www.wearethemighty.com
What the Soviet Union thought as it watched Operation Desert Storm
When Operation Desert Storm ended in 1991, it blew the Soviet Union’s collective mind—and Moscow’s hangover has never ended.The hardest pill the Soviet general staff would have to swallow was that Iraq was fighting with Soviet doctrine: Soviet gear, Soviet training, and a Soviet-style air defense concept. The Russians expected Baghdad to be a stress test for American air power and a preview of how a U.S. coalition (like NATO) might bleed in a big, messy land war.Also Read: 21 Facts about the First Gulf WarInstead, the Coalition ran an air campaign that looked like large-scale surgery, then wrapped the ground war up in about 100 hours. To Soviet eyes, it wasn’t just that their client got beaten. It felt like their whole model of modern war got exposed as outdated for the entire world to see.The U.S.-led coalition didn’t just beat Saddam Hussein’s army. It made a public demonstration of how wars would be fought after the Cold War. And the Soviet general staff, already dealing with a collapsing economy and a political system eating itself alive, had to sit there and take notes. Those notes were not comforting.
The Meat Grinder Never Materialized
On paper, Iraq appeared to be a formidable opponent. It had a large army (the fourth-largest in the world), extensive armor, robust air defenses, and years of experience fighting Iran. Much of its gear and training had Soviet fingerprints all over it. Viewers from Moscow could reasonably believe this would turn into a long, bloody grind once the ground war started. To the Soviets, the war to oust Iraq from Kuwait could’ve taken weeks. Maybe months
(AFP via Getty)
In Moscow’s prewar mental script, air power could hurt you, slow you down, and make life miserable, but it couldn’t decide the war by itself. The decisive fight would still be the ground campaign, and that ground campaign (the Russians believed) would punish an all-volunteer American force.
That belief was doctrine, rooted in how the Red Army was designed to fight NATO. The model was a system of armor and infantry massed and protected by air defenses, backed by artillery, with enough depth to absorb punishment and keep moving. So when early reports suggested Iraqi formations were unraveling fast, it was easy to dismiss them as confusion, exaggeration, or wishful thinking. Fog of war happens. Propaganda happens. And in a fast-moving conflict, both sides always claim the other one is panicking.Moscow’s theory didn’t survive first contact with reality. The ground war began on Feb. 24, 1991, and it was essentially over by the 28th. The famous 100 hours number wasn’t just a headline.Soviet observers watched Iraqi air defenses get blinded and dismantled in layers. They watched command posts go quiet. They watched armored formations get shredded, sometimes without ever seeing what hit them. And they watched a massive Coalition force move fast through open desert, at night, in bad weather, then show up on Iraq’s flank as if it had teleported.
The “Left Hook” Landed
(Department of Defense)
The Coalition’s main ground move should’ve looked familiar to Soviet planners on a map. It was a huge left hook through the desert, a deep envelopment that punished an opponent who expected the main blow to land elsewhere. In theory, that kind of maneuver was respectable. In practice, it happened with a tempo and coordination that Iraq didn’t match.U.S. forces pushed wide, moved quickly, and kept units aligned across featureless terrain in bad visibility, often operating at night and in poor weather. Iraqi forces didn’t respond like a machine built to fight a mobile, combined-arms campaign. They reacted late, inconsistently, or not at all, and by the time they realized where the main threat actually was, the Coalition was already on their flank and behind key positions.For Soviet observers, the bigger shock wasn’t that a left hook happened. It was that it worked so cleanly, so quickly, and alongside an air campaign that had already shredded the opponent’s ability to see, communicate, and coordinate.In the air, Iraqi pilots and air defenders faced a problem that goes beyond courage or competence. When you’re dealing with electronic attack, radar suppression, stealthy aircraft, decoys, and constant pressure, the tactical experience can feel like everything is lying to you. Contacts appear and vanish. Radars behave strangely. Warning receivers chirp, then go quiet, then scream again. Soviet doctrine was comfortable with a certain kind of war. It assumed time, mass, and a hierarchy that could grind its way through chaos. What Desert Storm showcased was a style of fighting that tried to prevent the opponent from ever getting organized enough to grind back.For a staff raised on artillery math and tank counts, this suddenly became an was an existential crisis.
The Highway of Death
Demolished vehicles line Highway 80, also known as the “Highway of Death”, the route fleeing Iraqi forces took as they retreated from Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. (U.S. Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Joe Coleman)
If the first day broke Moscow’s theory, the images from the days that followed broke its spirit. The Soviet Union learned that the Cold War wasn’t a stalemate. As Iraqi troops and vehicles fled Kuwait City north on Highway 80, American air power hit the retreating column for hours with industrial precision. When satellite images filtered back to Moscow, Soviet analysts saw what looked less like a battle scene and more like a mass grave. A massive number of vehicles were jammed and incinerated, tanks with turrets blown off, trucks seemingly melted into the road.Western media called it the “Highway of Death.” In Moscow, it was something else altogether, a demonstration of what happens when one side can find, track, and hit what it wants, while the other side can’t do anything about it. Iraq’s loss wasn’t only about tanks burning. It was about the Coalition’s ability to make the battlefield transparent enough to turn a large movement of units into a vulnerability. Once you can consistently detect movement, share targeting information quickly, and strike with precision, the old comfort of massing a large force of armor starts to look less like deterrence and more like a liability.
Hunting Ghosts
Initially, Moscow’s copium was to blame the Iraqis. Iraq must have been incompetent. Iraqi troops were undisciplined. They misused Soviet doctrine. They didn’t fight the way they were supposed to fight. It’s not entirely wrong. Iraq had major problems in training, leadership, morale, logistics, and initiative. But it also misses what Desert Storm put on display, the thing the USSR didn’t want ot accept: This wasn’t just a mismatch of soldiers. It was a mismatch of systems.
Soviet analysts started digging. They looked for a single decisive advantage: one ghost, one superweapon, one electronic trick that blinded radar, one wonder weapon that explained the whole thing. But if there was one thing that made the swift destruction of the Iraqi Army possible, it was one thing that was actually many things. Iraq was actually fighting a network.Victory in the Gulf began with something that might have sounded like science fiction in 1991, but is used today to deliver food: the Global Positioning System. GPS wasn’t just navigation. It was the quiet enabler that let U.S. forces maneuver at speed, at night, in sandstorms, and hit with accuracy that made older platforms perform like something new.The real gut punch was identifying America’s “all-seeing eye,” the E-8 JSTARS, a radar and battle management platform that could scan enormous swaths of ground and track moving vehicles, then push that data across the force. The Americans fused sensors, shooters, and communications into a single integrated system. JSTARS sees movement, passes targets digitally, AWACS sorts the air picture, and shooters arrive already knowing where to look. That’s why the “Highway of Death” looked like a conveyor belt of destruction.
It’s also why this hit Moscow so hard. Soviet doctrine was hierarchical. Reports went up, orders came down, and time lag was baked in. The Americans, in this view, were operating a network in which platforms were tools and speed was the real weapon.
JSTARS prepares to take off for a mission in support of Operation Desert Storm. (Col. (Ret.) Martin Kleiner)
What the Russians Learned
A RAND assessment published in 1992 laid out how Russian military thinkers were digesting Desert Storm, and the lessons weren’t subtle. First and foremost, they saw Desert Storm as proof that modern war had changed dramatically from the model they’d expected. It didn’t change bits and pieces, the Gulf War changed the foundation of Soviet military thinking.
Although the air war came first, the USSR saw air power as the main event, not the opening act. The idea that air forces could create victory conditions with comparatively low friendly losses hit hard, especially for a military culture raised on mass and attrition. The Soviets also had to confront an ugly truth about tanks and armies under hostile skies. If the other side controls the air, armored forces become endangered. It’s a simple matter of exposure.
Soviet-style command-and-control also appeared too rigid for the American tempo. Centralized control might keep order, but it also slows adaptation. Desert Storm highlighted speed, flexibility, and coordination across services as more than buzzwords. Fixed defenses weren’t the comfort blanket they used to be. Hardened shelters, static nodes, and predictable infrastructure became targets. Stealth and precision made hiding harder.
And then there was coalition warfare. Soviet analysts didn’t just notice the Coalition existed. They noticed how it functioned. They saw victory tied not only to weapon performance, but also to a command system that could coordinate air, land, maritime forces, national goals, and political will without collapsing into chaos.
The Fall of the “Evil Empire”
Demonstrators display a giant Russian flag in Red Square after Soviet hardliners attempted to overthrow leaders Mikhail Gorbachev and President Boris Yeltsin. (Alain Nogues/Sygma via Getty Images)
By late 1991, the Soviet Union was nearing its end for reasons far bigger than any battlefield lesson. Desert Storm just delivered a clear warning before the hammer and sickle flag came down: if you can’t keep up with the pace of information, your armored force isn’t a shield. It’s a list of targets waiting for a network to find.Moreover, victory on the battlefield would henceforth be determined by who sees first, who shares fastest, who decides quickest, and who can keep operating when their networks get attacked.
That conclusion carried an uncomfortable second layer. Iraq wasn’t just a client state getting embarrassed. The Soviet Union, and later Russia, used similar hardware as the Iraqis did in Kuwait, and had some similar habits of command. So the nightmare wasn’t Iraqi conscripts losing tanks. It was Soviet conscripts losing them the same way in a war against NATO.
Desert Storm didn’t just end a war in the desert. It helped start the argument over what modern war even is, and Moscow has been arguing with that reality ever since.
Don’t Miss the Best of We Are The Mighty
• The Coalition destroyed the entire Iraqi Navy in four days• How the Marines ripped through the Iraqis in Operation Desert Storm• Navy battleships pulled off the biggest military deception of Desert Storm
Desert Storm
Desert Storm
What the Soviet Union thought as it watched Operation Desert Storm
By Blake Stilwell
Air Force
The ‘Chopper Popper’ scored the A-10’s first air-to-air kill against an Iraqi helicopter
By Blake Stilwell
Desert Storm
Desert Shield at 35: Why the Gulf War Still Matters
By Robert Billard
Fixed Wing
How Navy SEALs captured the first POWs of Desert Storm
By Miguel Ortiz
The post What the Soviet Union thought as it watched Operation Desert Storm appeared first on We Are The Mighty.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
