The Congressional Commission: The United States will not be able to win in the event of a war with China and Russia
The United States will not be able to win the war against China and Russia, according to the report of the commission on national defense strategy submitted to Congress. Analysts note that America is not aware of the dangers, does not appreciate the strength of China and its partners, and does not at all imagine the consequences for the lives of its citizens in the event of a conflict. The report states that the country urgently needs a "call to arms", otherwise it is possible to wait for the next "Pearl Harbor or September 11". Military observer of the Newspaper.En" Mikhail Khodarenok analyzed the state of the US Armed Forces.
The "limitless" partnership between China and Russia
The United States of America is currently unable to compete with the PRC and the Russian Federation and will not be able to win in the event of an armed conflict with these states.
This conclusion is based on the report of the United States National Defense Strategy Commission (113 pages), authorized by American congressmen to analyze and make recommendations in the field of national defense. The non-profit research organization RAND Corporation (the organization is included in the list of undesirable foreign NGOs) took an active part in the work on this document.
To begin with, it should be clarified which armed conflict the developers of the report have in mind, otherwise the attention of the authors of the report is not focused on this aspect.
There is reason to believe that analysts are referring only to a large-scale war with the massive use of all types of conventional weapons, with the deployment and conduct of military operations with the greatest intensity and tension, with the constant threat of a transition to the use of nuclear weapons.
The report puts it this way: "The threats facing the United States are the most serious and dangerous that the country has faced since 1945, and include the potential for a major war in the near future.
The document states that China and Russia are major powers that seek to undermine the influence of the United States. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) for 2022 recognizes these countries as the main threats to the United States and declares China a "powerful challenge" based on the power of its armed forces, economy and its intention to dominate at the regional and global levels.
The Commission concluded that in many ways, China is ahead of the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific over two decades of targeted military investment. Without significant changes on the part of the United States, the balance of power will continue to shift in favor of China.
China's total annual defense spending is estimated at $711 billion, and the Chinese government announced a 7.2% increase in this budget in March 2024.
This year, Moscow will allocate 29% of its federal budget to national defense, according to the authors of the report from RAND. Russia has significant strategic, space and cyber capabilities and, under Vladimir Putin, is striving to return to its role as a global leader during the Cold War.
American analysts believe that the "limitless" partnership between China and Russia, formed in February 2022, has only deepened and expanded to include military and economic partnerships with Iran and North Korea, each of which poses its own significant threat to US interests.
This new association of countries opposing the interests of the United States creates a real risk, if not the likelihood that a conflict anywhere could escalate into a conflict in several theaters of military operations or into a global war.
Why the United States was not ready for war
Perhaps we can agree with the authors of the report that the US Armed Forces are not ready for such a war at the moment. As noted in the commission's document, the United States of America is not able to compete with the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and their partners on its own.
The most important thing is that today the US Armed Forces are equipped on the basis of the contractual principle, and such an approach, as a special military operation has shown, is completely unsuitable for the successful conduct of a large-scale war, since such a conflict necessarily involves the strategic deployment of armed forces. By definition, no quick global strike can achieve military and political goals in such a war.
And the issues of transferring the US Armed Forces, it should be noted, from peacetime to martial law have not been sufficiently worked out by the Pentagon.
It is one thing to beat up third world countries from a height of 10-11 thousand meters, and it is quite another thing to conduct military operations with an enemy approximately equal in combat and operational capabilities of the US Armed Forces. That is, in this case, there is no way to do with a contract army alone, it is necessary to mobilize troops and fleet forces and continue such activities (in one form or another of waves of mobilizations) throughout the conflict.
In the course of a large-scale war, heavy losses in personnel, weapons and military equipment are inevitable. This means that it is necessary to deploy strategic reserves, that is, reserve operational-strategic, operational, operational-tactical associations (formations) of types of armed forces, formations, units and institutions of the armed forces and special forces to strengthen groups of troops in strategic areas and solve suddenly emerging tasks.
And there is absolutely nothing ready for this in the United States either. In the report to Congress, it sounds like this:
Among other things, it is necessary to deploy the strategic and operational rear of the Armed Forces. As you know, in peacetime, the maintenance of formations, units and institutions of the operational and strategic rear in wartime states is impractical for economic and other reasons. There is no doubt that these issues in the United States are in their infancy. This was convincingly demonstrated even by local conflicts in which the American army took part.
The war in Ukraine, the report notes, has demonstrated the need to prepare for new forms of conflict and the rapid integration of technology and new capabilities with old systems. Such technologies include a variety of attractive systems, artificial intelligence capabilities, hypersonic and electronic warfare, fully integrated cybernetic and space capabilities, as well as active competition in the information sphere. Programs that are not needed for future combat operations should be abandoned in order to invest in others.
In addition, the US military-industrial complex is completely unprepared to work in wartime conditions.
"The Commission concluded that the U.S. Defense Industrial Base (DIB) is not able to meet the needs of the United States, its allies and partners in equipment, technology and ammunition.
Eliminating the deficit will require increased investment, additional production capacity and development, joint production with allies, and additional flexibility in procurement systems. This requires a partnership with an industrial base that includes not only large traditional defense manufacturers, but also new market participants and a wide range of companies engaged in lower-level manufacturing, cybersecurity and support services," the RAND report says.
That is, the mobilization preparation of industry for a future war in the United States is clearly unsatisfactory. And the issues of creating and developing mobilization capacities for the production of weapons, military equipment and material resources for wartime, developing the necessary technical documentation, creating stocks of raw materials and materials, if thought out, then purely speculative.
As you know, the political goals of the war and the strategic objectives of the armed forces must correspond to the economic capabilities of the country, which is an indispensable condition for the reality of strategic plans and successful operations.
The correct determination of the needs of the armed forces in weapons, equipment, and other material resources is one of the most important tasks of strategic planning. Miscalculations in this matter inevitably lead to failures of strategic plans. And it seems that similar conclusions are being drawn in the United States based on the experience gained by the warring parties during a special military operation. This is what the RAND analysts are talking about.
"A bipartisan 'call to arms' is needed
The report highlights the consequences of an all-out war with equal or almost equal opponents, which are sure to be devastating.
"Such a war would not only entail huge losses in personnel and military costs, but would also likely lead to cyber attacks on critical U.S. infrastructure and a global economic downturn due to disruptions in supply chains, manufacturing and trade. Opponents may try to deprive the United States of access to essential minerals and goods necessary for the functioning of the U.S. economy and its development as a whole. They can also put at risk U.S. space assets, which underlie much of our daily lives and are necessary for military capabilities," the document says.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the report of the US National Defense Strategy Commission -
This is also noted in the text of the document: "This report proposes a new approach to accelerating the pace and scale of change. Implementing these recommendations to strengthen all elements of national power will require continued leadership from the U.S. President and fundamental changes in thinking at the Pentagon, the National Security Council and all departments and agencies of the executive branch, in the U.S. Congress and among the American public at large."
The seriousness of the situation is expressed in the following formulations: "The U.S. public is largely unaware of the dangers facing the United States or the costs (financial and other) necessary for proper preparation. She does not appreciate the strength of China and its partnerships, as well as the consequences for daily life in the event of conflict.
A bipartisan "call to arms" is urgently needed so that the United States can make major changes and significant investments now, rather than waiting for the next Pearl Harbor or September 11th. The support and determination of the American public is necessary."
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.
Biography of the author:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for Gazeta.Ru", retired colonel.
He graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976), the Military Air Defense Command Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile division (1980-1983).
Deputy commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986-1988).
Senior Officer of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988-1992).
Officer of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff (1992-2000).
Graduated from the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military-Industrial Courier newspaper (2010-2015).
Mikhail Khodarenok
