In the era of global disorder, Russia needs a "higher strategy"
In the conditions of the crisis of the unipolar world, the tasks of forecasting and taking into account radical changes in the military-political, economic and financial spheres, taking into account the impact of explosive technology development, developing strategies and counter-strategies of hybrid warfare as a new form of interstate confrontation, expanding the practice of waging war with "foreign hands" (" The war by someone else's hands ", "HBO", 24.03.22).
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, in an interview on relations between Russia, the United States and China, noted that "the relationship in this global "triangle" has an extremely significant impact on all kinds of processes."
Choosing the right strategy based on taking into account the possibilities of interaction between the "vertices of the triangle" should contribute to the stabilization of the international situation. The mistakes made will inevitably lead to "rocking the boat".
THE SHAKY TRIANGLE
In construction, a triangle is considered a rigid, non-deformable figure that ensures the stability of the structure. However, today the mentioned "global triangle" lacks rigidity.
The reasons for the instability of the structure lie in the lack of mutual understanding and the lack of willingness of the great powers to make constructive compromises, in the unrestrained desire of the United States to dominate, which dramatically reduces the reliability of the Russia-USA and China-USA ties.
As a result, the structure loses its basic rigidity property and is in a state of difficult-to-predict transformations. Therefore, the system of ensuring international security is "feverish". The situation acquires a high degree of instability and uncertainty. Attempts to predict military-political processes are significantly hampered.
Russian and foreign military experts speak with concern about the significant danger of a new type of war for international stability. Doctor of Military Sciences, Vice-President of the Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation, Major General Nikolai Turko, in his report to the general meeting of the AVN in December 2021, noted: "The purpose of a new type of war is the destruction of the enemy's worldview and civilizational foundations; to deprive the object of influence of sovereignty and put it under external control."
The range of possible conflicts is extremely wide, and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation should be ready for any of them.
One of the important vectors determining the instability of the world order in the formation of a polycentric world is the chaotic destructiveness inherent in US foreign policy, threatening with dangerous deformations up to complete destruction. In general, the rivalry between the centers of power, the growth of extremism, attempts to unceremoniously interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign States, the buildup of military preparations and some other challenges and threats expose international law, international mechanisms and the world order to very serious tests that seem to last for decades.
In these conditions, scientifically based forecasts of the development of the military-political situation are of particular importance. And on their basis – the preparation of the country and its armed forces for the upcoming tests.
INTERNATIONAL CULTURE AS A COMPASS AND INDICATOR
Comparative analysis of strategic cultures allows us to bring some clarity to the assessments of chaotic world processes, to help dispel the fog of uncertainty, to create a basis for anticipating policy changes in leading countries and for strategic planning of our own actions. First of all, the strategic cultures of the Russian Federation, the United States and the People's Republic of China as states that determine the international security situation in the Euro–Atlantic and Eurasia.
It is important to take into account that these states, on the one hand, belong to different civilizations and are carriers of unique SC. And on the other hand, the Russian Federation and China are in an acute confrontation with the United States, which may end in a military clash (" The duel of strategic cultures ", "HBO", 08.02.19).
In the context of the conflict in Ukraine provoked by Washington, the stakes of the United States, NATO and the EU on a military solution to the problem, the artificial escalation of the situation around Taiwan by the Americans, the expansion of the number of anti-Chinese alliances in Southeast Asia, the expediency of using the concept of the UK to predict the development of events is due to the fact that the UK quite fully describes the rules of military behavior of individual states in interstate relations. This determines the pivotal, defining role of the IC in predicting the actions of the opponent, planning a response, and developing a national security strategy. Strategic culture forms the framework that should be taken into account when addressing state policy issues on key issues of war and peace.
An important property of the IC is its ability to act as a kind of repeating constant, which is observed in critical situations for national security when making managerial decisions. As you know, the UK is expressed in the special nature of the behavior of the armed forces inherent in this country and its people, in the ways of using military force. And it is a set of stereotypes of stable behavior of the subject in the large-scale use of military force for political tasks and military purposes, including in the preparation, adoption and implementation of strategic decisions.
The analysis of the features of the modern US IC shows its saturation with manipulative political-diplomatic, informational-psychological and financial-economic strategies that allow creating a fog of uncertainty and unpredictability around Washington's actions. An important role belongs to information and psychological technologies that allow purposefully influencing the consciousness of the ruling elites and the population as a whole, shifting to allies and partners a significant part of the costs of ensuring the military power and strategic superiority of the United States, as well as skillfully using in the interests of Washington the economic and geopolitical advantages gained as a result of the defeat of the enemy.
In order to increase the global military and ideological influence of the West in the early 1990s, it was decided to expand NATO. Within the framework of the alliance, the Partnership for Peace program was launched, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council was established, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Mediterranean Initiative and some other projects were adopted.
Today, the basic postulates of the US IC are planned to be "firmly" fixed in the new strategic concept of NATO (" NATO in a three-pole world ", "HBO", 25.11.21).
PROXY WAR, USA AND NATO
At the same time, the presence of nuclear weapons in Russia and China is a powerful limiter of the strategic ability of the United States to impose its will on rivals. Under these conditions, the strategy of hybrid warfare (the instrument of which is the "foreign hands" war) has been chosen by Russia and China's strategic rival, respectively, in Ukraine and with the aggravation of the situation around Taiwan. Which naturally fits into the context of the US IC. The proxy war strategy is designed for a long-term perspective and is based on a set of measures aimed at achieving their goals through military actions taking place on the territory and using the resources of a third country, under the guise of resolving an internal conflict in this third country. It is the application of such a strategy by the United States over the past 30 years that has led to the current development of the situation in Ukraine. And it serves as the basis for using Taiwan as an important tool of US policy to weaken China.
The proxy war is aimed at exhausting the victim country by chaoticizing the state, undermining its military security, creating pockets of instability in gray zones as theaters of hybrid military conflict. For this purpose, it is envisaged to use military and irregular formations, special forces when increasing information and psychological pressure and attempts to influence the consciousness of the population.
The task of countering the threat of unleashing a war by "other people's hands" on the borders and inside the Russian Federation urgently requires the formation of a potential for retaliatory actions, including strengthening the network of alliances and partnerships.
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CHINA
An analysis of the development of the international situation in the context of a special military operation in Ukraine shows that the side of the strategic triangle uniting Russia and China has a very significant potential for making global processes stable. This is manifested in the closeness of the positions of the two states on key issues of our time. In this regard, in particular, interaction with scientists of the People's Republic of China is recognized as a priority for the Academy of Military Sciences of Russia.
Russian Ambassador to Poland Sergey Andreev suffered from the actions of opponents of the special operation. Photo by Reuters
According to Russian experts, the Ukrainian conflict is a new phase of the hybrid war of the United States against Russia. Its ultimate goal is the dismemberment of Russia in the image of Yugoslavia. The main reason is the loss of American hegemony in the world.
The special military operation is an important result of Russia's reaction to the hybrid war strategy that the United States and the West have been waging for decades against any country that chooses a path other than subordination to the United States. The United States is waging this war to stop its historical decline and not to lose what is left of its power.
This decline has accelerated in recent decades, when neoliberalism turned the capitalist economic system into an unproductive, predatory, speculative and destructive to the environment, built on financial fraud. Which drastically reduced Washington's already dubious attractiveness to its allies around the world.
As part of the intensifying confrontation, the productive economy of socialist China, as opposed to the degradation of the United States, is showing impressive results and is turning into a new pole of attraction in the world economy.
THE AMERICAN APPROACH
Experts from the United States and other Western countries assess the situation in the world from fundamentally different positions. Indicative in this regard is a recent article by a leading employee of the RAND Corporation, Michael Mazar, "Understanding competition. The rivalry of great Powers in the changing international order – concepts and theories."
RAND research is often used as a basis for the development of theoretical doctrines of the United States with goal-setting for the military and politicians. This work allows us to make certain predictions of possible scenarios for the future behavior of Washington and its satellites in the process of forming a new world order.
The author of the study identifies four levels or types of competition. I would like to emphasize that the article uses a rather neutral term "competition", while in domestic works, in relation to military conflicts, it is customary to apply a more rigid and appropriate to the nature of the era concept of "confrontation".
According to Michael Mazar, in its form, competition is a condition or a situation, not a policy or strategy. The basic reality of the international system is that countries compete in different ways, pursuing different goals.
The meaning of competition is determined by what the participants want to achieve, and the goals speak about how they intend to achieve the intended. Thus, the set of tools they use to achieve these goals is already a matter of strategy. In general, the nature of the international system in each historical epoch determines the meaning of competition.
So, we are talking about the following types of competition:
1. A constant degree of interstate competition for maximizing power or influence.
2. More intense rivalry between states striving for systemic leadership.
3. Fully militarized rivalry between States or their coalitions.
4. Organized campaigns of actions in order to gain an advantage without going to a big war.
The key point of the confrontation is the relationship between the "architect of the rules-based order" (the United States has assumed this role) and the leading revisionist competitor who is involved in the most specific disputes (China). At the same time, according to the Americans, China approaches the current competition from the point of view of a country that considers itself either the legitimate dominant power in the world, or one of a small handful of dominant powers. In the group of such powers, the United States positions itself as an "exceptional force".
At the same time, competition is likely to be most intense and constant in non-military areas of national interest. And targeting such funds to other societies creates poorly understood escalation risks.
The crisis in Ukraine, according to Michael Mazar, will have a profound impact on the international system and the parallel rivalry between the United States and China, and in an unclear way. "But significant long-term competitive dynamics will continue, which will further exacerbate the need for the United States to understand exactly what is meant by a national security strategy built on strategic competition."
The reaction of Western countries to the operation in Ukraine demonstrates the extent to which most countries share the basic norms and values of Americans and are ready to take decisive action to coordinate actions.
COMPETITION OR CONFRONTATION
It should be recognized that even before the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, the rivalry between the United States and Russia and the United States and China was characterized by an extremely high degree of instability. Now, taking into account the growing political and military-technical intervention of the United States, NATO and the EU in the conflict, the sanctions adopted and the subsequent effects on the global economy, stability has become even less.
RAND analysts reduce the goals and means of the United States in the confrontation with Russia and China to the following steps:
1. Ensuring security inside the United States, including political institutions and the information environment.
2. Maintaining technological and economic advantages and strengths sufficient to ensure that one or more of the main competitors of the United States do not become dominant in the information economy of the 21st century.
3. The preservation of the global system and regional orders representing free sovereign choice and the absence of hegemonic and coercive influence on the part of US rivals.
4. Achieving a sustainable balance of competition and cooperation with US competitors, including the main elements of an agreed and common status quo and important sources of balance in relations.
There is nothing new in all this. These provisions were spelled out in the national security and defense strategies of the United States under both the Trump administration and Biden.
In other words, Washington wants to preserve its hegemonic unipolar world order and prevent other states from challenging it. And the words about sovereign choice are hypocritical arguments, the same as rights, freedoms, democracy. And the whole set of duty phrases in general, which we constantly hear from representatives of the State Department and the White House.
RAND directly addresses his findings to the US Department of Defense and argues that Washington's national security policy in the foreseeable future is likely to focus on the idea of competition (often in combination with modifiers such as strategic or great power) with at least two main competitors – China and Russia. At the same time, the struggle beyond the threshold of armed conflict, always important in rivalry, is especially relevant today.
The emerging rivalry with China and Russia will require the US Department of Defense to participate in a wide range of activities, including the performance of critical roles and missions in peacetime. The United States can gain a strategic advantage by using peacetime actions to decisively shape potential wartime conditions in its favor.
Such assessments of the military-political situation in the context of the formation of a new world order confirm the correctness of Russia's course to develop a strategic partnership with China.
CONCLUSIONS FOR RUSSIA
There is a growing understanding in Russia that hybrid warfare has become an important factor in interstate confrontation. This is reflected, in particular, in the speeches of statesmen of our country, in the topics of military scientific articles and monographs. Gradually, the topic of hybrid warfare is making its way in the training courses of educational institutions. Scientists from other countries are interested in Russian assessments of the phenomenon of hybrid warfare.
There is a need to consolidate the understanding of the transformation of military conflicts of the XXI century in the basic documents of our state: national defense strategy, military doctrine and some others. This has been repeatedly written about by HBO and some other domestic media.
The United States launched a proxy war in Ukraine based on a strategy of attrition, when not military action, but the economic superiority of the united West is designed to ensure victory over Russia. China will be next in line.
Moscow needs to prepare well and deliver a precise and destructive coordinated financial, economic, military-technical, informational and psychological blow to the main enemy. The effectiveness of such a strike will be highly determined by the presence of our country's strategy adapted to the conditions of modern confrontation.
Quite convincingly, the steps to adapt the strategic vision to the tactics and strategy of modern interstate confrontation are reflected in the work of Russian military scientists E.G. Anisimov, A.A. Selivanov and S.V. Chvarkov "Hybrid wars are the most important part of the subject area of the theory and practice of "higher strategy".
The authors managed to convincingly demonstrate the urgent need to develop a "higher strategy" as a category of a higher and more multifaceted level than military strategy. The Higher Strategy is designed to become the highest, systematizing and organizing link in the theory and practice of state and military administration in solving military and non-military tasks of ensuring national security.
The "Supreme Strategy" should scientifically justify the introduction of preventive, deterrent, coercive, offensive, defensive military and non-military measures in the conditions of a "conditional peace" situation, its aggravation, interstate and internal crisis situations. And also when countering hybrid aggression and when repelling a direct military invasion of the enemy.
Alexander Bartosh
Alexander Alexandrovich Bartosh is a corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences, an expert of the League of Military Diplomats.
