Talking about the Repeated Rendering of Sino-Russian Threat Theory by American Think Tanks

 Talking about the Repeated Rendering of Sino-Russian Threat Theory by American Think Tanks

Since the Gulf War, the U.S. Army has succeeded in all previous local wars. According to a recent report by the New American Security Center (CNAS), an American think tank, the way the United States conducts war against China and Russia is ineffective. However, the report does not specify the type of war that the United States needs, but repeats, as its title does, why the United States needs a new type of war. In other words, the whole report is a rendering of the Sino-Russian threat.

Maybe the opponent chooses the time and place

The Pentagons plan to develop weapons and strategies to break through Russias or Chinas complex defense networks is a waste of time and could lead to the failure of the U.S. military in the future battlefield, according to the latest research report of the New American Security Center, US Military website reported Tuesday.

Reported that the Defense Strategic Report of the United States Department of Defense in 2018 has allowed the U.S. military to develop a new war plan aimed at defeating two comparable rivals of the United States - Russia and China. The Pentagon is focusing many of its modernizations and operational concepts on defeating advanced anti-intervention/regional denial (A2/AD) networks, from complex air defense systems to complex jamming weapons that destroy GPS and military communications, developed by these two rivals to reduce the effectiveness of U.S. attacks. This is a mistake, according to Christopher Doherty, a senior researcher in the National Defense Program at the New American Security Center. His latest report, Why the United States Needs a New Way of War, said: The challenges posed by A2/AD have led many in the U.S. defense sector to mistake it as the focus of action for China and Russia. If the goal is to defeat the enemys A2/AD capabilities, then you are focusing on the wrong things. When youre in a battle where someone is holding a shield, you dont spend all your time chopping their shield with your sword... You should try to find a way around the shield.

According to the report, the Pentagons current mode of war does not really work in war with Russia or China. U.S. military leaders have long believed in the phrase fight them at the time and place we choose, which Doherty believes will become increasingly ineffective for rivals like China and Russia, even if it has worked before. If war breaks out between the United States and one of these two great powers, it is likely that these big powers with huge military capabilities will choose the time and place.

What is the current mode of war in the United States?

So, in the authors eyes, what is the current mode of war in the United States? According to the report, the current pattern of warfare in the United States is known by some as the Desert Storm Model, mainly against rivals like Iraq or Yugoslavia, who lack top-level traditional troops and nuclear weapons.

According to the report, the current U.S. warfare mode includes the following characteristics: maintaining a frontier presence for peacetime shaping operations; increasing the presence during crises through flexible deterrence operations; deploying troops without the threat of enemy attack by relying on overflights and passages from allies, partners and other countries in the theatre, using shelter in the homeland and other theatres of war; Establish and maintain expeditionary forces in theatre for weeks or months, and assemble forces at land and sea bases and at assembly sites close to enemy territory; provide extensive intelligence preparation for combat space.

When conditions are met, offensive operations begin at the time and place chosen by the United States to attack the opponents regime objectives and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems (C4ISR). Then, aerospace, information and maritime advantages are established throughout the war zone. Attacking the opponents defensive forces and key infrastructure in order to weaken the strength of their forces, weaken their will to fight, and systematically undermine the cohesion of the opponents regime and its army. Once the number of enemy troops is greatly reduced, combat effectiveness is reduced and chaos occurs, ground operations are carried out. Combining precise firepower with rapid maneuver, we can eliminate enemy forces and control key areas through information superiority, very safe logistic routes and minimal casualties. Use other forms of pressure (diplomacy, information and economy) to further expand advantages.

According to the report, this model of expeditionary warfare proved extremely effective in the first Gulf War. Variations of the concept were used in 1999 against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 2001 against the Taliban, 2003 against Iraq and 2011 against Libya.

Doherty said that during the Gulf War, the U.S. military effectively entered and established forces to eliminate Iraqs air defense system, and then carried out operations according to its own timetable. But for China or Russia, this is too slow.

The new mode of war has not yet been decided.

The report says that for generations of Americans accustomed to the military superiority of the United States and its ability to prevent major wars, the idea of armed conflicts between major powers seems highly unlikely, and the idea that the United States, with the most expensive armed forces in the world, might lose such a war seems absolutely absurd. However, the possibility of war and ultimate defeat for the United States is real and growing.

According to the report, China and Russia spent nearly 20 years researching the current mode of American war. China and Russia have been formulating new strategies and developing new concepts and weapons in order to defeat their opponents in the war. They make use of their time and geographical advantages to make up for their relative weakness with the United States, and concentrate on developing new concepts and weapons of war to attack vulnerable nodes in American military operations. The goal of these strategies and concepts is to create a seemingly reasonable theory of victory, that is, China and Russia avoid fair struggle with their rivals, and thus may defeat the United States and its allies and partners in regional wars. These strategies, once seemingly unbelievable or remote, have begun to bear fruit. They are changing the military balance in key areas. The U.S. military has no God-ordained victory on the battlefield.

According to the report, the United States needs a new way of warfare, which is not based on the historical comparison of national forces, but adapts to long-term competition with large countries with powerful armies and a large number of non-military forces. The challenges posed by China and Russia are both realistic and difficult, but American military thinkers have faced similar challenges in the past. Previous generations of American military professionals won the two-tier global wars against Nazi Germany and Japan, established a framework of great power competition and military deterrence in the shadow of nuclear destruction, and developed technologies and concepts to ultimately determine the military superiority of the United States, which have been in use since the late cold war to this day.

However, the report does not give a clear answer as to how the United States should choose to deal with China and Russia. The report argues that it is necessary to focus on the following four points: effective fighting at the time and place chosen by the opponents; more attention to information warfare; fighting without safe haven; and finding ways to defeat the enemys aggression in the absence of advantages in a certain field.

A Chinese military expert told the Global Times that the report was in fact reiterating Chinas and Russias military threats and talking about China and Russias aggression. But the reality is that the United States has adopted aggressive strategies to put pressure on China and Russia. As far as the comparison of military strength between China, Russia and the United States is concerned and the strategy adopted, China and Russia will not take the initiative to challenge the United States with military strength, let alone invade the United States. In this regard, the report is undoubtedly reversing black and white. A kind of