnoe_maslo.html
RPD machine gun – Wikipedia, accessed July 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPD_machine_gun
Soviet Weapons in World War II | RANGER PRAGUE, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.pragueranger.cz/blog/Soviet-weapons-in-world-war2/
AK-47 – Wikipedia, accessed July 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
What’s the deal with chrome-lining and chrome-plating? – GunTweaks.com, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.guntweaks.com/whats-the-deal-with-chrome-lining-and-chrome-plating.html
Хромирование ствола – что это и зачем нужно | библиотека …, accessed July 29, 2025, https://guns.club/lib/oruzhie/khromirovanie-stvola-chto-eto-i-zachem-nuzhno/
CHROME LINED BARRELS – TargetTalk, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=59196
Behind The Shine Of Chrome-Lined Barrels – Gun Digest, accessed July 29, 2025, https://gundigest.com/rifles/chrome-lined-barrels
About Red Army Standard | True Shot Ammo, accessed July 29, 2025, https://trueshotammo.com/academy/about-red-army-standard/
Corrosive Ammo vs. Non-Corrosive Ammo: Understanding the Difference | True Shot Ammo, accessed July 29, 2025, https://trueshotammo.com/academy/corrosive-ammo-vs-non-corrosive-ammo-understanding-the-difference/
RUSSIAN SURPLUS 5.45x39mm 7N6 FMJ STEEL CORE 100rd BAG, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.308ammo.com/RUSSIAN-SURPLUS-5-45x39mm-7N6-FMJ-STEEL-CORE-p/7n6loose.htm
Corrosive Ammo – YouTube, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo2cFiyobY8
5.45×39mm – Wikipedia, accessed July 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.45%C3%9739mm
What is the shell of 7N6M and 7N10 5.45×39 cartridges made of?? : r/guns – Reddit, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/jt5wgi/what_is_the_shell_of_7n6m_and_7n10_545x39/
Decided to do a little digging on all the different types of 7n ammo out there. : r/EscapefromTarkov – Reddit, accessed July 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/EscapefromTarkov/comments/fd9yzr/decided_to_do_a_little_digging_on_all_the/

Ammunition

Will The Russia-Ukraine Conflict Cause An Small Arms Ammunition Shortage in the US?

February 26, 2022 RoninsGrips

The short answer is “no, not across the board” but the longer answer bears some explaining. First off the main small arms ammunition used will be former Warsaw Pact calibers such as 7.62×39, 5.45×39, 7.62×25 Tokarev and so forth. The point is that the calibers in the scope of concern is already small – certainly not across all small arm calibers found in the US.

Russia has a large stockpile of Russian made ammunition and plenty of production facilities to make more. Given that the US government decided not to allow new imports of Russian ammunition some time ago and importers finding other sources, this should not be a big factor in ammunition supplies.

Ukraine’s only small arms ammunition manufacturer is the Luhansk cartridge plant. Luhansk did make ammunition for the export and Century Arms sold it under the “Red Army Standard” brand but Century sources from Romania, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Poland also.

It is possible that there will be more demand for calibers the Ukrainian military uses and both the government of Ukraine and their supports will turn to the International arms market for supplies should this become a protracted conflict. That might impact supplies and prices if demand increases but supply does not.

In the US, there already is some panic buying as people who are scared/nervous decide to buy more ammo but this is on the tail end of several years of significantly high volumes of firearm and ammunition purchases already – any surge in demand will likely be short lived. Same goes with any temporary price hikes.

In closing, I really doubt there will shortages of small arms ammunition in the United States with the only caveat being that if the conflict drags on and demand in the arms market increases, there might be some price increases but only time will tell.

Note, I have to buy all of my parts – nothing here was paid for by sponsors, etc. I do make a small amount if you click on an ad and buy something but that is it. You’re getting my real opinion on stuff.

Online Ammunition Sources

Note, if you haven’t checked lately, ammunition is returning to the online vendors and prices have come down dramatically from their pandemic high. For example, a 1000 rounds of bulk packed CCI 9mm Luger was over $1,000 at one point and now it is available from $299-339 sometimes with free shipping.

Also, if you haven’t heard, PSA is building an ammunition plant as well to open later this year (2022).

Russia and also USSR

Video: Russian Spetsnaz – Into Battle – Some very cool Shots of AK-12s and PKP Pechengs

June 26, 2020 RoninsGrips

When I have time, I like to watch videos of foreign militaries. Some dedicated folks create motivational videos that have catchy music and often some very interesting clips set to the music. One of these gifted groups is Military Forces XXI Century that has a channel on Youtube.

They have a new one featuring some very interesting clips of Russian Spetsnaz teams training entitled “Russian Spetsnaz – Into Battle”. What especially caught my eye was the extensive use of optics – both red dots by themselves and with magnifiers – on their PKP Pecheng machine guns. The PKP is the modernized PKM.

PKP with both a red dot and a magnifier.

That’s either a large red dot or some form of prismatic scope — it’s big enough.

Here’s The Video

Be sure not to miss when they are throwing their famous shovels 🙂

I hope you enjoyed the video as much as I did.

Czechoslovakia

Video: Birth Of the Alien Tiger Czech Hind Attack Helicopter

February 13, 2020 RoninsGrips

I recently posted a video that shows the amazing paint job the Czechs did to one of their Mi-35 Hind-D attack helicopters. Little did I know that there was a “behind the scenes” short documentary about the decision making that went into that paint job and that they won an award for it.

They had a number of conventional ideas that didn’t really wow anybody until they thought of a guy who specialized in the bio-mechanical look.

They do have some footage of the fellow doing the work. It was he, his brother and a few technicians who spent about 200 hours doing the paint job. I wish they had more footage of it and at a higher resolution.

The Documentary Video

Again, if you haven’t seen it already, check out the other post with a ton of footage of this awesome Hind. I hope you enjoyed these!

Russia and also USSR

Video: Crazy Training of Russian Special Forces With PKM and PKP Machine Guns

February 11, 2020 RoninsGrips

This is a military motivational video set to music. In it we get a chance to see a variety of PKM ((ПК Модернизированный: “Kalashnikov’s Machine-gun Modernized”) and

PKP Pecheneg Machine Gun. Note the carry handle over the barrel and the heavy barrel.

The Video

The drills do look pretty crazy and the producers say they are clips of Spetznaz (Russian Special Forces) training.

I hope you enjoyed it!

Please note that all images were extracted from the video and are the property of their respective owner.

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. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

Introduction: The Return of Great Power Conflict

I. The Human Domain: Will, Skill, and Mass

I.A. Leadership and Command Culture: Centralization vs. Adaptation

I.B. Force Generation in Attritional Warfare: Relearning the Art of Mass

I.C. Training, Doctrine, and the NCO Corps: The Widening Gulf

I.D. The Will to Fight: Miscalculations and the Moral Component

II. The Operational Domain: Process, Planning, and Protraction

II.A. Strategic Miscalculation: The Failure of the Initial “Special Military Operation”

II.B. The Attritional Stalemate: The Primacy of Fires and Fortifications

II.C. The Challenge of the Offensive: Breaching Modern Defenses in Depth

II.D. Logistics and the Industrial Engine of War: The Decisive Rear Battle

III. The Technological Domain: Disruption, Transparency, and Contestation

III.A. The Ubiquitous Drone: Revolutionizing the Tactical and Operational Levels

III.B. The Electronic Battlefield: The Contest for the Spectrum

III.C. Fires and Counter-Fires: The Evolving Duel of Precision and Mass

III.D. The High Ground: The Unprecedented Role of Space and Cyber Assets

III.E. The Underperformance of “Classical” Air and Sea Power

IV. Synthesis and Key Military Lessons for Future Conflict

IV.A. Key Russian Failures and Adaptations

IV.B. Key Ukrainian Successes and Shortcomings

IV.C. Cross-Cutting Implications for Western Militaries

Conclusion: Preparing for the Next War

Works cited

Share this:

Like this:

Section I: The Strategic Environment: Redefining Conflict in the 21st Century

From Open War to Pervasive Competition

Anatomy of the Gray Zone

The Hybrid Warfare Playbook

Section II: The Economic Arsenal: Geopolitics by Other Means

The US-China Tariff War: A Case Study in Economic Coercion

Goals vs. Reality

Effectiveness Assessment: A Blunt Instrument

Unintended Consequences

The Sanctions Regime Against Russia: Testing Economic Containment

Targeting the War Machine

The Limits of Efficacy and Russian Adaptation

Strategic Realignment

China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Influence Through Investment

Beyond the “Debt-Trap” Narrative

A Nuanced Reality

Section III: The Digital Frontlines: Cyber and Electronic Warfare

Russia’s Doctrine of Disruption

China’s Strategy of Espionage and Exploitation

Effectiveness and Asymmetry

Section IV: The War for Minds: Information and Influence Operations

Russia’s “Active Measures 2.0”

China’s Quest for “Discourse Power”

The U.S. Response: Public Diplomacy

Section V: Conflict by Other Means: Proxies and Lawfare

The Modern Proxy War

Syria as a Microcosm

Ukraine and the “Proxy Supporter” Model

China’s Lawfare in the South China Sea

Challenging the International Order

Tactics of Creeping Jurisdiction

Section VI: Strategic Assessment and Outlook

Comparative Analysis of National Strategies

What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why

Recommendations for the United States

Future Trajectory of Conflict

Works cited

Share this:

Like this:

The AK-74M as a Modernized Baseline

A Platform for a New Market

Core Engineering and Material Science of the AK-100 Platform

A Unified System: The Long-Stroke Gas Piston Heart

The “Black AK”: Glass-Reinforced Polyamide Construction

Differentiating the Family: Barrels, Muzzle Devices, and Gas Systems

A Divergent Evolution: The Balanced Automatics Recoil System (BARS)

The AK-107/108: Engineering a Counter-Recoil Solution

An Innovation Too Far?: The BARS in Military Context

Critical Assessment: Flaws and Limitations of the AK-100 Design

Inherited Deficiencies

Performance and In-Service Critiques

The Path Forward: The AK-200 and AK-12 as Corrective Successors

The AK-200 Series: A Direct Response to Modernization Demands

The AK-12/15: A Fifth-Generation Kalashnikov

Conclusion and Synthesis