Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
Analysis of the military-political component of the global US leadership
Material posted: Publication date: 01-11-2016
The first thing worth noting, speaking of the military-political leadership is the factor of military power in contemporary foreign policy strategies of the leading world powers. You must admit, at the moment the role of military force in US foreign policy undergoes significant changes. Her character is in many aspects based on the new balance of forces that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the context of a violation of the system of international relations existed before this (largely under the influence of the fault States) and a shift in the views of the leading powers on the forms, methods and scope of the use of force, as well as the development of new technologies and forms of warfare.

The basis for the current foreign policy of the US is the desire to preserve the status of the only global geopolitical poles (the purpose is to preserve the "unipolar world order"). Under this guidance, States are pursuing a policy of expansion (activities aimed at the expansion of "living space", containing raw materials, energy, human and other resources to build strategic military and economic footholds).

The concept of the global dominance of the United States of America was nurtured for many years in the military, political and scientific environment of the United States. The works of Frederick Jackson Turner, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Nicholas John Spykman and other writers imbued with the idea of superiority, and the perceived political establishment of the USA regardless of party affiliation. Implementation of the ideas of American geopolitics is happening under the guise of "spreading democracy", "peace", "terrorism", "international cooperation" or "new world order", etc.

In these terms it is initially based on the idea of conflict and confrontation. "That the inhabitants of the West (with the leader in the United States) announced a peaceful global integration, the representatives of the rest of the world condemn as the nefarious Western imperialism. In the same way, some residents of the West see it as United, they see him as a threat"[1]. The idea of Huntington that the West in the United States, claiming the title of universal civilization, will in any case face opposition (or, at least, sharp rejection) from other civilizations, is the ideological justification of "global integration" under the guidance of the States.

Huntington is convinced that in the XXI century the main source of conflicts will be not the economy, namely civilizational differences. In this context, it is necessary to pay attention to high stability of cultural codes and archetypes inherent in the existing civilizations. Such protection against external influences makes it difficult to use the tools of "soft influence", so to project its influence in the United States often resort to military and political pressures.

American expansion, focused on global leadership, despite the declared political and military leadership of the United States intention to implement the predominantly so-called "peaceful expansion" (implying the non-use of military force, and the use of "soft" or at least "smart") leads to a clash of interests of the United States with the interests of other subjects of international relations[2]. Such impacts relate to the struggle for world resources, primarily energy.

The white House based on the realities of scarcity and the depletion of global resources due to the sharp growth of the world population (at the beginning of the XXI century the population of the Earth was estimated at 6 billion people on October 1, 2016, the world population totaled 7.3 billion people, and by the end of the century will be with a probability of 95% from 9.5 to 13.3 billion). States, accounting for 5 % of the population, consume more than 40% of the world's resources. Their foreign policy is based on the principle – "first we will eat yours, and then everyone eats their own". Such opposite orientation of interests has the potential of military confrontation and activates the increased resistance to the expansion of Washington. Anticipating this, the American strategists have opposed this trend, the increased influence on non-Western culture (Westernization), including various tools and concepts of public diplomacy (the most basic of cultural imperialism; soft, hard and smart power), and significant US military power (as evidenced by the dynamic increase of the military potential of the country).

According to estimates by SIPRI at the beginning of this decade, the military expenditures of States were superior to similar costs China almost 7 times, Russia – more than 10 times, India – 17 times.

This is despite the fact that the US national debt in 2015 exceeded 19 trillion. dollars, and in 2017-18 will reach 20 trillion. dollars. And this is considering that the total size of the country's GDP is estimated at $17.9 trillion., and in the next 10 years, the debts of the us Federal authorities could reach $30 trillion. according to the forecasts of the Budget office of the U.S. Congress[3]. However, the military budget for 2016 amounted to 607 billion dollars[4]. Moreover, the main priority of the Ministry of defense in the future will be the preservation and strengthening of the technological superiority of America in the world through active investment ($177,5 billion, which is 13% higher level of funding for 2015).[5] in innovative developments and projects. At the same time increasing the power capacity is accompanied by a quality - level of training, technical equipment of the troops and increase the military activity of the United States around the world, to increase number of bases outside the us (which has about 800 worldwide, excluding secret and "underground" bases), creating a different kind of "defense" system (NMD). Moreover, the number of us bases continues to grow. It is time to talk about the process of colonization of the world through the implementation of military control, and the idea of control Emlenton and creating "loops Anaconda" carried out in practice. Also, this "creeping colonization" and Washington's efforts to destabilize some regions impede the integration processes across Eurasia.

Fig. 1. Map of locations military bases USA[6]

Projecting force over great distances provides a unique in its power, equipment, level of combat training the marine Corps of the United States, has a membership of 317 464 people. [7] as well as the world's largest Navy, which includes, among other things, 11 aircraft carrier battle groups.

At the same time, increasing the capacity to wage conventional warfare, the United States retain and improve the basis of its nuclear capability, very carefully moving towards further reductions in nuclear weapons and revision of the strategy its application (which indicates the reluctance to give up the nuclear deterrent), simultaneously continuing to actively develop a new missile defense system[8].

You need to focus on the fact that in the United States is gradually implementing a program of replacement SSBN to 2040г., that prolongs the preservation of at least the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces of the US until the 70-80th years of the 21st century. Already there are plans for the modernization of ground and air components of the nuclear forces of the United States. About any transition to a nuclear-free world in the state development plans of the U.S. armed forces.[9]

Among the plans is of particular concern is the ongoing process of modernization of the us nuclear capability in Europe. It includes updating nuclear and a significant increase in the number of exercises, which works the action on their application. It is also characteristic that these actions, the Pentagon is increasingly attracted to the military machine of NATO. A filing with the US increased the interest in nuclear weapons began to show some of their allies[10].

 

Fig. 2[11]

In addition to this, European countries − Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey (candidate country for accession to the EU) and the UK − are still hosted us tactical nuclear weapons (approximately 200-450 units). Periodic attempts by these countries to raise the issue of the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from their territory are invariably inconclusive as to NATO it is still considered as a key element of the strategy of nuclear deterrence[12].

In addition, the formation of collective nuclear forces of NATO, in fact, there is a merger of the strategic nuclear forces of France and Britain despite the fact that the British nuclear deterrent has almost unified to the same component of the U.S. armed forces. Thus, a combined nuclear forces of the Alliance of the United States in terms of reducing its own nuclear weapons (mainly due to ageing) and increasing confrontation with Russia and China. It is significant that the States in the framework of its expansionist course, considering the North Atlantic community as a key institution, and Europe as the main staging area for the global projection of military power to implement foreign policy and military strategy of the White house, because this Union is indispensable:

for military operations in Europe, the middle East, Western and Central parts of Asia;
to destabilize and control over the Caucasian region, which is the key to the Caspian region.
That is the European bridgehead allows thus to cover and effectively control Eurasia, but rather the "inner Crescent" (by creating a chain of military bases and contingents in friendly countries). The strengthening of US positions in the European bridgehead of the Eurasian contributes to the successful policy of Washington.

In addition, the United States together with NATO are stepping up activities to counter potential opponents through the use of the strategy of "active deterrence" and "soft power", that is, creating a zone of controlled chaos, or installing puppet regimes through indirect intervention in the internal Affairs of other powers, consistently and latent acting on its weakest side of life, followed by their worsening, which leads to destabilization of the situation. When such a "soft" impact achieved significant success with a minimum expenditure of funds and resources provided by external illusion of non-participation of the organizer to the flaring chaos[13]. A good example is Ukraine.

In parallel, the United States has pursued a policy of "soft" containment of the opponents (mainly Russia and China), surrounding them with a belt of States that are ready to resist them.

In the framework of the NATO program "Eastern partnership", Washington has been making efforts for the withdrawal of former Soviet republics under the influence of Russia and creation on their basis of the buffer zone, a "wall" of the most ardent of the anti-modes separating our country from Western Europe, with the aim of preventing or maximum difficulties of cooperation of Russia with the "common forces" in the EU. Apparently, you need to prepare for a serious destabilization of the situation in Moldova and its further rocking in the Ukraine, their rapprochement with NATO. Course Moldova to the West certainly lead to the aggravation of the situation around Transnistria, possibly to the unfreezing of the conflict[14].

The US desire to withdraw Russia from the number of significant geopolitical players visibly and in the Caucasus region. The situation there is more complicated because of Washington's policy aimed at the formation of a geostrategic corridor, providing direct access to Western countries in the Caspian basin (the region is included in the list of zones "vital interests" of the United States, that the combination of a number of unfavourable for Russia's foreign policy environment may stimulate the appearance in the region of NATO forces, for example in Azerbaijan) and Central Asia.

Together this implements the successive steps of a gradual inclusion of Azerbaijan and Georgia (via promises of support in the settlement of territorial disputes countries) NATO training in the Caspian region soil for a comprehensive attack on Iran (with the possible establishment of American military bases in the region in connection with the "withdrawal" of US troops from Afghanistan). This also fits with the emergence of the terrorist organization ISIL, which in the future can be directed against Iran, and then Russia, which has openly said the official U.S. state Department spokesman John Kirby[15], and which is permitted by the concept of unconventional warfare.

Another trend is the partial withdrawal of the United States (2012). from the European continent and a reversal of their policy towards the Asia-Pacific region (due to the importance of this area to maintain the us global leadership). "Rotation" policy of the United States to the Asia-Pacific region is seen as a long-term strategic trend in the foreign policy behavior of the United States. This turn is called as priority opportunities and threats generated by the region for the United States, and the necessity to make a choice due to the inability to maintain a high level of involvement in all regions of the world[16].

One of the most important elements in the maintenance and further expansion of American military and political power in the Asia Pacific region continue to be bilateral, regional military-political alliances. Thus, particular emphasis on strengthening bilateral and multilateral cooperation. That is, in addition to the "European NATO" the United States seeks to form an Indo-Pacific analogue of NATO, with the possible entry of Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand and even India.

Probably the creation of regional military alliances involving the United States in the Asia Pacific region and the Persian Gulf. So the US has already worked through the possible formation of a "mini-NATO" in Asia Pacific with the axis "USA-Japan-South Korea-Australia"; were analyzed and other configurations: "USA-Taiwan-Philippines", "US-Japan-South Korea-India"[17]. A military bloc with the participation of the United States and monarchies may appear in the foreseeable future because of the need to monitor areas vital interests of the United States in the Asia Pacific region as a whole (and particularly the oil resources of the Arabian Peninsula and the Suez canal). Also this facilitates high integration of the combat systems of these countries, because the monarchy are buying mostly American weapons.

Moreover, this idea is taking root in many countries are directed the efforts of the States on creation of the block. Among other things, this is due to the growing concern of countries in the region for their safety, which traditionally cause a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, the terrorist threat in the Asia Pacific region[18] and the rapidly growing power of China and its often unreasonable territorial claims to the neighbors.

Thus, the level of military-political activity United States remains very high. It is the States initiated a program of systemic transformation of NATO (providing for a significant expansion of the geographical and functional boundaries of an Organization) aimed at the consolidation of the Alliance the role of the carrier of the power structure of a unipolar world with the center in the United States[19]. In particular, among the priorities of NATO has included the energy security of the members of the unit. The West did not hesitate to say that the natural resources of some countries (including Russia), should belong to the whole world community and not only to these countries. Being prepared also to enforcement, including the use of "hard power", redistribution, and in fact – the seizure of national wealth.

Since the States actually initiated the transformation of NATO, changes in the structure of the organization is aimed primarily at significant buildup of its military and offensive capabilities.

Initiated the formation of the "Chicago triad" of NATO (a repetition of the us "triad"): offensive weapons – defensive weapons – providing infrastructure. For the first time in a single system were closed nuclear, conventional and missile weapons (system).

However, the main threat is that Americans tend to combine the management of their armed forces and the combined forces of NATO in Europe. Separately EUCOM (European command of the U.S. armed forces) that controls Europe-based American forces is not a serious threat, NATO separately also. But when the elements conspire, the system begins to present a serious enough threat to Russia and not only. In fact, there is another triad: the army USA – us troops in Europe, and eventually worldwide – army or individual units of the participating countries of the Alliance, working closely with US military units and already have experience of such collaboration. This creates a really unified forces of the Alliance.

In addition, the full financial, technological, informational, and military dominance of the States allows the military-political leadership of the country not to pay much attention to the rules of international law (the prohibition to use military force against sovereign States without sanctions of the UN security Council) and to implement its national interests, not limited in the means and methods.

Also this kind of dominance allows to carry out the policy of double standards that called for "the fullest". A vivid example of double standards is the position of the government of the U.S. missile defense (NMD), one of the most important programs in the system of measures to achieve superiority in strategic arms.

Fig. 3. EUROPRO[20]

The emphasis is on the fact that this is formally a defensive system under certain conditions (when considered in conjunction with other U.S. programs) will be able to neutralize the potential nuclear missile attack on the United States and its allies from Russia and other countries, such as China[21]. To enhance the effectiveness of the system States implement a set of measures aimed at improving the quality of the us–NATO infrastructure to intercept ballistic and cruise missiles, improving the accuracy of lesion, range and speed of the missile interceptors of all types of basing. And the Pentagon continues validation tests shock-combat missile defense[22].

In this context, it is impossible to ignore the newly created system a quick (instantaneous) global strike (BSU). Its essence is the location of the non-nuclear weapons on the Intercontinental carriers of the radius (we are talking about aircraft (including unmanned) and missiles, capable of moving in 6-20 times faster than the speed of sound), which can be applied on the exact a massive blow to any part of the world. Maneuvering warhead warhead makes inefficient any of the existing missile defense systems.

According to the information available the primary purpose of applying the "prompt global strike" is giving the U.S. opportunities for global high-precision non-nuclear defeat critical targets in any point of the Earth within one hour after detection of an object and the decision by the United States for its destruction[23]. It should be noted that the practical implementation of the concept of "Instant global strike" is part of a comprehensive technical program aimed at the creation and formation of groups GSSW (hypersonic weapons systems) for inclusion in the new strategic triad of the United States (similar to the "Chicago triad" of NATO).

The center design has become a Strategic command of the Armed Forces of the United States. Is the management of quick first strike, the strategic offensive operations with the use of all nuclear and non-nuclear means.

In General, partially created shock defense system allows to reduce considerably terms of adoption and implementation of response actions in case of sudden air and space attack.

In addition, the United States, by chaining the countries of the "partnership" with NATO, to create a unified missile defense system (strategic defense forces as part of a global missile defense system) that would stretch from the Baltic to Central Europe, with the prospect of escalating into a global missile defense system (including through the pooling of regional unified complexes of the joint air and missile defense systems of Gulf countries, Japan and other regional segments ABOUT the middle East and Asia Pacific, together with the relevant command structures) that protect the United States and their formal allies.

In addition, the States surrounding Russia with a network of biomedical laboratories ("PRO biological"), which may be involved in the preparation and conduct of biological warfare.

 

Fig. 4

In connection with the foregoing, it should be noted that the traditional concept of war is displaced by the new, on the basis of settentrione operations. Its flexible basis and formed the current problems the US military industrial complex, intelligence and defence structures[24].

Considering the military strength as the most important element of the strategy of global leadership, the United States prefer the design and procurement of new samples of conventional arms and military equipment, the adoption of which begins to change the nature of military confrontation, acquiring the features of the confrontation created a holistic high-tech combat systems. And combined combat effectiveness of such systems, capable of maintaining the armed struggle in all physical environments (land, sea, air and space), has become comparable with the American nuclear potential[25] due to the creation of information and communication network that links sources of information (intelligence), management bodies, means of destruction (suppression) and bringing to the participants of operations of reliable and complete data about the current situation (under the doctrine of "network-centric warfare").

 Fig. 5

And the planning of military operations on the basis of construction of model of the state that you want to have an impact, as a structure of five concentric rings made it possible to find a critical place[26] – "center of gravity" acting on which you can force the enemy to act as intended, which ultimately will lead to his defeat.

In parallel, applied considerable effort to build unconventional weapons based on new physical principles (ONFP): radiation (laser and beam), infrasound, radio frequency, geophysical, genetic, annihilation, and also new types of non-lethal weapons and means of waging information warfare. Based on this, we can conclude that in the near future with high probability will appear fundamentally different methods of warfare in addition to the existing ones.

Fig. 6[27]

All of this together, as expected in Washington, will allow US to increase to record levels of military-technological lead against potential rivals, especially in the global projection of military force and the latest methods of warfare in order to establish full spectrum dominance around the world.

At the same time, despite the efforts of Washington, during the "unipolar" world with absolute military and political superiority of the United States is gradually coming to its end, and to some it may seem that America is "a colossus with feet of clay". But this is far from reality. It is impossible to dismiss. The United States remains the sole superpower, with many unique parameters of military force and for a long time will remain, perhaps the most influential global player.

In this context, despite its global military presence, this superpower, however, increasingly be forced to rely on key allies and partners in the implementation of its policy.

References

  1. S. F. Huntington, the Clash of civilizations. M.: AST, 2015. S. 89.
  2. The role of military force in securing US leadership in the XXI century // problems of national strategy. 2012. No. 6 (15). P.8.
  3. US debt under Obama has increased by $70 thousand per family. 27.01.16. URL: http://expert.ru/2016/01/27/obama-uvelichil-gosdolg/
  4. Obama signed the US defence budget for 2016. 26.11.15. URL: http://vz.ru/news/2015/11/26/780303.html
  5. Hovhannisyan m. the Budget of the United States: research and innovation priorities. // The expert. 2015, № 8 (934). P.39.
  6. Savin L. V. Settentrione and network war. Introduction to the concept.– Moscow: the Eurasian movement, 2011. P. 7-8.
  7. Kokoshin A. A., Panov A. N. Macro-structural changes in the global policies to 2030. P. 105
  8. Torkunov A. Modern international relations. URL: http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Polit/tork/10.php
  9. Bocharov I. F. Growth leading strategic role of the U.S. Navy // U.S. and Canada: economy, politics, culture. 2011. No. 9 (501). Pp. 40-41.
  10. Kozin V. P. Nuclear trap for Europe. 11.12.15. URL: http://riss.ru/smi/24086/
  11. US nuclear weapons in Europe. 24.08.16. URL: http://ru.valdaiclub.com/multimedia/infographics/yadernoe-oruzhie-ssha-v-evrope/
  12. The US role in European security system. 17.09.12. URL: http://csef.ru/ru/politica-i-geopolitica/500/rol-ssha-v-evropejskoj-sisteme-bezopasnosti-3600
  13. "Controlled" chaos as a technology of neo-colonial redivision of the world. 23.03.16. URL:http://katehon.com/EN/article/upravlyaemyy-haos-kak-tehnologiya-neokolonialnogo-peredela-mira
  14. Tishchenko G. the Military-political situation in the world is threatening a new conflict. 12.03.14. URL: http://riss.ru/analitycs/5077/
  15. USA warned Russia against continuing operations in Syria. 28.09.16 ULRL: https://russian.rt.com/article/323386-budet-sbito-bolshe-samolyotov-ssha-predosteregli-moskvu
  16. US policy in the Asia-Pacific region: the Russian Academy of Sciences., SB. scientific papers. M., 2014. P.8.
  17. Tishchenko G. the Task of Russia is to become stronger. URL: http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/geopolitics/2014/0108/123312402/detail.shtml
  18. USA transferred the majority of combat ships in the Asia Pacific region. 02.06.12. URL: http://vz.ru/news/2012/6/2/581803.print.html
  19. The role of military force in securing US leadership in the XXI century // problems of national strategy. 2012. No. 6 (15). P.9.
  20. U.S. authorities are indirectly encouraged to abandon large-scale missile defense in Europe. 12.09.12. URL: http://eurasian-defence.ru/?q=node/64
  21. Sivkov, K. Global counter-attack. 10.06.15. URL: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/25572
  22. Kozin V. Response to US missile defense will be found. 03.07.15. URL: http://riss.ru/smi/18592/
  23. Vildanov M., Sergeants A. "Instant global strike" requires a decent answer. URL: http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/geopolitics/2015/0528/143915792/detail.shtml
  24. Savin L. V. Settentrione and network war. Introduction to the concept. – M.: the Eurasian movement, 2011. P. 75.
  25. The role of military force in securing US leadership in the XXI century // problems of national strategy. 2012. No. 6 (15). P.20.
  26. Thunder and Lightning: Desert Storm and the Airpower Debates // Air University Press. Edward C. Mann. April 1995. S. 35.
  27. Why a possible war between the great powers Michael Coffman, by Andrey sushentsov, Moscow, April 2016. P. 9. URL: http://ru.valdaiclub.com/files/12119/

Petrichuk Alexander


RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security
Возрастное ограничение