There are many bright names in the history of Soviet military thought. But in the period of the "nuclear age", a special place is occupied by the outstanding personality of Nikolai Ogarkov, who headed the General staff in 1977-1984. It was he who was the first among the military leaders to draw attention to the next round of revolution in military Affairs. And it is gratifying that with the participation of army General Yuri Baluyevsky, the Ogarkov readings were held in Moscow for the third time [...], writes Olga Moskovchenko in an article for the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda.
(C) CAFTA
Well-known experts from several countries discussed topical issues of the impact of improving military technologies on modern military Affairs, as well as the development of the domestic military-industrial complex. This topic was considered through the prism of the military-theoretical legacy of the Soviet military commander, who is deservedly considered a pioneer in many issues of the development of military thought.
It is no coincidence that Sverre Diesen, who served as the military Deputy Minister of defense of Norway in 2005-2009, recalled the interview of the Soviet military commander, published in 1984 on Victory Day in the newspaper "Red star". According to Dizen, the ideas expressed by Nikolai Vasilyevich at that time served as the basis for the concept of network-centric war, which was discussed in the West after the collapse of the USSR.
A Norwegian expert who delivered the report "the Impact of modern technologies on military Affairs" believes that modern technologies have not yet reached the level that allows conducting wars in a full-fledged network-centric format. But in the next decade, the "revolutionary concept" will manifest itself in full.
Diesen expressed a paradoxical, at first glance, thought: the wars of the future may be much cheaper than it seems today. The explanation for this lies in the fact that the main role will be played by relatively inexpensive communication, control and guidance systems, as well as robotic systems.
The Norwegian expert gave this example: the price of a modern combat helicopter capable of carrying 6-8 anti-tank guided missiles is approximately 50 million dollars, not counting the cost of the missiles themselves, while a drone capable of detecting and destroying a tank with standard means of destruction costs several orders of magnitude less. This kind of revolutionary change in the ratio of cost and effectiveness associated with the far-reaching consequences.
The attention of the participants of the readings was also drawn to improving the characteristics of modern sea - based guided missile systems-range, accuracy, and striking action. Under these conditions, surface warships of the main classes, including aircraft carriers, are becoming increasingly vulnerable.
We also talked about tanks - the main striking force of modern ground forces. The Norwegian expert noted that now more and more attention is being paid to improving their survivability, rather than combat power.
Maneuver warfare of the future, Diesen suggested, is primarily not a large-scale movement of armored combat vehicles on the battlefield, but a rapid fire maneuver, which is possible on the basis of rapid receipt of reliable intelligence information obtained "from a variety of ubiquitous and all-seeing means of lighting the situation, placed on anything - from aerospace carriers (such as satellites or drones) to the ordinary eyes of a serviceman on the ground."
Concluding his report, Diesen pointed out the importance of being able to see the potential for revolutionary change not only in scientific and technical terms, but also in political, social and other dimensions. This, as history shows, opens up prospects for improving the military organization of the state and lays the Foundation for its decisive victories.
Interesting from a historical point of view was the report "Three eras of military modernization: Russia in the world system, 1500-2020" by George Derlugyan, Professor of sociology at new York University in Abu Dhabi. From his point of view, the geopolitical map of the world begins to resemble the Middle ages, when there were powerful empires - China, India, Iran, Turkey. Now we see how they began to return to their previous positions. This is fraught with key changes in the balance of world power in the near future.
Attention should also be paid to the report "Reasons for the failures of the Soviet Union and the United States in Afghanistan: a comparative analysis" by Carl Scott, a recent British military attache in Russia. He began his speech with a forecast of the development of the situation in the light of the curtailment of the military presence of Western countries in this Central Asian country. The Taliban will re-enter its government, Scott admitted.
Further, the British expert expressed his opinion on the effectiveness of the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan. According to him, the decision to send troops in 1979 was made by the top leadership without taking into account the opinion of military experts familiar with the specifics of the situation in this country. It should be noted that this opinion has been repeatedly expressed by Russian researchers and veterans of the Afghan war, and it is no secret that a number of Soviet military leaders, including N. V. Ogarkov and P. I. Ivashutin, warned about the possible consequences of the entry of troops, but a different point of view prevailed.
Scott, himself a participant in the operation of the international security assistance force in Afghanistan (ISAF), pointed out that the United States, entering Afghanistan at the beginning of the XXI century, did not have a clear plan of action, which affected the military situation. For example, in the absence of strategic clarity, the us helicopter task force in Helmand province used daily ammunition consumption as a success criterion. But, as Scott correctly pointed out, " activism is not success, and firepower is not a strategy"…
Dmitry Trenin, a well-known Russian political scientist and Director of the Carnegie Moscow center, also took part in the Ogarkov readings, pointing out that the militarization of US foreign policy has reached an unprecedented high level in the twenty-first century. "American military power and its impact on international politics"was the theme of his report.
He noted that Washington now supports bilateral and multilateral alliances that bind dozens of States on all continents to the United States. These alliances provide America with a legal basis for action in all possible theaters of war. It has the ability to quickly project power to almost any region of the Earth.
American military power is a constant generator of the arms race. Washington strives for superiority by a wide margin from all possible opponents and competitors. For this purpose, new environments of military operations are being actively developed-from cyberspace to space. However, the United States has a weak point - having won a military victory, they are unable to achieve their political goals.
After the cold war, the United States used force against notoriously weak opponents - this was the case in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. One of the techniques that is increasingly used by the Americans is to intimidate opponents by non-combat use of military power, its demonstration.
As for arms control, which has played an important role in Soviet-American strategic relations since the early 1970s, it is a thing of the past. Even if the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on measures for further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (start-3) is extended, agreeing on a new Treaty will be extremely difficult, complex and long, Trenin believes.
Dmitry Stefanovich, research fellow at the Center for international security At the Institute of world economy and international relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, presented a report on "Nuclear weapons and military potential: a conceptual and practical dimension". In it, he reminded the audience of the difficult and tense years of the cold war, in which, despite everything, it was possible to avoid conflict.
In our time, he noted, the number of States that possess nuclear weapons has increased, and nuclear deterrence is again the basic element of Russian-American relations. At the same time, the development of long-range non-nuclear precision weapons leads to multidirectional trends. The possession of such a tool naturally reduces the role of nuclear weapons as a tool for solving directly military tasks.
If earlier it was assumed that nuclear weapons would be "knocked out" by nuclear weapons, now it is already possible to plan disarming, "counter-force" operations using non-nuclear means. And if in the case of the Russian or American Arsenal, such a threat is still too difficult to implement at this stage,then the situation is becoming more difficult for other owners of nuclear weapons.
Stefanovich expressed the opinion that it makes sense to separate the concepts of "threat of war" and "threat of use of nuclear weapons". To date, a visible threat to use nuclear weapons can still prevent a full-scale armed conflict.
In conclusion, we note the clear organization of the conference "Ogarkov readings-2020" By the center for analysis of strategies and technologies, which held a meaningful and useful event with the support of partners-rostec state Corporation and the United engine Corporation.
Video recordings of the reports are available here
