Is The Kremlin And The Russian Military Masters At ‘Decision-Centric' Warfare?

Tanks during an exercise in Russia’s Nizhny Novgorod Region, March 2021. © Alexey Kudenko/Sputnik  

Defense One: Russia Is Teaching a Master Class in ‘Decision-Centric' Warfare  

Pentagon leaders should take notes. 

America may be back, but its geopolitical antagonists are not putting out the welcome mat. During the last year, Chinese warplanes regularly darkened the skies over Taiwan, North Korea restarted ballistic and hypersonic missile testing, and Iran intensified drone attacks around the Middle East. The approach of “integrated deterrence” planned by Pentagon officials for their upcoming defense strategy does not seem to be resonating with its target audience. 

Although provocations from Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang cannot be ignored, the most immediate challenge facing U.S. leaders is the Russian army poised at Ukraine’s doorstep and threatening invasion. The Biden administration’s promised economic sanctions and military equipment are making little obvious impact, and NATO allies are reluctant to support more aggressive responses like isolating Russia from the global financial system that could lead Moscow to cut off Europe’s natural gas in the dead of winter.  

Read more ....  

WNU Editor: I disagree with the above author's statement that "America's back". The Afghan debacle happened almost 6 months ago, and the consequences of that disaster are still being felt. And as for the Pentagon learning something from Russia when it comes to "decision-centric" warfare. I suspect that they and the US intelligence community are very good at that. The ones who need an education is Washington's political class.

Is Russia’s Military Better At War Than America’s?

Russian Federation

John Ruehl, The Interpreter: Is Russia’s Military Better Than America’s?

The U.S. will devote $700 billion to its budget for 2018, dwarfing Russia’s $66 billion effort, a trend that has been consistent for more than 25 years. Yet Russia’s military has been relatively successful in recent conflicts, while the U.S. armed forces have not. American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq became multi-year quagmires, in comparison to Russia’s rapid victories against Georgia and Ukraine.

The short-lived U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war was also another mistake, whereas Russia’s long-term intervention in the Syrian civil war is expected to eventually pay for itself. Russia’s military is certainly weaker than that of the U.S., but ill-fated decisions across multiple administrations have steadily undermined American power.

The war in Afghanistan, soon to enter its 18th year, is the longest-running conflict in American history. U.S.-led forces managed to root the Taliban out from the country’s major cities, but have since been locked in guerrilla fighting as the Taliban still controls or contests much of the rest of the country.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: John Ruehl makes a very convincing case that in today's conflicts,  the Russian military fights wars better than America.

Are Western Armies Losing Their High-Tech Edge?

China unveils its J-20 stealth fighter during an air show in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, China, November 1, 2016. REUTERS/Stringer

Peter Apps, Reuters: Western armies are losing their high-tech edge

When America goes to war, its soldiers, sailors and pilots typically have long been used to having a spectacular technological edge. Those days are ending fast.

From the South China Sea to Eastern Europe – and even the Korean Peninsula – U.S. commanders are now considering the prospect of war against enemies who may be capable of deploying overwhelming firepower and sophisticated new technology. Confrontations with Russia and China in particular are escalating far faster than predicted – with the realistic prospect either nation could outgun U.S. forces in their immediate neighborhood in the early stages of any conflict.

The Pentagon is increasingly worried about rapid proliferation of Chinese and Russian anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems, putting U.S. military planners in an unfamiliar position. The last time U.S. forces went to war without an overwhelming advantage was against Nazi German troops in North Africa in 1943.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The big player will be China when it comes to losing one's "tech-edge". 

These 5 Nations Will Have The World's Most Powerful Armies In 2030

Wikimedia

National Interest: In 2030, These 5 Nations Will Have the World's Most Powerful Armies on the Planet

In the end, the answers to “how do we build a powerful army” remain painfully simple. States that have access to enthusiastic populations with high human capital, that can cull the most innovative technologies from robust, modern economies, and that can structure their civil-military relations with just-enough-but-not-too-much independence will tend to do very well. Experience doesn’t hurt, either. The simplicity of the answers does not imply that the prescriptions are easy to achieve, however.

The focus of ground combat operations has shifted dramatically since the end of the Cold War. Relatively few operations now involve the defeat of a technologically and doctrinally similar force, leading to the conquest or liberation of territory. Preparation for these operations remains important, but ground combat branches also have a host of other priorities, some (including counter-insurgency and policing) harkening back to the origins of the modern military organization.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: According to this author the five countries will be France, India, Russia, China, and the U.S..

British Think Tank Warns That U.S. Military Advanatges In Technology Are Eroding

Defense One: New Report Notes Erosion of Pentagon’s Technological Advantage

The evidence ranges from a new long-range Chinese missile to ramped-up European defense spending, an annual assessment of the world’s militaries finds.

The U.S.’s latest national security documents aren’t alone in warning that many of the technical military advantages America and its allies have taken for granted the last two decades are eroding. More evidence is marshalled in the latest edition of The Military Balance, an annual quantitative assessment of the world’s armed forces by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British think tank.

“The second thing that comes out of the data in The Military Balance is that the great powers are getting ready for great-power wars,” said IISS Deputy Director-General Kori Schake. “That too, is a recent phenomenon, and one that I think we’re still limbering up our minds about.”

Read more ....

Update #1: China and Russia are catching up with military power of US and West, say leading defence experts (The Independent)
Update #2: Are China and Russia challenging US military dominance? (DW)

WNU Editor: The IISS report on the "Military Balance" can be read here.

The Top 10 U.S. Military Stories of 2016

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump (L) and Vice President-elect Mike Pence (R) greet retired Marine General James Mattis in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., November 19, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo

Military.com: The Top 10 U.S. Military Stories of 2016

The following are the Military.com editorial team's picks for the most important military news stories of the year.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: No arguments on the #1 top U.S> military story of 2016.

When Are New Weapons Too Late

M109A6 Paladin howitzers are seen under a cloudy sky at the 3rd Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment motor pool at Fort Hood, Texas, March 22, 2013. (Photo by Ken Scar/U.S. Army)

James Hasik, RCD/Atlantic Council: How Late is Too Late for New Weapons?

The Pentagon’s drive for innovation is up against adversaries' efforts to “occupy leading positions” themselves.

Back at the beginning of August, I wrote an essay about how soon was too soon with new weapons. Some historical perspective, I thought, should inform the aims of the Pentagon’s Third Offset strategy. And yet, to focus a moment on a more mundane technology, the US Army has needed a light tank for twenty years. Today, the threat of new Russian tanks in inaccessible corners of Europe strongly suggests an immediate need. The Army is once again seeking ideas from would-be suppliers, and may finally launch a program. But is the Army already too far behind the curve? So here’s another general question about the timing of military innovations in materiel: how late is too late?

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I am not a fan of the Atlantic Council, but this post is spot on .... especially the last paragraph where the author quotes Russian General Valery Gerasimov. Read it all.

Who Will Have The Most Powerful Army In 2030?

US army soldiers patrol as they conduct an ambush drill as part of the Filipino-US joint military exercises inside a Philippine army camp in Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija, north of Manila (Reuters/Romeo Ranoco) / Reuters

Robert Farley, National Interest: The 5 Most Powerful Armies in 2030

The focus of ground combat operations has shifted dramatically since the end of the Cold War. Relatively few operations now involve the defeat of a technologically and doctrinally similar force, leading to the conquest or liberation of territory. Preparation for these operations remains important, but ground combat branches also have a host of other priorities, some (including counter-insurgency and policing) harkening back to the origins of the modern military organization.

What will the balance of ground combat power look like in 2030, presumably after the Wars on Terror and the Wars of Russian Reconsolidation (more to come on this idea below) shake out?

Read more ....

WNU Editor: China will probably have the world's most army by 2030. Sheer numbers, an industrial base, coupled with access to technology (legal or not) from other nations will make it a force to reckon. What they do not have is experience and a military culture that has been tested by war.

Update: Japan wants to join this list .... Will Japan Become The Next Big Military Superpower? (Daily Caller).

22 Countries Do Not Have A Military

These 22 Countries Don’t Have a Military -- Kathy Gilsinan, Defense One/The Atlantic

“The pope! How many divisions has he got?” Joseph Stalin is said to have asked derisively with regard to the physical power of the Catholic Church. The Vatican is one of the rare countries in the world without armed forces. But it’s not totally alone. More than 20 other countries lack standing armies, though the length of the list varies depending on how you count armies and countries (and it grows substantially longer if you include autonomous territories like Puerto Rico and the Cayman Islands).

The CIA World Factbook lists 22 independent countries that don’t have regular military forces—23 if you decide, contra the CIA, not to count Vatican City’s largely ceremonial Swiss Guard as a military. Here they are (sorry, Swiss Guard):

Read more ....

Is The Age Of An All-Powerful Military Coming To An End?

The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan travels through the Pacific Ocean with other ships assigned to the Rim of the Pacific 2010 exercise, north of Hawaii, July 24, 2010. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Dylan McCord

An All-Powerful Military Isn't What It Used To Be -- Charles Kenny, Bloomberg Businessweek

As the U.S. government debates what to do about Syrian chemical weapons use—and the stated aim threads the needle between nothing at all and a strike that would markedly affect the course of the civil war—it’s a good time to reflect on the declining utility of overwhelming global military dominance. The good news is that this declining utility is likely to apply beyond the U.S., to any other country that might one day rise to military superpower status.

Brookings Institution scholar Robert Kagan has noted that the U.S.’s current military and economic position looks like Britain circa 1870, when the empire was at the height of its power. Of course, many people in 1870s Britain will have had distinct memories of the country’s disastrous invasion of Afghanistan. Even today on Kabul’s Chicken Street you can buy a Lee Enfield rifle with VR—Victoria Regina—engraved on it, copied from examples left over from the rout of the British army’s inglorious retreat in 1842. Being the top nation militarily or economically hasn’t ever meant you would always get what you wanted everywhere.

Read more ....

My Comment: War has been a part of mankind since the beginning .... but the development of destructive weapons that can decimate the planet is a new development .... and one that has limited all-powerful armies from exercising the destructive capabilities that they can now use. Since the end of the Second World War we have not experienced a massive war .... but we have had numerous small wars and conflicts .... and this is a trend that I expect to continue. But if major powers should ever find themselves in a position where war becomes the decision of choice .... then heaven help us on what comes next.

Mali Is A Symbol Of How Future Foreign Military Interventions Will Unfold

What Mali’s Crisis Means For The Future Of Western Military Intervention -- Vivienne Walt, Time

Why should Americans care about Mali? Many probably asked themselves that question during the last presidential debate, when Mitt Romney twice mentioned the northwest African nation, a place most Americans might be hard-pressed to locate on a map. Yet seven months after Islamic militant groups seized control of northern Mali, the Western-designed military strategy to push them out could have real consequences for future antiterrorist operations, including for the U.S., according to some analysts. As the pieces steadily fall into place for a military assault on northern Mali, the intervention could serve as a model for future conflicts, at a time when Americans and Europeans have no appetite to fight another war. “We’re moving to a form of intervention which is much more typical of the post-Afghanistan era than anything we have seen before,” says François Heisbourg, a special advisor to the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “If you are looking at future military interventions, it will not be like Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Read more ....

My Comment: In short ..... future western military interventions will involve special forces, western trainees, western military equipment and intelligence assets, but foreign soldiers (with the acquiescence of their governments) who are bought and paid for by western governments who will do the actual fighting.

The Importance Of 'Joint Forces" In Military Victories

Joint Forces Become Chief Components In Military Victories -- Examiner

Since the time of the War of 1812, numerous events in American history have served to demonstrate the importance of jointly coordinated military operations.

A successful example of joint coordination took place during the Vicksburg Campaign of 1863, Army General Ulysses S. Grant combined forces with Navy Rear Admiral David C. Porter. Grant’s first few attempts to conquer Vicksburg resulted in failure. Confederate batteries located at Port Hudson, LA thwarted his attempts for either waterborne transportation or communication. When the fleet commanded by Admiral Porter entered the picture, success was achieved as federal officials were ferried to the east bank on Porter’s vessels. During the Spanish American War in 1898, confusion resulted due to the lack of a coordinated joint military action, resulting in public criticism during the Cuban campaign.

Read more ....

My Comment: A comprehensive view of U.S. Joint Command. Read it all.

Military Spending — For What? -- A Commentary

Image from Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

From Doug Bandow, Japan Today:

WASHINGTON — The United States dominates the globe militarily. The threats facing America pale compared to its capabilities. Why, then, is Washington spending so much on the military?

In 2010 the U.S. will spend roughly $700 billion on the military. This is an increase of 2 percent (after inflation) from the Obama administration's original nonwar defense budget of $534 billion.

Read more ....

My Comment: A sobering view on the money that we (and every other country for that matter) spends on national defense.

How To Pay For A 21st-Century Military -- A Commentary

(Click To Enlarge)

From The New York Times:

In recent weeks, this page has called for major changes in America’s armed forces: more ground forces, less reliance on the Reserves, new equipment and training to replace cold-war weapons systems and doctrines.

Money will have to be found to pay for all of this, and the Pentagon can no longer be handed a blank check, as happened throughout the Bush years.

Since 2001, basic defense spending has risen by 40 percent in real post-inflation dollars. That is not counting the huge supplemental budgets passed — with little serious review or debate — each year to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such unquestioned largess has shielded the Pentagon from any real pressure to cut unneeded weapons systems and other wasteful expenses.

As a result, there is plenty of fat in the defense budget. Here is what we think can be cut back or canceled in order to pay for new equipment and other reforms that are truly essential to keep this country safe:

Read more ....

The New Wars website provides some additional input.

Neptunus Lex also has a few remarks .... the comments section is a good read.

How To Pay For A 21st-Century Military -- An Editorial

AL KUT RE-ENLISTMENT - With Al Kut, Iraq, in the background, U.S. Army Col. Richard Francey, commander, 41st Fires Brigade, re-enlists Army Staff Sgts. Patricia Fernandez, left, Cesar Morales, center and Corey Jarels on Dam Bridge, Iraq, Dec. 13, 2008. Fernandez, Morales and Jarels are assigned to the 41st Fires Brigade. Morales and Jarels are members of Francey's personal security team and cross the bridge several times a week. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Allison Churchill

From The New York Times:

In recent weeks, this page has called for major changes in America’s armed forces: more ground forces, less reliance on the Reserves, new equipment and training to replace cold-war weapons systems and doctrines.

Money will have to be found to pay for all of this, and the Pentagon can no longer be handed a blank check, as happened throughout the Bush years.

Since 2001, basic defense spending has risen by 40 percent in real post-inflation dollars. That is not counting the huge supplemental budgets passed — with little serious review or debate — each year to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such unquestioned largess has shielded the Pentagon from any real pressure to cut unneeded weapons systems and other wasteful expenses.

Read more ....

Defense Spending Don't Shortchange The Pentagon -- A Commentary

From Washington Times:

Make no mistake. What happened to Wall Street and to Main Street threatens the Department of Defense.

As Wall Street and Main Street have imploded, if strong action is not taken now, America's military will suffer a similarly disastrous collapse. For those who dismiss this warning as too alarmist, the shocking demise of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and possibly the nation's Big Three auto makers should be chastening and illuminating. Many of the same symptoms of danger ignored for the economy are present in defense.

Read more ....

A Military For A Dangerous New World -- A Commentary

From The New York Times:

As president, Barack Obama will face the most daunting and complicated national security challenges in more than a generation — and he will inherit a military that is critically ill-equipped for the task.

Troops and equipment are so overtaxed by President Bush’s disastrous Iraq war that the Pentagon does not have enough of either for the fight in Afghanistan, the war on terror’s front line, let alone to confront the next threats.

Read more ....