New approaches to understanding the essence of "power component" in modern wars and conflicts
Material posted: Grinyaev SergeyPublication date: 24-03-2018

The development of the geostrategic situation in recent years, some such fundamental shifts as the effective depletion of mineral reserves, global warming (and its associated processes of migration, desertification of fertile land, water shortage, etc.), as well as subjective problems of the development of civilization (religious, ethnic, problems of the global financial system, the emergence of a large number of supranational and non-state actors, etc.), led to a sharp aggravation of international tensions. In such circumstances, increasingly the question arises about the need for a harsh response with the aim of protecting state interests. Traditional tool in the solution of arising problems is the use of military force.

However, in today's highly globalized world, even the mere intention to use military force leads to significant destabilization of many spheres of life, including the country that planned the use of force.

On the other hand, the current deplorable state of the economy, General slowdown of innovative activity does not allow to maintain the growth of military spending at the same level. Yes, and this makes no sense, since the use of accumulated arsenals without consequences, including for the country it applied, is almost impossible. Moreover, it is unlikely the conflict will fight each other two or more high-tech armies.

This is the fundamental gap, the contradiction of the modern era: on the one hand, a deep systemic crisis of modern civilization, covering many areas of life, requires tough measures, including the use of military force (in other words, we need a war to resolve the accumulated contradictions) and the accumulated arsenals on the types of weapons and their firepower in most cases cannot be applied without serious consequences, in particular, and for the country, they apply.

Moreover, the growing round of global inflation, the appreciation of all types of activities does not allow to contain the armed forces and the military-industrial complex only in case of major hostilities. Today there is no possibility of the state to maintain an army just for that short period of time when she can be of use.

The conflicts of recent years on the example of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria show that accumulated over the years, the military potential in the form in which it was created, in most cases, in the conditions of aggravation of the situation or not running at all or quickly, and requires adjustment and adaptation to the conditions that typically differ dramatically from those they were expecting an army. As a result, low efficiency of combat use of forces and means to overcome the challenges.

On the other hand, the government's attempt to use military force to address security challenges and restore order, i.e. for the solution of precisely those problems for which, in particular, and was created many years, the military potential, in fact, rests on the extremely negative "public opinion" and the subsequent international sanctions.

Large-scale use of military force is preceded by a stage of accumulation of forces, and the beginning of the application need to take care of and the maintenance group (this is especially important if the troops involved to achieve long-term objectives in the occupied territories). These steps are the road and can be justified only for a very short period of time, or only in terms of doing large-scale war and the economy on work in the special conditions of wartime.

The analysis shows that the West first became aware of the developments. The formation and maintenance of grouping of forces and means, for example, for the same Yugoslavia or Iraq has cost the American and European taxpayers a very substantial amount. It is necessary to consider that all the power groups have been effectively applied, only a few percent (as a rule, aircraft and special forces).

Understanding of the changes reflected in the strong development of non-military means and methods of struggle (including economic, informational, etc.). Today, the U.S. Department of state under the purview of the confrontation is much more significant position than the Pentagon, because it coordinates and integrates all elements of national power to overcome the challenges.

The result of this work was, for example, the concept of a "color revolution", when the assigned political objectives are achieved through the use of internal protest potential without the large-scale use of military force. Today, the most promising concept in the West is the concept of irregular military actionthat involves the wide use of the guerrilla, sabotage and special forms and methods of struggle.

For the second Iraqi campaign, as well as in Afghanistan, the collective forces of the United States and NATO were actively involved for the tasks at hand, such structures as private military companies.

This mechanism allowed using only financial resources without additional infrastructure, to attract a considerable force of professionals for specific tasks.

The forces of PMCs were used for solving the tasks of peace (accompanied by dangerous goods, security infrastructure, transaction convoys, support of local police, etc.) and, if necessary, the same force and solve combat tasks.

High competition among PMCs allow the selection of the most suitable performers, and with a narrow specialization in terms of task execution (climatic zone, the level of military training, prof specialization, etc.).

But, most importantly, in case of any illegal actions by representatives of the PMC in the area of their application is never a shadow does not lay on the state. In the case of publicity the incident has always effect the existing norms and rules of legal liability, which are automatically taken out state from the blow of negative "public opinion" and possible sanctions against the state.

With regard to weapons systems and military equipment, the Afghan campaign for the United States was also in this issue are very revealing.

So, the army of the United States began to abandon weapons systems, the excess firepower in favor of intelligent high-precision weapons systems. It was decided that many of the tasks in the context of contemporary conflict should be resolved not by systems of volley fire or artillery systems and precision weapons.

It is important to note that most of the traditional weaponry for their use needs to be relocated to the theater of operations, should be established a system of technical support and maintenance (and how much will be different theater, so much infrastructure and have to create). In addition, there is always the possibility that the opposing side will take action to remove deployed weapons down, or their capture (the most critical turning their part).

Modern means of destruction, such as, for example, as combat drones, are based far from the place of their direct application. They are not only protected from possible sabotage, but also give the opportunity to use the same funds for different theater of operations, which entails significant savings in support and providing infrastructure. In addition, drones can be a long time to be in the area of military applications, addressing necessary tasks for fire support of ground forces.

You should also consider that today in the United States actively works on creation of hypersonic vehicles, which will allow to solve the task of destroying targets in any point of the planet in no more than one hour from receipt of order to use.

Thus, the above allows us to formulate a number of tasks which should be the basis for the creation of the armed forces of the new type.

  1. The structure of the armed forces should enable their application outside the rules, outside the traditional applications of military force. New challenges for mobilization of the necessary human resources. A new role for the military commissariats, the new role of security structures and mercenary organizations (PMCs), which become operational reserve for the new armed forces.
  2. Defense industry needs to provide the armed forces with the means West, which effectively would allow to solve tasks as the traditional sun and lie outside the rules of their application. It needs to be adapted not so much for mass production as to the production of innovative and adaptive.
  3. The system of military training needs to focus not only on basic training for officers and non-commissioned officers, but, more importantly, to prompt additional training and retraining of specialists for specific tasks.
  4. Required even closer coordination of such government agencies as Ministry of emergency situations, defense Ministry, interior Ministry and the FSB. All agencies should work on a single "power potential", complementing its specific functions and providing with the necessary solutions to this challenge means (intelligence, communications, transportation, evacuation, etc.).

Sergei Grinyaev

Tags: assessment , Russia , strategy , armed forces , AME