In recent years, in the opinion of most Russian experts, one of the most promising directions of development of systems of state and military administration is to move from classical hierarchical topology, where the dominant role belongs to the decision maker, to a network structure where decisions are taken on fundamentally different foundations – the foundations of the consensus or "public opinion" about the situation.
However, a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of a particular structure for solving problems of military management in the present situation are lacking (at least to the author, the results of such research are unknown). The advantages of the network organization today largely accepted "on faith" with regard to "fashion trends" that is not an objective criterion and often leads to taking the wrong decisions. Trying to clarify this question, we conducted a rapid analysis of the situation, which allowed to draw quite interesting conclusions.
What is the essence of network why this topology organization is the best?
The answer to this question lies in the plane of directly connected with the deep principles of organization and functioning of the modern society and proceeding of information processes.
From the theory of geopolitics is well-known antagonistic conflict "Atlanticist" (UK, USA) and "Eurasians" (Germany, Russia).
At the heart of "Atlanticist" dominance lies in the Pacific ocean and control trade routes. Accordingly, the main form of military force "Atlanticist" has historically been considered a "high seas fleet".
Many trade routes in the ocean, and lots of starting and end points of trade routes was determined and the formation of network thinking as the main form of warfare at sea for the "Atlanticists" were cruising operations on the trade routes. No coincidence that among the pirates of the middle ages were, as a rule, the representatives of the Anglo-Saxon peoples – the most prominent representatives of the "Atlanticist".
The purpose of the war for the "Atlanticists" - getting control of the trade, parasitizing on economic relations of other Nations, oppression through interception and the withdrawal of many material flows. However, due to the nature of his own philosophy, "Atlanticists", as a rule, do not consider the issue of long-term occupation of enemy territory and assimilating its population.
"The Eurasians" historically a product of continental thinking. The philosophy of "Eurasianism" - the dominance of "living space" continents. That is why the basis of the military strategy of "Eurasians" was based on the dominance of land armies. The basis of resistance of the infantry – iron discipline and unity of command that determines the predominance of hierarchical patterns in the organization of the command of the land forces.
The highest point of the development of the art of war "Eurasians" are furious attacks of powerful mechanized and tank formations are able to penetrate deep into enemy territory, paralyzing its state mechanism. The German military strategy of this form of warfare called "blitzkrieg".
The purpose of the war for the "Eurasians" - the struggle for living space, the result of which is the occupation of enemy territory and the assimilation of its population.
The essence of the confrontation between "Atlanticists" and "Eurasians" - dominance over the mainland of Eurasia is the Heartland. For "Atlanticist" operations against the "Eurasians" is associated with the organization of large-scale landing operations. Marines has the property that the attacker can spend it almost anywhere on the coastline. The answer is "Eurasians" - deep tank raids on the partition and the surrounded grouping of the opponent.
Features of formation of the worldview of the "Atlanticists" and "Eurasians" of course, has also left its imprint on the formation of the structure of decision making, both militarily and in public administration.
Decision making at continentalop-"Eurasians" has always been associated with the presence of the commander-in-chief – the decision-makers, which bore sole responsibility for the results of the decision. The "Atlanticist" everything is different – the basic principle of decision making – consensus opinions. Therefore, at the head of the armed forces is not the commander-in-chief and General staff as his planning tool, and the chiefs of staff Committee and its Chairman, managing Director (modeliuose) the process of developing solution options.
The whole story, the whole experience, which underlies the formation of the Foundation military science both in Russia (as representative of the "Eurasians") and the"Atlanticists", is based on those basic principles, which are defined respectively by the hierarchy and the network.
So the underlying topology differences lead to the conclusion that a clear endorsement today of the concept of forming a military force on the principles of the network organization will not give the expected effect.
Just pick up and move today, the network principles of military management of armed forces, which for centuries was formed on hierarchical principles of unity of command, will not allow to obtain high efficiency. Moreover, as shows historical experience, the progress and outcome of the conflict between actors with the same topology structure of military forces and decision-making, as a rule, is determined solely by material superiority. To achieve asymmetric response in this case is almost impossible. The most significant example here is the war between the USSR and Germany.
And returning it in the event of a conflict between the forces, organized on different principles, there is always a place for the formation of asymmetric response that lies outside the field of competence of the opponent and is able to lead to victory even when it has obvious material superiority.
Thus, the history of the military art knows many examples, when the armies of the "Eurasians" was successfully adapted to counter-network operations "Atlanticist". In particular, the use of tactics of "wolf pack" German submarine force in the struggle against the naval forces of the enemy (by the way, the network of principle against submarines required to send individual ships on different routes, dissipating the flow of supplies on the transportation network, however, the allies appealed to the hierarchy – the organization of caravans).
The reverse situation is less well known is the "Atlanticists" to fight against "Eurasians" has always been difficult. An example is the operation of forces of allies in Normandy in 1944-45, when it took their superiority for the victory over German army.
With regard to intrusion attempts by "Eurasians" in possession "Atlanticist", from a historical point of view, they also remained largely unsuccessful – the huge water expanses of protected state "Atlanticist", and their fleet was always stronger. This is evidenced by the experience of the German Navy in the First world war, and the refusal of the German General staff from the implementation of the plan "Sea lion" during world war II.
The situation continued after the appearance of rocket-nuclear weapons and strategic weapons. The experience of the conflicts of recent years shows that attempts to "Atlanticist" to conduct operations on the continental expanse (Iraq, Afghanistan) do not bring success – the regime of occupation is not stabilized.
The most important conclusion that can be made from the foregoing is the conclusion that to determine the progress and outcome of the war is fundamentally important is to focus on those structural and functional schemes, in the topological architecture, which are most characteristic of the main goals of the war, and the most consistent with the nature of the threats.
If we are talking about the control of traffic flows (trade routes, pipelines, financial flows, etc.), are the most effective network methods of warfare. Accordingly, if the task is to counter the threats directed at these objects and structures, and for protection you must use network methods.
If the task is to ensure the territorial integrity and the preservation of state sovereignty or the occupation of a territory, it is necessary to use hierarchy principles in the organization of military force and military administration.
Thus, to talk about the unique effectiveness of a particular structure of justification. The necessary symbiosis of topological structures that allow to combine network and hierarchical methods of organization of military force. This is the essence of philosophy to form a new image of the armed forces.
You must also remember that the historical experience of the art of war suggests that in the history of the "Eurasian" model of military force, based on the hierarchical principle of governance was more successful, and in the event of a collision with the network structure, is almost always possible to find an equivalent that would adequately fend off or minimize the emerging threat.
- 29-05-2012Drugs in the service of the Third Reich
- 12-09-2010Many experts believe the best tank Merkava main battle tank in the world
- 12-09-2010The Minister of defence of Germany introduced draft large-scale reform of the armed forces
- 21-04-2001To the question about the war of the fourth sphere