Modern Warfare: Simplified, War has been a part of the world since its start where disputes over resources have been the center of all kinds of societies. Nonetheless, the demand for such resources and the way of extraction have differed over time wherein the mindset of generations changed to get hold of specific resources. Humans, notably have changed the way of fighting a war where they started with spheres to guns and now ultimately nuclear weapons.
The more advanced technology became, the greater threat came to humanity. If the magnitude of all wars from different time periods is to be calculated and compared with one another then we would find that each has been fatal in its own different way.
It is pre-assumed that World War I and II has been the most disastrous in their nature with the first time ever usage of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the end of the second world war. Nevertheless, if the roots of French wars of religion are to be traced then no wonder that its nature and intent will be unacceptable in the modern world. The case is entirely different in the 21st century where indirect war such as trade war is more common than upfront invasion like in the past.
The modern world has turned out to be a silent ticking button of a massive nuclear weapon. What’s more concerning is the secrecy by which modern military operations are being carried out. The end of the second world war saw the emergence of four major superpowers- the Soviet Union, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.
Today, the whole world seems to be controlled by five major countries, with the addition of China. The problem with this idea is that the voices of smaller nations are often repressed and war still persists in the shadow of “diplomacy”. The way any country decides to pursue its military strategy differs from one another.
What is The Nature of Modern Warfare?
In general, there are multiple levels of Modern warfare. It tests firepower, weapon technology, troop strength, and logistics on a physical level. It involves intangibles like courage, morale, and leadership at the psychological level.
At the analytical level, it makes it hard for commanders to assess complicated battlefield situations, make good decisions, and come up with plans that are better for the battlefield from a tactical standpoint to carry those decisions out.
War is often uncertain and unpredictable. The major advantage is in the first attack where attacking first makes it easier to execute the military strategies. War today is turning out to be more indirect than maneuver warfare where the use of weapons isn’t necessary.
For example, a cyber attack by China is as great in magnitude as a physical one and concerning. The most efficient way to tackle an offense is to spontaneously retaliate in accordance with the strategy laid forward by the offense. Every occasion “converges with those that go before and follow it — molded by the previous and forming the states of the last option — making a consistent, fluctuating progression of action-packed with short-lived open doors and unexpected occasions.”
Components of the move fighting hypothesis first showed up in quite a while Sun Tzu and were polished at the Skirmish of Leuctra in old Greece. Napoléon and Confederate General Stonewall Jackson achieved success through more advanced applications of maneuver warfare principles. However, Erwin Rommel, a well-known German military officer, published Infantry Attacks in 1937, which was the first widely disseminated articulation of the modern conceptual foundation of maneuver warfare.
The success of German blitzkrieg tactics during World War II followed shortly after. From that point forward, move fighting brought about conclusive triumphs for the Israeli Safeguard Power in the Bedouin — Israeli Conflicts of 1967 and 1973 and for the Alliance Powers in Activity Desert Tempest in 1991.
Leadership in a Combat Zone
Leadership stands at the center of any modern warfare and how a force advances is deeply determined by how effective the leadership is. Usually in a normal governmental structure, the Prime Minister or the President is the head of the country but in the midst of a war crisis, it is imperative to have a diversified but disciplined leadership that can simultaneously work in different sections important for advancing the war.
If the power is concentrated in the hand of one person or a set of very few individuals, it is going to be difficult to be able to advance. Therefore, the set of people who are higher in the hierarchy of power need to be centralized and must coordinate with one another to build the war effort.
Leadership is the core of any military strategy and largely determines how million others participating in the war need to be directed. Diversification of power is important in such a situation where people with higher ranks can also respond to someone higher in rank than them to avoid any miscalculations. It is the most common psychology of anyone involved in a war that if a mistake is being made from one level, it is likely to be passed on to the next level and that is precisely when a whole system fails.
During a war situation, massive pressure mounts on the minds of people who participate in the war and they are likely to act negatively while dealing with such pressure. The leadership of various segments in a war must be collaborative but independent. It is imperative to understand the limitations of certain operations as much important as it is to understand their strengths.
Russo-Ukraine War Analysis
Just like any other war ever fought in History, the Russia-Ukraine war has been fought on two different realities which are soothing to the respective sides. When two different states exist, they are formed on a different set of principles that they are likely to follow in the future that they have. Such principles are the very basis of friction between them.
The term different reality means the wants of any state that it wishes to accomplish. The reality of geopolitics for Russia is that it is insecure about NATO constantly extending its military presence along the Russian border while Ukraine is fearful of Russia’s aim of occupying Ukrainian land. Over the course of the past few months, Ukraine has been successful in defending its borders due to extravagant foreign support while the Russian offense seemed to be losing due to logistics problems.
The major problem with its military tactic has been the outdated Soviet weapons which heavily lag in front of modern weapons. Another issue was with the capability to arrange troops and guide them together. This resulted in the loss of several thousand troops taking part in the war. The main reason for such a situation was a loss of morale in the army and failed guidance. Ukraine on the other hand, despite being severely outnumbered in the military got the advantage due to effective planning.
Thanks for reading from Storify News as a news publishing website from India. You are free to share this story via the various social media platforms and follow us on on; Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Google, Pinterest etc.