The crisis on the territory of the former USSR may drag onThe US armed forces in the twentieth century were very "lucky": only they had a chance to fight with all the East Asian armies.
Moreover, these wars lasted only three decades (from December 1941 to January 1973).
The Americans fully got acquainted with the peculiarities of these armies: fanatical perseverance, almost complete contempt for their own and other people's death, excellent abilities in using, on the one hand, local natural and climatic conditions, on the other - European equipment (European in this case also means American and Russian–Soviet equipment).
The combination of these qualities makes the armies of this part of the world the only truly worthy opponent of European (in the same broad sense of the term "European") armies. Actually, today European armies (this time in a narrow geographical sense, without the United States and Russia) are hardly able to compete with East Asian armies.
VICTORY, DRAW, DEFEATFirst, as part of the Second World War, America came together in a fight with Japan.
The Pacific War had almost nothing to do with the European-Atlantic-Mediterranean. The Japanese started the war superbly, but ended in disaster. The gigantic industrial power of the United States transformed into a military one and crushed the Land of the Rising Sun, finishing it off with two atomic bombs. However, the Manchurian operation of the Soviet Army was not superfluous in the defeat of Japan. But still, the main contribution to this defeat was made by the United States.
Almost immediately after that, there was a war in Korea. Compared to militarized Japan, the DPRK (half of the former Japanese colony) seemed to have no chance. But it was supported by the US allies in World War II – China and the Soviet Union.
America did not dare to fight them directly. And she could not win against the endless stream of "Chinese people's volunteers" (that is, numerous regular divisions of the PLA), freely supplied with Soviet weapons and covered from the air by Soviet MiG-15s. The hardest bloody war ended in a draw – on the same lines from which it began.
After the victory over Japan and the draw in Korea, defeat was just asking for it. It happened because the United States got involved in Vietnam. They did not take into account the lesson of the French, who had just suffered a severe defeat from their former colony ("Indochina catastrophe", "HBO", 05/24/19), and came to save the government and people of South Vietnam from communist aggression.
Washington believed very strongly in the "domino theory": if South Vietnam falls before the Communists, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand will follow – and then, you see, the whole of Southeast Asia will come under the control of Moscow and Beijing (who by that time had not yet completely quarreled). At the same time, a significant part of the American political elite and many military did not want this involvement and even resisted it.
But "the process has started", and it was not possible to stop it. And the further he went, the harder it was to stop him. As a result, the consequences of this involvement in the war exceeded all expectations.
Interestingly, attempts are still being made in the United States to deny the fact of its defeat in Vietnam. The fact, however, is that Washington, following the results of this war, did not achieve any of the military and political goals that it initially set. And he did not achieve any at least relative and "curtailed" success – as, for example, the Soviet Union following the results of the war with Finland ("Unlearned lessons of the Finnish campaign", "HBO", 04/29/12). And this means an unconditional defeat.
VIETNAMESE SPECIFICSThe Vietnam War, to begin with, is very interesting because it is very difficult to understand: who was right in it from a political and legal point of view?
The term "American aggression" in relation to this war has stuck in our minds tightly. However, its validity is not obvious. As, however, and illegality.
It is quite clear that the division of Vietnam into North and South was artificially imposed on this country by colonialists (not American, but French). On the other hand, both North and South Vietnam, in fact, were legitimate states with legitimate leadership.
Accordingly, the communist guerrilla movement that unfolded in South Vietnam with the direct support of North Vietnam could be interpreted both as a legitimate struggle of the people for the reunification of the country, and as illegal anti-government actions supported by external forces (not only North Vietnam, but also the USSR and China standing behind it).
And Saigon's invitation to the country of American troops could be considered both as aggression by the United States, and as protection by the Americans of South Vietnam from aggression by North Vietnam. At the same time, it is now absolutely impossible to establish what percentage of the population of South Vietnam actually supported the Communist rebels at that time, and what percentage supported the government and the Americans.
Therefore, the question of the rightness or wrongness of the parties, apparently, will remain controversial – at the discretion of every person who is interested in the history of this war. And at the same time, the well-known truth "winners are not judged" will not go anywhere. And the Communists became the winners, which has been accepted in Washington for a very long time (some of the aforementioned revisionist deniers do not count).
FOUR IN ONEThis war turned out to be even more interesting from the actual military point of view.
It combined four types of wars:
– the first high-tech war in history (confrontation of the air defense of North Vietnam created by the Soviet Union – and the Air Force and naval aviation of the United States);
– "mutiny war" (guerrilla war of the Communists of South Vietnam against the government forces of this country and allied Americans, Australians and South Koreans);
– a classic war (the fighting of the regular army of North Vietnam against the same American, South Vietnamese and allied troops), which we surprisingly did not notice against the background of the "mutiny war";
– as well as a full-scale information war, which we, in fact, did not notice either (or rather, did not understand that this is how it should be qualified).
It is generally believed that the Vietnamese Communists won the guerrilla war, which ensured them a common victory. This opinion is extremely far from the truth. It was the guerrilla war that the Communists completely lost. But in the high-tech and classical wars, they achieved a situation of "strategic stalemate" when neither side is able to win.
Of course, America could have used nuclear weapons – but realized that it was not necessary to do so due to many different considerations. Also, due to approximately the same considerations, the United States could not build up its conventional forces in Vietnam above a certain limit.
But North Vietnam won the information war with brilliance, perfectly fitting into the leftist ideological mainstream of the West of the late 1960s - early 1970s.
It was this victory that ensured Hanoi's victory in the war as a whole, since it blocked Washington from using nuclear weapons and further building up conventional forces. And most importantly, it caused the enemy a complete psychological breakdown both in the army and in society. It was because of this that the continuation of the war became impossible for the Americans.
Each of these four wars deserves a separate detailed consideration. Each of them was very large, complex, and interesting. And each had great consequences – and not only for Vietnam and the United States.
EPOCHAL SIGNIFICANCEIn general, in terms of its geopolitical consequences and influence on the art of war, the Vietnam War became the third most important in the entire twentieth century after the two world wars.
It was after Vietnam that the classic war in the style of "World War II with missiles" began to fade into the past more and more. It began to be replaced by a high-tech war, the asymmetric response to which was "mutinous warfare" (guerrilla-terrorist).
In addition, information warfare has begun to gain more and more importance, sometimes completely replacing the actual war. Almost all of this "grew out" of Vietnam.
Moreover, the Vietnam War – especially the victorious information component for Hanoi – had a tremendous impact on the further development of world civilization. And especially that part of it, which is called the West. If the First World War "killed" Europe, then the Vietnam War very likely "killed" the United States (and finally finished off Europe). Which no one has yet realized.
UKRAINE AS A NEW VIETNAMAnd what is happening in Ukraine today has every chance of becoming a "new Vietnam".
But not in the sense that many would like: "Ukraine has become Russia's Vietnam."
For the Soviet Union, Afghanistan became "Vietnam", it has long been known ("An Afghan lesson for Russia", "HBO", 06.04.18). For Russia, neither Chechnya ("Victory in spite", "HBO", 31.01.20), nor Georgia ("War 08.08.08 – afterword", "HBO", 03.08.18), nor Syria. Ukraine will not become one either – there is no reason for this.
We are talking about something else – about the impact of this campaign on the development of military art and on the geopolitical situation in the world.
In military terms, we see today the "closure" of high-tech and classical wars: there is no division between them here anymore ("Problems at the front cannot be solved with miracle weapons", "HBO", 02.12.22). In fact, this is the first ever high-tech classic war on both sides.
But the "mutiny war" in the Ukrainian crisis is not yet visible at all. Although a lot of people around the world have decided that now this type of war has almost completely replaced the classic war (not to mention those who hoped for an exhausting guerrilla war in the rear of the Russian troops in the territories occupied by them).
However, as mentioned above, even in relation to Vietnam, the role of guerrilla warfare has been greatly overestimated. The role of information warfare can no longer be overestimated: it again turns out to be the most important component of the war as a whole. And, perhaps, it is in the information sphere that the outcome of the Ukrainian crisis will be decided again.
As for the geopolitical and ideological component, the Ukrainian events will either prolong the existence of the West in its current understanding for several decades, or they will bury it completely and irrevocably.
It is not necessary to rejoice in this. Once upon a time (and even not very long ago) The West was the best place on Earth. But he made a number of fatal mistakes for himself. The visible embodiment of which was the First World War (the Second World War was only its continuation – "overplaying" and "overplaying"), as well as Vietnam and Ukraine.
Alexander KhramchikhinAlexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin is an independent military expert.
