Military Review

The format of the most dangerous army in the world: expert reasoning

18

The modern geopolitical situation is such that wars have changed significantly in comparison with the past. And we are talking about the past, not so distant. If a few decades ago, direct combat operations with the enemy, including operations on a wide front, were singled out as the basis of war, now the emphasis has noticeably shifted. The classic war was replaced by a hybrid war.


Weapons and military equipment play an essential role, but it is no longer possible to call this role the sole main one. A number of components are being added, including cyber direction, elements of economic pressure, support for irregular armed formations in certain territories.

It should be noted that much of this has been applied before, but now it has actually formed into a new principle of warfare. And now the most dangerous army in the world is no longer the one with more aircraft, tanks and missiles, but one that is more hybrid, which is capable of transforming and creating an advantage where it is not expected.

Igor Shishkin and Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov talk about the peculiarities of modern wars and the format of the most dangerous army in the world on the Den channel.

Photos used:
Facebook / Shushan Stepanyan
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757
    rocket757 6 October 2020 11: 16 New
    +7
    wars have significantly changed in comparison with the past

    And what has changed globally, fundamentally ???
    Yes, new means of warfare have been developed, but they are not so fundamentally new ... formally changed sooner! Accordingly, the tactics should be changed taking into account the new means.
    And basically, everything is the same! Until the infantry fighter occupies the conquered territory, nothing is over!
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 6 October 2020 11: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: rocket757
      And basically, everything is the same! Until the infantry fighter occupies the conquered territory, nothing is over!

      The only question iswhat an infantryman will do when occupying territory - lazily rake ashes and scraps with ankle boots, or spill your blood, running into unopened enemy defense units ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 6 October 2020 12: 27 New
        +2
        And what, the minke leveled Raqqa to a state of rubble, and the Iraqi infantry still suffered losses!
        Of course, minke whales were interested only in oil fields and infrastructure !!! The rest could be leveled to the ground!
        But, such destructive operations can only be carried out LOCALLY, one-time operations. In large areas, no one has enough ammunition! All of course, and the bombs run out too!
        Then, the enemy can, can act tactically correctly .... redeployment of the main forces, high-quality shelters, concealment of troops, etc., etc., allowing to neutralize the consequences, losses from large-scale attacks of the aggressor!
        In short, there is not and will not be the opportunity to simply dust everything and walk with an easy march, if the enemy does the right tactics. It doesn't work that way.
        1. Dzungar
          Dzungar 9 October 2020 16: 40 New
          +1
          Raqqa is Syria. The Iraqi infantry was not there ....
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 9 October 2020 18: 42 New
            0
            You are right, they took / leveled Mosul in Iraq.
            Raqqa in Syria, there were Kurds in the main.
            1. Shurik70
              Shurik70 11 October 2020 13: 14 New
              +2
              Quote: rocket757
              Until the infantry fighter occupies the conquered territory, nothing is over!

              It depends on what was set in the task
              If the seizure of the territory - then yes. The final stage will be the introduction of infantry fighters.
              But the task may not be capture, but destruction. For example, a Russia-NATO war will begin, why should Russia keep its troops on the radioactive ruins of Poland?
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 11 October 2020 13: 21 New
                +2
                A global, and even a tiny war of total destruction of the enemy, is not at all attractive. Moreover, the states are bound by treaties and it is not at all clear what a private conflict may result in.
                Small ones, greyhounds, should be aware that they are being leveled first ... but somehow it has become very difficult to rely on common sense lately.
                Only fear and holds back, some, when the brain is not ah.
  2. Alien From
    Alien From 6 October 2020 11: 19 New
    +3
    You can argue as much as you like, but you need to develop, produce, train personnel here and now!
    1. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 6 October 2020 12: 06 New
      +4
      Quote: Alien From
      but it is necessary to develop, produce, train personnel here and now!

      The clearest example of a recent video. Army Armenia. There is not even a hint of disguise. They gather in small groups and discuss something there. Bottom line, two strikes, two sections are gone
  3. Igor Litvin
    Igor Litvin 6 October 2020 11: 26 New
    +6
    The name has changed - "hybrid". The essence has always been practiced, there are plenty of examples: take the so-called. "Samogitian uprising 1408" - when, under the label and with some participation of the Zhamoits, the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania fought against the Teutons. Take the campaign of the "rebellious" army of Lucian Zheligovsky, who seized the Vilnius region and annexed it to Poland. And do you remember the many wars waged by the USSR - the anecdote about the pilot with the surname Li Xi Tsin?
    1. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor 6 October 2020 11: 35 New
      +1
      By the way, yes, new is well forgotten old ..
  4. Tneburashka
    Tneburashka 6 October 2020 12: 11 New
    0
    The main thing is that the concept of a warrior does not change
  5. Maks1995
    Maks1995 6 October 2020 12: 12 New
    +1
    Yes, that's right in the comments. They came up with a new name and nothing more.
    And the principle - fight where you are strong and not where you are weak - has been known for a long time.

    Not strong in combined arms combat - it means hybrid, infarmational, or something else.
    Not strong in hybrid - it means "local operations", "peace enforcement" and "straightening the border"
  6. Dron_sk
    Dron_sk 6 October 2020 19: 13 New
    0
    "And now the most dangerous army in the world is no longer the one with more planes, tanks and missiles, but one that is more hybrid, capable of transforming and creating an advantage where it is not expected."
    What is the novelty of the article? Ever since the Second World War, the Germans carried out reconnaissance from the air, and then hit the weak spots of the USSR front, where they were less expected, quickly broke through and surrounded our armies. Especially in the first 2 years. You do not need to be a doctor of military sciences to understand elementary things - in order to successfully and effectively wage a war, you need to have as much information about the enemy as possible, so as not to hit the squares at random, but to destroy him pointwise. In this regard, nothing has changed since the Second World War, only a wider range of reconnaissance means and techniques, much more accurate, have appeared, and many different weapons have appeared, much more accurate and long-range, with different power effects.
  7. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 6 October 2020 23: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Dron_sk
    In this regard, nothing has changed since the Second World War, only a wider range of reconnaissance means and techniques, much more accurate, have appeared, and many different weapons have appeared, much more accurate and long-range, with different power effects.

    In this regard, nothing has changed since antiquity. And even earlier.
  8. Zementbomber
    Zementbomber 8 October 2020 03: 47 New
    0
    "The most dangerous, the most dangerous ..." Even the stupidest and most drunken hedgehog understands that the "most dangerous" in a non-nuclear continental war is now the PLA so-called. "PRC". Because after the mobilization of even only "professional military militia" - LYOKHko is able to simply crush "Zerg Rushem" even though the RF Armed Forces, even US Armed Forces + NGs - even though both of them, both, together Uzyatya. Without any tam "hybrid" (etc.) "voen" ...
  9. Dzungar
    Dzungar 9 October 2020 16: 54 New
    -1
    Those who wrote their comments here - SO NIKHREN DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. Hybrid warfare is NOT a modified conventional warfare. This is ANOTHER war. It's not the same crap, just the side. It's not fucking at all. There was no Internet before and the destruction of the life-supporting structures of the state by the actions of hackers in the service of the state (cyber troops). There were no social networks before and the influence there on the minds of people by informational stuffing, very often fake, but making people believe the right thing ... This is not just a soldier's boots or super duperexoskeleton boots on the same soldier. These are fundamentally new methods of war and destruction of the enemy.
  10. Yaroslav Tekkel
    Yaroslav Tekkel 21 November 2020 23: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Dzungar
    Hybrid warfare is NOT a modified conventional warfare. This is ANOTHER war.


    Nifiga. For example, the United States against Mexico can wage a hybrid war - sending "freedom fighters" across the border, hacking the information infrastructure with hackers, blowing their brains out with propaganda, etc. And if Mexico begins to do this against the United States, they will simply break off its horns with the most ordinary old-fashioned tanks, aircraft and motorized infantry. Because you can only fight with one left while you have a revolver in your right.