war and warfare – Page 55 – Air Marshal's Perspective

November 3, 2021December 27, 2024

219: Interesting Classification of Warfare into Generations

While researching for “future of warfare”, I came across an interesting article about classification of wars over the years into generations.

These thoughts are of Russian military theorists Major General Vladimir Slipchenko (1935–2005). General Slipchenko is considered as one of the leading thinkers on “non-contact” and “sixth-generation” warfare.

Slipchenko’s while examining warfare, classifies warfare into six generations.

Slipchenko’s Generations of Warfare

(Source: Vladimir Slipchenko, Voiny Novogo Pokolenia – Distantsionnye i Bezkontaktnye (Moscow: Olma-Press, 2004), pp. 32– 34.

No Contact Warfare. Slipchenko ties the idea of sixth-generation warfare to a concept of non-contact or contactless warfare. He conveys the idea that future war between modern states will take place without direct contact.

Future Warfare. Slipchenko outlined wars of the future as follows:

The role and importance attached to nuclear weapons will gradually decline.

Conventional long-range high-precision strike weapons will grow in importance.

Wars will be shorter than in the past.

Advanced militaries will restructure their forces from the traditional army, navy and air force to strategic attack forces and strategic defense forces.

The tactical level of warfare will decline in importance and the strategic level will become the main emphasis in future warfare.

The main role for land forces in the future will be to support the air force.

Seventh-Generation Warfare: Info Warfare

Slipchenko also worked on the concept of a future “seventh generation” of warfare, which he forecast could emerge in the 2050s among the most advanced military powers. Numerous aspects of this work, especially in relation to the exponential growth in the importance of information in modern and future warfare are already percolating into the modern day warfare.

Slipchenko ahead of his time highlighted the importance of cyber along with information in the future battle space, and also forecast this area emerging as a separate combat arm. He identifies the centrality of information in modern and future warfare, forecasting that its utility would eventually move beyond a combat support role and into the area of essentially a combat arm.

Slipchenko identified information as a future weapon in war similar to the destructive effect of kinetic systems, and suggested that this would influence war in its entirety from beginning to conflict termination. He estimated that info warfare will transform warfare beyond the strategic level to reach truly global scales.

According to Slipchenko, information superiority would be the key to gaining superiority in non-contact warfare. Domination would be required in the information domain of space systems as well as reconnaissance, warning, navigation, meteorological, command and control, and communications assets.

Information Confrontation. Slipchenko argued that the information confrontation demands continuous exploitation as compared to information warfare during a skirmish. Possibly hinting at exploitation of info warfare even in no war conditions (Present day Grey Zone).

Comments

Slipchenko’s Thoughts and predictions are coming true, that too ahead of expected timelines.

Information has become a new domain for warfare.

Information warfare is not in isolation but getting linked with other domains of cyber, space and electronics.

A new service is evolving to deal with this type of warfare (e.g. Chinese Joint Strategic Support Force).

This warfare is being exploited in a conflict scenario, without declaring open war i.e. Grey Zone warfare.

Additional Thought

Seventh or eighth generation warfare is also developing in another direction in parallel. The kinetic or contact warfare being fought by unmanned machines (or a combination of manned and unmanned machines). These machines will have a very high computing power, will be AI enabled and will work in a networked environment.

Random Observations

Sci-Fi movies become reality sooner or later.

Question

What are your views about the direction in which warfare is progressing ?

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome

For regular updates, please register here

Subscribe

References

https://jamestown.org/program/russian-military-thought-on-the-changing-character-of-war-harnessing-technology-in-the-information-age/

https://jamestown.org/program/russian-sixth-generation-warfare-and-recent-developments/

October 18, 2021December 27, 2024

212: US vs China on Taiwan: Shadow Boxing

Link to the earlier blog on the subject (China vs Taiwan)

Recently US Defence Department Spokesperson John Kirby made a statement on recent military exercises conducted by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army near the island of Taiwan. John Kirby told reporters that the US commitment to Taiwan is “rock solid” and that “the US is united with Taiwan against the current danger posed by the People’s Republic of China.”

Also the official Twitter accounts of the US State Department posted photos and tweets of Under Secretary of State José Fernandez and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink respectively meeting with Taipei Economic and Cultural “Representative” Bi-khim Hsiao, claiming that the US commitment to Taiwan remains rock-solid, and the US will further strengthen ties with Taiwan. Media reports said that the US has invited Hsu Yen-pu, Taiwan’s “Army Commander,” to visit the US.

Strong Chinese Reaction

Zhao Lijian, spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry reacted strongly to these developments. Gist of his rebuttal is as follows:-

Taiwan Island is China’s territory and the US is in no position to point fingers over the Taiwan question.

US has been making negative moves to sell arms to Taiwan and strengthen official and military ties with the island, including a $750 million arms sale plan, the landing of US military aircraft on the island and frequent sailing of US warships across the Taiwan Straits. These provocative actions damage China-US relations and undermine regional peace and stability.

The remarks by the US senior official seriously violate the one-China principle, sending an extremely wrong and irresponsible signal to the outside world.

“Taiwan independence” is a dead end, and the Chinese mainland will take all necessary measures to resolutely crush any attempt at “Taiwan independence.”

China’s resolve and will to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity are firm and US should correct its mistakes and stop supporting secessionists in the island.

The embassy warned the US not to fantasise about seeking China’s support and cooperation while wantonly challenging China’s red line on the Taiwan question.

Analytical Thoughts

So far China and US are both shadow boxing over Taiwan issue.

It seems both are testing the waters and each other’s resolve.

It is like sumo wrestlers or boxers going round and round gauging each other, before engaging.

Besides verbal duels, once in a while the two sides resort to strategic coercion and muscle flexing.

The frequency of these acts is increasing.

Final engagement and result would depend upon – who wins the power race and world number one position.

Fate of Taiwan will determine the final result of the power race.

India has a breathing space, so long as China is preoccupied with Taiwan.

Our border dispute is still not resolved, with China claiming more and more.

If it is able to unify Taiwan, it will get encouraged to try it elsewhere.

Doubtful Thoughts

China is determined to unify Taiwan with the mainland.

Will China do it with its grey zone operations?

Will China use force to achieve her objective?

Will US fight for Taiwan?

When is this shadow boxing likely to escalate into actual engagement with throwing of punches?

Will the world get divided into two factions once again?

Will India be able to maintain policy of equidistance or get drawn towards one of the factions?

Random Thought

Western powers have been ruling the roost for a while.

Coming century is of the Asia.

Question

What will be India’s role, position and choices in this scenario?

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome

Link to the earlier blog on the subject (China vs Taiwan)

For regular updates, please register here

Subscribe

October 17, 2021December 27, 2024

211: China Spoiling Bhutan’s GNP (Gross National Happiness)

Pic Courtesy: IPA Journal

News – This week China and Bhutan signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on a Three-Step Roadmap to help speed up long drawn boundary talks.

Bhutan

Bhutan, officially known as the Kingdom of Bhutan is a landlocked country in the Eastern Himalayas. It is bordered by China to the north and India to the south, east and west. Nepal and Bangladesh are located in proximity to Bhutan but do not share a land border. The country has a population of over 754,000 and a territory of 38,394 square km (14,824 sq mi) which ranks 133rd in terms of land area, and 160th in population. Bhutan is a constitutional monarchy with Vajrayana Buddhism as the state religion. Hinduism is the second most dominant religion in Bhutan.

Bhutan’s Priorities

Bhutan has a rich and unique cultural heritage that has largely remained intact because of its isolation from the rest of the world. Bhutanese tradition is deeply steeped in its Buddhist heritage. Because of its largely unspoiled natural environment and cultural heritage, Bhutan has been referred to as The Last Shangri-La.

Bhutan is a country of content people, giving more importance to Gross National Happiness (GNP), rather than GDP. The government’s endeavour is to preserve and sustain the current culture and traditions of the country.

Sino – Bhutan Relations

The Kingdom of Bhutan and the People’s Republic of China do not maintain official diplomatic relations, and their relations are historically tense.

Apart from India, Bhutan is the only country with which China has an unsettled land border and Thimphu is also the only neighbouring country with which Beijing does not have official diplomatic and economic relations.

Tibet factor

Bhutan has had a long and strong cultural, historical, religious and economic connections to Tibet. During the 1959 Tibetan uprising, an estimated 6,000 Tibetans fled to Bhutan and were granted asylum. Bhutan subsequently closed its border to China, fearing more refugees. With the increase in soldiers on the Chinese side of the Sino-Bhutanese border after the 17-point agreement between the Tibetan government and the central government of the PRC, Bhutan withdrew its representative from Lhasa.

Border Dispute

The PRC shares a contiguous border of about 470 km with Bhutan. Bhutan’s border with Tibet has never been officially recognized, much less demarcated. The Republic of China officially claims parts of Bhutan territory as its own. This territorial claim has been maintained by the People’s Republic of China after the Chinese Communist Party took control of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War.

Areas of Dispute

Pic Courtesy: IDR

The Sino-Bhutanese border dispute has traditionally involved 295 square miles (sq mi) of territory, including 191 sq mi in the Jakurlung and Pasamlung valleys in northern Bhutan and another 104 sq mi in western Bhutan that comprise the areas of Doklam, Sinchulung, Dramana and Shakhatoe.

Pic Courtesy: Tribune

China has recently expanded its territorial claims beyond the disputed regions in northern and western Bhutan. It has added territorial claims in Sakteng area in eastern Bhutan, adjoining the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. The disputed territory in northern and western Bhutan is relatively small as compared to the new Chinese claim in eastern Bhutan of about 2,051 miles (11 percent of Bhutan’s total area).

China’s Belligerence

Over the years, the Sino-Bhutanese border dispute has become more complicated, with China escalating its claims and taking forceful steps to change the status quo on the ground.

In addition to expanding its territorial claims, China unilaterally has been changing the status quo on the ground through an array of measures, ranging from sending Tibetan grazers and military patrolling teams into disputed areas to building roads and even military structures in contested territory.

Beijing is following its South China Sea strategy in Bhutan as well i.e. push territorial claims and change the demography by creating settlements and bringing civilian population.

Border Talks

Two countries have been engaged in border talks since 1984. They have held over 24 rounds of boundary talks and 10 rounds of negotiations at the ‘Expert Group’ level, in a bid to resolve the dispute.

Two agreements—one on the guiding principles on the settlement of the boundary issues reached in 1988, and the other on maintaining peace and stability in the China-Bhutan border area reached in 1998, provide the basis of the ongoing negotiations.

The disputed territories have been discussed during the past 24 rounds of border talks and included in a “package deal” dispute resolution proposal that China put to Bhutan in 1996. Under this deal, the PRC offered to renounce its claims to the Pasamlung and Jakarlung valleys in northern Bhutan in return for Thimphu ceding territory in Doklam to Beijing.

India’s Concern

The border dispute between Bhutan and China has repercussions for India.

Doklam Area. Doklam Plateau has strategic significance. The plateau is located on the southeast side of the trijunction area. It is an important area between the Chumbi Valley on Chinese side and Siliguri corridor (Chicken’s neck) on Indian side. Control of this area gives an advantage to the side controlling it.

Sakteng Area. China’s most recent territorial claim in Sakteng is also of strategic value. The area adjoins the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which contains disputed territory between China and India. Tawang, a key bone of contention between India and China in the eastern sector of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), lies to Sakteng’s northeast.

Analysis (Personal Views)

Resolution of border dispute with China has a direct bearing on Indian interests.

Chinese desire to control Doklam and Sakteng areas could be with India in mind.

China earlier tried to exchange northern territories in exchange of territory in Doklam.

Sakteng has been added due to interest in Tawang area.

China has been earlier offering a package deal including aspects like trade and cultural exchange besides resolution of territorial dispute.

Bhutan sees the package deal as an opening of window for Chinese to make inroads into Bhutan.

Bhutan is wary of, long term effects of Chinese presence on her culture and values.

However, younger generations in Bhutan are willing to experiment on engagement with China.

India and Bhutan have a very good relations with each other.

The details of contents of the MoU and the three step roadmap are not available in the open domain.

India needs to keep a close watch on these developments.

India needs to work closely with Bhutan for resolution of territorial dispute on mutually beneficial terms.

After Thought

Bhutan should be made to realise that agreeing to Chinese terms (if they get tempted) would not guarantee China getting off her back. China has been known for demanding more and more.

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome

For regular updates, please register here