World hybrid war as a tool of struggle for global dominanceThe phenomenon of the World Hybrid War (MGW) is put forward as a determinant of military conflicts of the XXI century.
It is a tool used by the West against Russia and other states to ensure global dominance in a multipolar world.
THREAT TO RUSSIA'S NATIONAL SECURITYThe publications of Academician Andrei Kokoshin, Colonel-General Fyodor Ladygin, Academician Sergey Glazyev and other authors are devoted to increasing Russia's potential in the confrontation in a hybrid war.
In recent years, hybrid warfare has acquired a global dimension and global scope. The MGV is proposed to be understood as a multidimensional intercivilizational military conflict, during which the parties resort to the purposeful adaptive use of both military and non-military forms and methods of confrontation, including the economic strangulation of the enemy, the unleashing of wars by someone else's hands, the use of subversive information, psychological and cyber technologies (" World hybrid war in the strategy of the United States and NATO ", "HBO", 24.02.22).
In a broad sense, the meaning of the MGW is the struggle for influence and access to resources in Greater Eurasia, the Greater Middle East, Africa and Latin America – as opposed to the competition for technological leadership between the West and the East in previous years. In the context of the confrontation with Russia and China, the MGV is considered by the United States as the main tool for the chaoticization of Greater Eurasia.
In a narrow sense, the meaning of the MGV of the United States and its allies against Russia is the elimination of Russian statehood, the fragmentation of the country and the transfer of its parts under external control. The next step will be to establish control over other parts of Eurasia – China, India, etc., which are still acting as observers.
Russia's goals in this confrontation should include:
– reliable protection of the state from the destructive tools of hybrid warfare;
– implementation of the concept of Greater Eurasia through the joint efforts of the participating countries of the project in the field of political ideologies, strategic security, etc.;
– protection of humanity from dehumanization by the United States and most NATO countries;
– stopping the interference of the United States, Great Britain and other NATO countries in the internal affairs of sovereign states;
– elimination of threats from the development and use of biological weapons by the United States, whose special services are engaged in this contrary to the International Convention of 1975;
– termination of the use of world reserve currencies by issuing countries in the interests of robbing the rest of the world;
– development of a set of documents declaring hybrid war a new form of aggression.
GREATER EURASIA AS AN OBJECT OF THE MGVThe aggravation of the international situation, its chaotic nature and increasing uncertainty are associated with deep processes in the global economy, accompanied by attempts at a new redistribution of the world.
There is a change of economic and technological patterns. The struggle for world domination is unfolding between the leading powers – the United States and China. These processes are of a long-term nature.
As a tool for the struggle for global dominance, Washington uses the MGV. The strategy of the MGV is determined by a set of factors that have declared themselves in the foreign policy of the United States, Great Britain and their allies since the beginning of the XXI century.
Today, Washington and its allies have focused their efforts on chaoticizing and disrupting plans for the development of Greater Eurasia, an international integration project involving cooperation between the EAEU and the SCO, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and, until recently, with the European Union.
The American strategy of preserving the levers of global dominance is a multi-stage process of destabilization, weakening, destruction and subordination to the interests of the West of each of the 48 countries of Europe, 50 countries of Asia and seven countries of Africa that are part of Greater Eurasia. The main efforts are focused on the collapse of Russia as the "heart of Eurasia" with the subsequent transfer of the center of gravity to the fight against China.
Today, the United States and its allies have moved from using non-violent tools of hybrid warfare in Ukraine to classic military actions against Russia. Direct military intervention by Washington and Brussels using Ukraine as a proxy agent puts the world at risk of a global nuclear conflict.
The Americans are still deluding themselves with the illusions of maintaining the controllability of the processes of chaoticization of a large European country and continue to use Ukraine as a battering ram for the destruction of Russia. At the same time, realizing that not everything is subject to the weakened hegemon, Washington is looking for options for a radical transformation of its strategies.
Firstly, today, when the US armed Forces have shrunk in size, and the US opponents have become more combat-ready, a signal has sounded for Washington demanding the rejection of the military-political postulates of previous years and the search for new strategies to influence world politics.
In a multipolar world, America may have to simultaneously participate in a number of conflicts on several fronts and with different opponents. These realities began to be reflected in the governing documents of the United States. The national security strategies adopted by the administrations of Donald Trump and Joseph Biden state that the United States is facing an "accelerating challenge" from China, an "acute threat" from Russia, and many smaller problems in the form of Iran, North Korea and global terrorism.
Secondly, Russia's special operation in Ukraine had a serious impact on the transformation of the Pentagon's military strategies. Washington comes to the conclusion that the United States should increase the number of its armed forces in order to win the war against a major power, and increase the military-industrial base to ensure the possibility of winning two wars at the same time.
But unlike the strategies of the Cold War, which envisage the conduct of two major wars simultaneously in different theaters of military operations, a "stripped-down" strategy is being considered today. Its essence boils down to ensuring the ability to wage one major war directly, and another in the form of a proxy war, or a war through intermediaries. The emergence of such ideas in the ruling elites of the United States indicates their understanding of the decline in Washington's potential. As an alternative, a bet on proxy wars is considered, which should ensure the interests of the United States with minimal losses of its own troops and reduced costs.
The type of proxy war tested in Ukraine is becoming one of the main tools of US military policy, which can no longer withstand two major armed conflicts at the same time, but are not yet ready to abandon the military option in international relations. It is the proxy war that is most likely to be the basis for the model of the future US military strategy - as a way to wage war with a powerful power to weaken, for the time being without fear of a retaliatory nuclear strike. Taking into account this vile policy, it would be necessary to provide options for a retaliatory strike against the aggressor, who is hiding behind the proxy agent.
Thirdly, as part of the strategy of the MGV and the prospects of confrontation with China, Washington is creating situational coalitions in different parts of the globe. This is the formation of AUKUS, a trilateral military alliance consisting of the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. These are the prospects for creating a quadrilateral QUAD security dialogue (Australia, India, the USA and Japan). Preparations are underway to transfer the proxy war strategy to Southeast Asia, now between China and Taiwan.
India is being drawn into the schemes of confrontation with China, whose Air Force recently practiced joint actions with Japanese aircraft on the borders with China. Such actions pose a threat to the national security not only of China, but also of Russia and the DPRK.
In the Middle East, a pro-American coalition is operating against Iran and Syria, whose forces carried out UAV strikes on important Iranian facilities at the end of January. A proxy war is being prepared in the Balkans against Serbia, which is trying to resist the pressure of the United States, the EU and NATO.
Americans are preparing new hotbeds of proxy wars. Russia's victory in the SVO will give a new impetus to the MGV operations conducted by Washington, the peak of which is expected in two or three years. The United States is creating a network of headquarters of special operations forces in many regions of the world. The focus is on the European states bordering Russia, the Caucasus, the Balkans and Ukraine, the countries of Central Asia and Southeast Asia. In the end, the whole world becomes the theater of action of the MGV.
Russia's implementation of the SVO is the first decisive step to prevent the development of the MGV according to a catastrophic scenario for the world. SVO has become the most important milestone on the way to a new world order, to a new alignment of forces. SVO became a natural reaction of Russia to the crisis of European security and the entire international order provoked by Washington and its allies after the Second World War.
The course of the construction of a new world order will largely depend on the results of its.
STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATIONAs part of the counteraction to the IHL, it is necessary to make conceptual adjustments to the key doctrinal documents of the Russian Federation: the Law on Defense, the National Security Strategy, the Military Doctrine, the Concept of Foreign Policy.
We have already addressed this problem in our publications (" Hybrid war and the moment of surprise ", "HBO", 15.12.22; " Illusions harm national security ", "HBO", 12.01.23).
First of all, these documents need to reflect radical changes in the international situation, outline the prospects for the development of a new world order, and set up interdepartmental analytical structures capable of predicting the development of the situation. An important place should be given to the formation of an international coalition consisting of countries that have already been victims of hybrid wars and color revolutions.
At the same time, it is necessary to give impetus to analytical projects under the auspices of the Security Council, the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Military Sciences, aimed not only at developing defensive strategies, but also at preparing an offensive "hybrid" component. It should be about opening up the bottlenecks and vulnerabilities of the opponents of the Russian Federation with the subsequent development of a complex of hybrid threats against them.
In the future, it is advisable to instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation to inform friendly states about the Russian vision of the MGV threats. To form a group of states supporting the need to include provisions on "hybrid aggression" and measures to prevent it in the fundamental documents of the UN, OSCE, CSTO, SCO. Work in the preparation of such documents requires high diplomatic skill in order to avoid the pitfalls associated with the "Helsinki processes" and "human rights", which gave impetus to the collapse of the USSR.
Today, it is naive to count on the understanding of the UN and the OSCE on the issues of condemning hybrid warfare. At the initial stage, it is advisable to deploy the work in the format of the CSTO, possibly the SCO and groups of interested states (China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc.).
AGENTS OF INFLUENCE IN MGV STRATEGIESAn important place in strategic planning documents should be given to countering the American practice of using agents of influence as a tool to undermine the country from within.
Such categories of foreign agents have manifested themselves in color revolutions from Latin America to China.
Agents of influence were actively used during the preparation for the collapse of the USSR and for a number of years after it. They continue to operate today.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) US General Mark Milley recently admitted that "the probability of a military victory for Ukraine, defined as the expulsion of Russians from all over Ukraine, is militarily low." Therefore, the head of the OKNSH calls for activating the "peace party" – a collective agent of Western influence in Russia. According to the Pentagon, this "party" allegedly includes some representatives of the financial and economic bloc in the government of the Russian Federation and some oligarchs close to power - supporters of negotiations with Kiev.
One should not underestimate the skill of Americans in manipulating the monetary and financial system and public consciousness, in using the MGV as a tool that allows creating flexible combinations of conventional, irregular and asymmetric means for manipulating political and ideological conflicts.
At the same time, in order to strengthen its position in the global hybrid confrontation, along with the planned and already implemented measures in the military sphere, Russia clearly lacks an increase in economic, technological, and financial power corresponding to its vocation and scale. As well as the radical transformation of weakened (with the active participation of agents of influence) cultural, ideological, scientific and educational spheres. In order to enter the trajectory of advanced development of Russia, it is necessary to mobilize all resources to provide the army and the population, the mobilization of human and intellectual potential. They require solving the problem of increasing responsibility for the results of the work of all managers and authorities, transforming the methods of work of intelligence agencies and ensuring state security.
A very important factor is the creation of an ideology and a promising development model that is attractive and understandable for the people of Russia and for the whole world. The USA and China have such models, the USSR had such a model. Creating an attractive model of modern Russia requires serious analytical work.
Alexander BartoshAlexander Alexandrovich Bartosh is a corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences, an expert of the League of Military Diplomats.
