Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
On the issue of changing the vectors of the military-political transformation of the US armed forces
Material posted: Publication date: 19-03-2020

With the aim to ensure the power of their positions and dramatic changes in the external environment, Washington was forced to start the process of transforming its armed forces, which, in fact, closer in its functionality to the divisions on fight against terrorism and was not able to fully perform one of its main political functions, namely to provide power support to an American President and his diplomats. The appearance of American troops in any point of the globe does not mean an automatic victory.

Another factor of transformation, which inevitably overlaps with all the others, is an increasingly complex security environment (security environment). This is due to the rapid technological changes and breakthroughs in new areas of knowledge and in almost all areas of weapons development. Also, there is a new phenomenon – the dispersion of technologies. To create powerful new weapons do not need to have the whole spectrum of fundamental Sciences and technologies. Enough to succeed in the same direction. Many countries and even individual corporations will certainly use this opportunity for a variety of purposes. Moreover, several States lost its monopoly on research and development. Now corporations are often technology providers and the state does not always control them.

Based on this, American experts recognize that to maintain leadership in all areas is not possible and impractical. You need to determine what types of weapons will be most effective and concentrate on their priority development. The US budget is simply not able to Fund all kinds of development.

In the military budget sample 2019-2020 the city allocated significant funds to the improvement of almost all branches of the armed forces, but priority is given to air force, Navy, researches in the field of advanced technologies, missile systems and development of military space. According to American experts, these trends will lead the American army and Navy of the United States to a leading position in the world. Pentagon analysts even believe that in such circumstances the technological lead of the armed forces, the prerequisites of which will create military expenditure in 2019-2020, will be irresistible for the main geopolitical rivals of the USA[1].

While any thoughts of the American experts should evolve to fight and win a war of maneuver in all environments simultaneously. It is necessary to clarify that the units of the US army quite maneuverable, but their deployment requires a lot of time is unacceptable by modern standards[2].

The cornerstone of the methodology of the US and NATO is maneuver warfare, which depends on the communication and data transmission. The US there is a corresponding communication infrastructure down to individual units and the ability to obtain information in real time. When the information field (combat) works in normal mode, it increases the effectiveness of troops[3]. Understanding the dependence of maneuver warfare from the exchange of operational information, Russia has invested heavily in electronic warfare systems (EW), which is able to interfere with the communication of a potential enemy. This means the possibility of a sudden interruption of any relationship that could eventually become catastrophic in the conditions of modern combat and non-combat operations and is a major limiting factor that Americans need to overcome.

Concerned about the us military and the echeloned system of antiaircraft defense (PVO). The American military has long put emphasis on providing air superiority. However, the presence of advanced air defense systems will not allow American aircraft to provide adequate cover for ground forces[4]. In addition, the defense systems often work in conjunction with EW.

The military-political leadership of the United States also realized the fact that in the fight against terrorist groups the United States had a qualitative, numerical, technological superiority and monopoly in the air, so that the soldiers lost the basic skills of conducting a conventional war[5][6]. This requires the definition of new priorities in training soldiers that will change the essence of the training of personnel.

The next change involves strategic environments (strategic environment), which is a steady but weakening the international order. In a weakening of the control of the USA and as a consequence of regionalization in any case, there would be countries that would undermine the international order within the system. Such States were China and Russia, Iran, North Korea and others. In 2014 the American leadership felt that Europe can move away from the common West line of confrontation with our country. The firm position of the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian and Crimean issues, participation in the Syrian operation has enabled Washington and the American expert community to launch a campaign to create image of a new-old enemy of Europe and the entire civilized community. A little before the beginning of the "Russian aggression" was announced about a major reform of NATO, which will significantly expand the geographic and functional boundaries of the Organization. Since the United States initiated the transformation of the Alliance, changes in the structure of the organization is aimed, primarily, at a considerable increase of its military and offensive capabilities. The first stage was the implementation of a program of "enhanced forward presence" in the Eastern part of NATO in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland[7]. At the same time, the United States faced with the reluctance of the EU to increase defense spending, which the past two decades was a steady decrease in almost all over the Eurozone (with the exception of Poland, the Baltic States and the UK. The population of the leading EU countries mostly fear of confrontation with Russia and wary of the prospect of sending troops to protect Poland and the Baltic States[8]. Today we see that the us military is forced to take on additional responsibility to ensure the combat readiness of the Alliance.

In the end, it is worth noting that the targeting of American politicians and military haven't changed much since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the new strategic line of Washington influencing the political and military transformation of the armed forces of the United States is virtually identical to the installation of the ideologists of the "Project for a New American Century": "the main task is to prevent the emergence of a new rival...we need to prevent the domination of the hostile powers in the regions aggregate resources are under consolidated control be sufficient for the emergence of global powers" [9].

Alexander Petrichuk


[1] the arms Race: US go // URL:

[2] Farley R. NATO's Worst Fear: Losing to Russia in a War (And It Could Have Happened). // The National Interest. URL:

[3] S. Hada proxy War. // International life. URL:

[4] Peck M. This is the U. S. Army's Handbook for Defeating Russia in a War. // The National Interest. URL:

[5] War content: as "Daish" skillfully uses communication. // NATO Review. URL:

[6] it is Worth noting that under the "maneuver war" means combat and non-combat actions are purely between the military of different countries. Because the theory of modern wars battlefield – the entire society of the enemy entirely.

[7] Advanced Reinforced NATO's Presence / the Official website of NATO. URL:

[8] The U.S. and Russia Plan for Conflict // Stratfor Worldview. URL:

[9] R. P. McHargue Neoconservatism and Iraq // Florida State University Libraries. URL:


RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security
Возрастное ограничение