Americans are hastily developing a new strategy
Russia's successes in creating new weapons systems and in pursuing a flexible foreign policy force the United States to reflect on the recently seemingly unshakable principle of ensuring global dominance. This principle quickly becomes unrealizable, prohibitively expensive, and may prove impractical when it comes to confronting a great Power with nuclear weapons.
Recall that the "moment of truth" is a moment of epiphany, meaning the culmination in the development of events when the truth becomes obvious.
A new impetus to the process of epiphany of the US administration was given by the recent work of the RAND Corporation "Protection without domination. Accelerating the transition to a new US defense strategy" (Defending Without Dominance. Accelerating the Transition to a New U.S. Defense Strategy, RAND, 2023).
The appearance of this work is dictated by the awareness of Washington's ruling elites of many problems with the US defense strategy after the Cold War and the need to develop a course for a more feasible approach in defense policy, to increase the pace and depth of changes necessary to maintain deterrence, to ensure a combat advantage for confrontation in the coming decades.
THE HEGEMON WANTS TO, BUT CAN'T
Strategically important is the conclusion that the United States will not be able to overcome by force the obstacles that arise in the implementation of foreign policy. Analysts state that any approach aimed at confirming the dominance of the United States "by increasing today's installation to build up ammunition stocks and changing the structure of forces" is doomed to failure.
The current moment "requires strategic and institutional clarity and reform – it's more than just adding opportunities."
The report emphasizes: "In order to protect the main interests of the United States and contribute to the stability of key regions, there is no responsible replacement for one or another version of the basic US approach, which has been called deep interaction."
Below are the concepts that RAND analysts refer to the United States. Note that each of the statements contains a fair amount of lies. For example:
• The United States is globally active in diplomatic terms, helping to maintain stability, resolve conflicts and shape the alignment of world forces. (Outside the brackets are the ways that the United States resorts to to "support stability", etc. It is enough to analyze the true reasons for the massive arms supplies to Ukraine or the sending of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Mediterranean Sea against the background of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
• The US is actively involved in global institutions, processes and networks. (The active participation of Americans amounts to shameless attempts to subjugate an international organization (UN, OSCE, NATO) and force it to act in its own interests).
• The United States is committed to protecting allies whose independence and security are crucial to their interests. (Here there is an undisguised selfish interest of Washington in relations with its allies).
• The United States is ready to work in coalitions to punish violations of international norms in ways that do not allow war – for example, by encouraging non-aggression and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (As well as the use of illegal sanctions, the organization of color revolutions and coups, the conduct of wars by someone else's hands).
• The United States supports the efforts of many countries to respond to coercion or persecution by aggressive Powers. (In the forefront of the aggressive powers are the United States itself, which has appropriated the right to determine the right and the guilty).
The report suggests betting on "deep penetration" by projecting power into remote regions important to the United States. The penetration tool is the US Army Expeditionary Force. The effectiveness of its use involves:
• the use of new technologies to provide a competitive advantage – in particular, sensors, artificial intelligence technologies, autonomous air and marine systems;
• the use of long-range and high-precision strike systems to overcome restricted access zones; the use of hard-to-detect aircraft that can reduce the effectiveness of enemy air defense and missile defense;
• dispersal of US forces to increase the forms and methods of influencing the enemy, especially in the Asia-Pacific and Indo-Pacific regions;
• exploiting the vulnerabilities of the enemy's space and information systems;
• greater integration of US capabilities to create large-scale synergy effects;
• reliance on allies and partners, increasing their contribution, if not to direct military struggle, then to actions in various auxiliary roles.
The incentive for developing new approaches is the understanding that US military dominance and related capabilities are disappearing and cannot be restored. Earlier, on the basis of such opportunities, the United States, taking advantage of the temporary weakening of Russia, committed aggression against Yugoslavia, invaded Iraq, blew up the situation in Ukraine, etc. Today, the Pentagon and other services recognize that the emerging multipolar order, the emergence of new centers of power require Americans to make significant changes in the strategy and practice of military planning and the use of armed forces, taking into account the following factors:
– changing the time required for the formation and deployment of expeditionary forces;
– changing the possibilities for the effective, safe and unhindered transfer of such forces;
– understanding that the United States may have to act without air supremacy;
– increasing threats to US assets in space;
– The United States cannot always choose the time and place of the conflict that requires its intervention;
– military superiority allows the United States to conduct combat operations in several theaters of military operations at the same time;
– the growing capabilities of Russia and China to use high-precision long-range weapons, nuclear weapons, cyber capabilities, mines, submarines can prevent the transfer of US forces; at the same time, the United States still counts on its own dominance in the air, in space and in the electromagnetic sphere;
– it is believed that the US losses will be modest compared to previous global conflicts; at the same time, it is recognized that American society has already lost the "living memory" of such losses and will not be ready to accept significant casualties;
– and finally, it is postulated that the technological and conceptual achievements of the United States
they can change the nature of the war.
THE HEGEMON IS LOOKING FOR NEW OPPORTUNITIES
The need is proclaimed to accelerate the introduction into practice of the use of the US Armed Forces of the latest concepts that will help to concretize the elements of the new strategy. These concepts include:
multi-domain operations;
expeditionary advanced basic operations;
flexible combat use;
joint domain-wide Command and control (JADC2).
The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, General Mark Milley, before retiring, publicly described the new concepts of the Pentagon:
• integrated joint forces that embody the "seamless integration of all military services around the world", all areas of combat operations;
• advanced maneuver – an idea that "requires moving through space and time, including, among other things, maneuvering on land, sea, air, space, cyberspace, electromagnetic spectrum, information space and cognitive sphere";
• "pulse operations", which General Milli defines as "a type of joint joint work characterized by the deliberate use of the power of the combined forces to create or use advantages over the enemy";
• integrated command and flexible management, which is described as "seamless command and control in all areas" by "integrating sensors, platforms and decision-making processes to achieve real-time awareness of the combat space and the ability to make quick decisions";
• integration of lethal and non-lethal technologies to implement precise, synchronized global impacts in all spheres and in many areas of responsibility.
The ideas outlined above suggest the integrated use of conventional forces and means by the United States in combination with hybrid methods, strategies of strategic nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence in the confrontation with opponents.
INFORMATION CONFRONTATION
The work of the Pentagon and other US and NATO research centers, as a rule, is closed and not advertised. And their results are embodied in the technologies of "soft power", information and psychological warfare, color revolutions, proxy wars, etc.
One of the objectives of the new US strategy is to preserve information advantage, which is defined as the use of advanced technologies "for the collection, analysis and rapid dissemination of information, which will ensure superiority in decisions and actions."
Today, the information confrontation in hybrid warfare expands the concept of the "gray zone" invented in the West as a theater of hybrid warfare: a strategic space within which the international system, balancing on the brink of war and peace, is reformatted under the rules of the new world order, and the main efforts of the parties in the military information sphere focus on achieving unilateral advantages in collecting, processing and the use of information on the battlefield (in an operation, battle).
The policy of the gray zone is a policy of hybrid war, a policy of aggression, the strategy of which is devoid of morality and principles, focused on conducting a hybrid military conflict, which is not declared, but has a clear goal: ensuring the hegemony of the West. It was the expanded use of gray zones and special operations forces that American President Joseph Biden pointed out in the "Interim Instructions on the National Security Strategy" of 2021.
Information warfare as part of the strategy of hybrid interstate confrontation in gray zones is a set of measures taken by the parties to a hybrid military conflict to achieve information superiority over the enemy by influencing its computers and networks connected to critical information infrastructure and telecommunications facilities, for information impact on public and individual consciousness and subconsciousness of the population and personnel of the armed forces, while ensuring the smooth functioning of its information infrastructure.
conclusions
The active attempts of the United States to fit into the new world order, to carry out an accelerated modernization of its armed forces and its military concepts will entail an increase in the efforts of our strategic adversaries in the following areas:
– strengthening the combat power of the armed forces, equipping them with new weapons systems and military equipment, putting into practice artificial intelligence technologies, big data processing, improving all types of intelligence, developing new concepts of combat operations;
– conceptual reforms of the armed forces, industry and science in order to adapt them to the requirements of modernity;
– expansion of the network of military alliances that support the actions of the US expeditionary forces and have the combat power to conduct independent actions within the framework of a single overall plan of the operation;
– active application in foreign policy of hybrid warfare strategies and its tools: information and psychological warfare, color revolution and proxy war;
– development of new strategic planning documents for the development of the country and the armed forces.
This requires Russia, its allies and partners to create integration structures capable of coordinating actions and combining opportunities to confront new challenges and threats, the source of which is the United States and its allies.
Taking into account the experience of the special military operation in Ukraine, it is necessary to accelerate the development and introduction into practice of our Armed Forces of new concepts of combat operations and new weapons, pay special attention to the creation of territorial defense, the protection of state borders, the training of trained reserves, strengthening the unity of the country.
Alexander Bartosh
Alexander Alexandrovich Bartosh is a corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences, an expert of the League of Military Diplomats.
