In this paper I look at the evolving role of Russia in the Middle East, analyzing transfers of Russian military equipment to its main ally in the region, the Syrian Arab Republic. By using Syria as a case study, I provide insight as to the evolution of Russia’s Middle Eastern policy, examine the motivations that play a role in Moscow’s decision-making process and the discuss the changes that have taken place in the Middle East military landscape. My research illustrates that Russia is a prestige seeking state that is motivated my domestic issues. Furthermore, sixty years of arms transfers indicate that Russia has never sold game-changing weapons to Syria as this would be counterproductive to Moscow’s main goal in the region: the brokering of a new Middle East peace deal. / text

本論文之研究目的是企圖從前蘇聯文武關係研究途徑與克里姆林宮政治研究途徑來探討蘇聯解體後俄羅斯軍方之政治參與範疇與背後之動機。 就軍方政治參與之範疇而言，蘇聯於1991年底解體後，俄羅斯軍方在政治舞台上扮演了重要的角色。首先，我們可以從軍方在1993年俄羅斯新軍事準則成型的過程中，其強硬主張佔了主導的地位。第二、軍方在「近鄰」與前南斯拉夫維和行動的政策即便與外交部意見相衝突仍獲得最後主導權。第三、軍方在1993年10月政爭中並未完全保持中立，而最後軍方是站在葉里欽總統一方結束了此一政治危機。第四、軍方試圖從俄羅斯獨立後歷屆國家杜馬選舉中，藉由其投票行為或是主動參與競選來表達其政治態度與影響有關軍事方面之政策。 本論文以為，蘇後俄羅斯軍方的政治參與背後動機之主要原因有二。其一是蘇聯解體以後俄羅斯軍方制度利益嚴重惡化：蘇聯解體以後，軍方在軍事改革上無法有效進展、軍事預算嚴重不足、軍中生活條件惡化以及國防工業轉產上面臨了嚴重的問題。這些皆使得軍方為了自救不得不試圖從政治層面來解決軍隊之問題。其二是受到克里姆林宮政治互動之影響：葉里欽為了鞏固政軍大權，運用高超的政治手腕以及「分而治之」的統御方式，引用軍方的力量來打擊政治對手，另一方面也運用政治危機分化軍隊之團結性，使其無法在政治上形成對統治者之威脅。 / The purpose of the thesis attempts to analyze the scope and motives of post-soviet Russian military’s political participation by using former Soviet civil-military relations approach and Kremlin politics approach. As far as the scope of military’s political participation is concerned, since the dissolution of USSR in 1991, the Russian military has been playing an important role in Russian politics. First of all, during the process of formulating Russian new military doctrine in 1993, Russian military’s hard-line position dominated this process and its opinion finally won out. Secondly, peacekeeping operation took by the Russian military in the “Near Abroad” and former Yugoslavia, especially in Kosovo, usually conflicted the peaceful option hold by the Ministry of Russian Foreign Affairs, but the Russian military still took control of the final policy initiative. Thirdly, in October 1993, the Russian military didn’t remain neutral in the political struggle between president and Congress of People’s Deputies. It sided with president and therefore ended this severe political crisis. Fourthly, in each Duma election hold after Russia’s independence, the Russian military tried to express its political inclination and exerted its influence by voting, even actively took part in the election. This thesis is taking the position that the political participation of post-soviet Russian military is driven by two motives. First and foremost is the institutional interest of Russian military suffered great damage since the breakup of the USSR：military reform hasn’t made much progress; military budget received hasn’t sufficed the need of military; military faced the growing acute social problems within itself; the conversion of defense industry encountered difficulties. These problems made the Russian military try to preserve itself by political means. The second motive is affected by Kremlin political interaction：in order to strengthen his control over politics and military, Yeltsin used brilliant political art and managed the military by means of “divide and rule”. He used the military to attack his political opponent, on the other hand, he made use of each political crisis to split the military and therefore the military couldn’t constitute a political threat to the ruler of Russian polity.

I efterbörden av Rysslands annektering av Krim 2014 uppstod diskussioner kring rysk krigskonst och hybridkrigföring. Bland tvetydigheterna som uppstod identifieras bland annat vilka strategier som det samtida Ryssland har för att uppnå strategisk överraskning. Denna studie har syftat till att undersöka rysk militär vilseledning i samband med Rysslands strategiska överraskningsanfall på Krim 2014. Studien har genomförts som en teoriprövande fallstudie varvid såväl västerländska som sovjetiska/ryska vilseledningsteorier prövats på det ryska agerande under annekteringen av Krim 2014. Sammantaget visar studiens resultat på förekomster av ryskt agerande i enlighet med samtliga av studiens prövade teorier varvid det i huvudsak var distraktion, dolda aktiva åtgärder samt desinformation som bidrog till den ryska strategiska överraskningen. Studiens oväntade resultat pekar på ett aktivt deltagande av den ryske presidenten personligen varvid det inte går att underskatta betydelsen av en politisk företrädare som Vladimir Putin. Studiens resultat kan vidare tolkas som att den vilseledning som Ryssland genomförde får ses vilande i huvudsak på tidigare dokumenterade sovjetiska teorier. Vidare visar studiens resultat på en hög rysk förmåga till anpassning där tidigare etablerade sovjetiska/ryska teorier kring vilseledning utvecklats till dagens konfliktmiljöer. Studien visar därmed att äldre sovjetiska/ryska teorier på inget sätt är obsoleta utan i allra högsta grad fortsatt är aktuella i dagens globala världsordning. / In the aftermath of Russia's annexation of Crimea 2014, discussions arose about Russian military art of war and hybrid warfare. Questions were identified regarding strategic surprise and what strategies todays’ modern Russia was using. This study aims to investigate Russian military deception in connection with Russia's strategic surprise attack in Crimea 2014. The study was conducted as a single case study in which Western as well as Soviet/Russian theories of military deception was compared with the Russian activities during the Crimea annexation in 2014.  The result shows Russian activities in accordance with both Western and old Soviet/Russian theories of deception. According to the study Russian main focus was distraction, active measures and disinformation leading to the Russian strategic surprise. The study shows unexpected results regarding the amount of personal activity involving the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. The result shows that the significance of a political representative such as Vladimir Putin cannot be underestimated. Additionally the study also shows that the military deception conducted by Russia in and around the period of the Crimea annexation 2014 mainly extracts from previously documented old Soviet theories. It highlights Russia’s ability to adapt into today's conflict environments by bending and adjusting old theories and doctrines. By that meaning old Soviet/Russian theories are in no way obsolete but instead being very much relevant in today's global world order.