The West is changing the tactics of using army units abroad
Material "Confrontation with Russia and China"Aroused keen interest among the readers of" Military Review "and other publications. The editorial board received quite a lot of questions not only on the topic outlined, but also on methods of resolving conflicts in various countries through military intervention and the establishment of power necessary for one or another force in other states.
Indeed, if you look at the political map of the world, it becomes clear that all the leading, militarily and economically, countries of the world to one degree or another participate in military conflicts on the territory of other states.
But for all their might, these countries overwhelmingly fail to achieve the desired results. And the operations, conceived as a blitzkrieg, turn into a protracted and costly confrontation not against a specific enemy, but against the people of the occupied countries.
After completing combat missions, army units find themselves in the "swamp" of daily routine and cannot seriously resist guerrilla warfare. Even specialized military police units end up trapped in fortified areas and bases or suffer casualties on patrols or checkpoints.
Army as a representative of the state
We are accustomed to the fact that army units abroad carry out their specific tasks, and the effectiveness of their work is easily determined by the number of enemies destroyed, occupied settlements or terrorist attacks prevented. These metrics are definitely important. Especially to create a positive image of your own army within the country.
But there is one more indicator, which is little talked about, but which often becomes decisive when deciding on the withdrawal of troops from a particular territory. This is the attitude of local residents to the military personnel of the foreign army stationed on their land. Simply put, locals project their attitude towards another country based on their attitude towards its army.
Any protracted conflict leads to the fact that a foreign army, and therefore a foreign country, becomes either a friend or an enemy for local residents. Moreover, this attitude is strengthened over time, becomes the opinion of the entire people. In this regard, the attitude of the local population towards various armies in the SAR is very indicative. The Syrians are well aware of who is who, and are trying to move to zones controlled by the most trusted army.
Many remember the occasional media report when American pilots "mistakenly" attacked weddings, funeral processions in Syria and beyond. For ordinary people, for the relatives of the victims, the Pentagon's apologies do not mean anything. Just like the apology of the prince of Saudi Arabia for the bombing of peaceful settlements in Yemen.
Even more revealing is the change in attitudes towards the army and the state during the civil war. If we remember how they treated the conflict in Ukraine and Donbass then, and listen to what they say today, then it becomes clear that the attitude towards the army and the Ukrainian state has changed radically. Even those who continue to consider themselves citizens of Ukraine consider themselves Ukrainians from that pre-Maid country, and not the one that exists today.
Killing others without risking yourself
There are also factors that significantly affect the leadership of countries. These are personnel losses that are inevitable in the conduct of hostilities. When citizens of countries to which "we are bringing peace and democracy" are being killed, it is perceived as an insignificant complication. This applies to some other people. It's like being killed in a computer game.
But everything changes exactly when the coffins of their own military personnel are brought into the country. There are quite illustrative examples in our very recent stories... For example, the famous operation of the French army in Mali called "Serval" in 2013-2014 ended largely because more than 50 Frenchmen were killed during clashes with Islamists.
How did the Americans react to their own losses in Vietnam? Remember the anti-war demonstrations in the United States? Remember the Chechen wars in Russia? How people in Russia and Chechnya reacted to the peace negotiations, how they rejoiced in the world ... The death of their own children sobering up even the most militant hawks. The French who died during the Serval sobered French society.
The love of money cannot be discarded either. Both at the level of citizens and at the level of governments. When an operation from low-budget and fast becomes costly, it threatens the country's economy. To put it simply, unbearable for the country. You don't have to go far for an example either.
So, the operation of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, which I already mentioned, which was planned as a short-term aid to one of the parties in the civil war, turned into a protracted war, on which the Saudis have already spent about $ 100 billion.On February 26, 2015, when the coalition forces of the Arab states entered Yemen , no one expected such expenses.
Where "it burns especially strongly" today
General reasoning must be supported by facts. It is quite a difficult task to list those countries where, to one degree or another, there are foreign armies that are participating in hostilities. The presence of a foreign contingent does not mean its participation in hostilities. Therefore, it seems to me, there will be enough of those conflicts where the participation of foreign armies is not disputed.
Perhaps we should start with the successful Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), often mistakenly referred to in the press as Shock and Awe. Since the invasion of the coalition troops (USA, UK, Australia and Poland) in Iraq. When Iraq was accused of creating an atomic bomb and supporting Al-Qaeda (banned in the Russian Federation).
Fast war. 139 dead Americans and 33 British against 5388 dead Iraqi military and 7269 civilian Iraqis. The practical destruction of the Iraqi army and the seizure of the country. And in just a month and a half, from March 20 to May 1, 2003. But that was only the beginning. The bloody conflict continues to this day. People are dying right now.
The bottom line? The West has abandoned full-scale invasion of other countries as a way to establish pro-Western regimes. Iraq today is a powder keg, ready to explode at any second. The task of the coalition armies is now to slip out of the trap beautifully. That, I must say frankly, is not very successful. In my opinion, Iraq has cooled the Washington and Brussels hawks a lot. Has cooled down more than one generation ...
The next invasion, or rather the use of armed forces, was already of a completely different plan. Learned from the experience of Iraq, the NATO countries acted according to a completely different scenario in Libya. The operation was named Odyssey Dawn and consisted of aviation NATO using cruise missiles and other weapons by the Gaddafi army.
The operation became in many ways the prototype of the following Western operations in Syria and Ukraine. The opposition to Gaddafi was created and funded. Purchased some generals of the Libyan army. Tribal nationalists (Amazighs, Tuaregs, Gaddaf (Gaddafi tribe), Warfell and others) have become more active. It was these forces that opposed the existing government. And NATO only helped them with air strikes.
The bottom line? The devastation of the country, civil war and hatred of the Libyans towards NATO. Anger for the fact that the country was destroyed, and nothing was given in return. Moreover, jihadists got involved in the war, which means undermining the foundations of Libya as a state. Here the West has suffered huge image and reputation losses.
Something similar was planned in Syria. But here it was impossible to operate without ground units. The reason, I think, is clear. Oil fields were at stake, which meant a lot of money. And then the United States created a huge coalition of its supporters, bypassing the decision of the UN Security Council. 60 countries at a meeting in Brussels on December 3, 2014 formed an international coalition (Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL).
We all remember the results of the actions of this "kind of army". What was needed to be taken, the Americans and the company took, and practically stopped fighting the terrorists. Exactly until the moment when the Russians came to Syria (October 2015). Surprisingly, airstrikes have resumed, but now the targets have become not so much the positions of the terrorists as the oil fields and pipelines of Syria.
The bottom line? Today the coalition exists, but it plays a secondary role in protecting the captured oil-bearing areas. The main players in Syria are Russia, Turkey and Iran. It is at the negotiations of these countries and Syria that the fate of the country will be decided.
Changing tactics: jabs instead of blows
In the West, the understanding came that there were no armies left in the world that would be armed only with "bows and spears." More or less modern weapons today are not a problem to buy. This means that for a guaranteed victory the leading armies of the world will use the most modern types of weapons. Not the most destructive, but modern ones.
Why does no one take the threats of the Ukrainian army seriously? Simply because any more or less knowledgeable person understands that Russia will not wage battles a la World War II. It will simply strike at the positions of the Ukrainian army with such means, after the use of which that army simply will not remain. Why risk personnel, if there is dronesThere weaponwhich is almost 100% effective.
An example for modern wars is partly the Armenian-Azerbaijani war in Nagorno-Karabakh. Drones acted against the ground units of the Armenians. It was the drones that caused the main damage to the personnel and weapons of the NKR. It is clear that the Russian, American or Chinese armies will be able to resist robots, and the rest?
Moreover, today they are increasingly talking about loitering ammunition, suicide drones. A projectile that flies on its own until a worthy target appears. Such weapons are already in sufficient quantities in some armies. Can you imagine a war where bullets do not whistle, shells do not explode, and military equipment does not move? And yet this is our future. The soldier will not hear "his" bullet. As well as your projectile.
Among military experts today, the abandonment of army units when waging wars on foreign territory is being actively discussed. Except for official cases sanctioned by the UN Security Council or treaties between countries, such as the Russian aerospace forces in Syria. Global wars do not need invasions today. It is enough to use either MTR or, in general, PMCs. And for support - the Air Force or the Aerospace Forces. But this is a distant (or maybe not so) perspective.
Western experts, in general, are inclined to believe that serious armies are the lot of globalist countries. Like the USA, China or Russia. For the rest, to solve their tasks, and not only defensive ones, it is enough to have well-trained MTR brigades. And strategic rivals with their armies will keep the peace on Earth.
Today, some trends are already visible in the countries of the global West. Someone is already withdrawing troops, not really advertising their actions. Someone is going to withdraw the units, as the Americans do in Afghanistan. Someone refuses to use army units altogether. In general, the West is changing its tactics in other countries.
While maintaining military missions, countries are now trying to act officially, under the auspices of the UN or other organizations. I would not say that the global West refuses to use military force at all. Rather, the West is abandoning a global military presence in other countries.
Instead of totals
Conflicts between countries have always been and will be. Water, oil, gas and other natural resources mean too much today. Claims to possession of some territories are quite common. We are too dependent on governments or individuals to guide countries. There are an incredible amount of weapons in the countries. An overly murderous weaponry has been created and is being created ...
Of course, diplomacy would be the ideal solution. But there is no diplomacy without military force. War is just the last argument of diplomats. The last opportunity to resolve the dispute.
It seems to me that the understanding is gradually coming that wars should not be global. Military force can be used against bandits, terrorists, aggressive neighbors. But it must be fast, local and anemic. Civilians should not suffer from war. Eliminated the problem - and went back.
The army as the guarantor of peace in the world. A dream that should come true someday ...
Information