• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sixth Generation Warfare - Russian Strategy

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
Non-Contact Warfare.

Little Green Men and LRPGMs.


Sixth-generation wars will be radically different from all previous ones. Their main distinguishing feature will be the use of weapons of a new type, high-precision strike,[9] and defensive weapons of various bases of the conventional type, weapons based on new physical principles, information weapons, forces and means of electronic warfare. The main goal that will be pursued in this case is the destruction of the military potential of any state, at any distance from the aggressor, with the preservation of its economy and causing minimal damage to its social infrastructures. In the transitional period to the wars of a new generation, the main theater of military operations will be aerospace.[10]


In the aftermath of Desert Storm in 1991, the late Major-General Vladimir Slipchenko coined the phrase ‘sixth generation warfare’ to refer to the ‘informatization’ of conventional warfare and the development of precision strike systems, which could make the massing of forces in the conventional sense an invitation to disaster and demand the development of the means to mass effects through depth to fight systems versus systems warfare. Slipchenko looked back at Ogarkov’s ‘revolution in military affairs’ with ‘weapons based on new physical principles’ and saw ‘Desert Storm’ as a first indication of the appearance of such capabilities. He did not believe that sixth generation warfare had yet manifested its full implications.

However, Slipchenko did believe that sixth generation warfare would replace fifth generation warfare, which he identified as thermonuclear war, and had evolved into a strategic stalemate, making nuclear first use an inevitable road to destruction (from the end of the Soviet Union until his death in 2005, he had analyzed combat experience abroad to further refine his conception until he began to speak of the emergence of ‘no-contact warfare’ as the optimal form for sixth generation warfare). In his final volume, Slipchenko redefined sixth generation warfare as involving the capacity to conduct distant, no-contact operations and suggested that such conflict would demand major military reforms.[12] Slipchenko made a compelling case for the enhanced role of C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance] in conducting such operations.[13]
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,806
Points
1,040
There's very little doubt in my mind that there is a new generation of warfare brewing, but like mutually assured destruction the system will only work while there is little or no risk of a strike back at your homeland and/or your field force. Neither in Syria nor in Ukraine was there a serious threat of such a strike back while Russia controlled air defences and had a dominant ground force to strike with.

Eventually, when the little green men are used up and the LRPGMs have run their course there will be a phase for either conventional ground forces in order to seize terrain or nuclear ones.

The key isn't so much how to strike back with conventional forces, but whether or not the threat of the combination of all three are sufficient to deter the first use of little green men.

It's the same with economic warfare. It won't be until gas and oil pipelines in Russia stop operating and massive information campaigns within Russia weaken that state's leadership that they'll stop playing the game over here.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
So, is DIMEFIL (diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law) competition really war at all? Should we be ignoring those fields of competition? The way we used to? Should we disregard efforts to foment revolution in our streets? Should we disregard buccaneering and transnationals that are capable of writing their own rules?

My own particular frame of reference on that is a very Canadian one and it centres on Acadia.

France has always portrayed itself as a Catholic country, even when it wasn't.

His Most Christian Majesty, the Parisian King of France, negotiated the supremacy of the king over the Papacy (in my view the UN of its day) with the 1438 Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. The 1516 Concordat of Bologna renegotiated the terms but still left the King of France in charge of the Church on his territory, and maintained the right of his Gallican Church to continue to use the brand "Catholic".

In the 1520s the Swedes, Danes, Swiss and Northern Germans caught up on the freedom front but had to give up the "Catholic" brand.

Henry Tudor in London followed suit in 1534.

France had a problem though. Paris, then and now, was not France. The regions were unruly and didn't follow direction well. Some remained tied to the Roman Church. Some foreswore the Church completely and followed Navarre in embracing Calvin's Huguenots. Some had never lost faith in the Avignon Papacy. These factions left room for independent economic interests, financial houses, to make a profit that was not available to the King. They simply had more purchasing power. Some of those set up offshore accounts in places like Geneva, Amsterdam and London. And financed competitors to the French crown.

The French crown responded with assymetrical warfare.

It offered letters of marque to "official" pirates to disrupt the trade of its competitors. It encouraged competing nations like the Ottomans to make life difficult. It turned a blind eye to freebooting unofficial pirates. It armed foreign competitors (like the Algonquin and the MicMac - choosing sides against the Iroquois, which in turn encouraged the Iroquois to seek assistance from the Dutch and the English). It created its own Missions, under the auspices of the Gallican Church, promoting the Recollets, the Sulpiciens and the Societe des Missions Etrangere in competition to the Hapsburg Vaticans Jesuits.

And then it sent those missionaries to Acadia.

Some of those missionaries should be better known now than they are. They used to be well known.

1609 - Champlain, working for merchants from the La Rochelle region, makes friends in Quebec by going to war with the Algonkian the Huron against the Finger Lakes Iroquois starting France's century of Beaver Wars with the Iroquois (1609 to 1701)

1628 - the French protestant capital of La Rochelle, support base for Quebec and Acadia, was seized by Gallican Cardinal Richelieu.
1629 - the Kirke's, French protestants of Dieppe, sailed under the British flag to take Quebec from Champlain who hailed from Brouage, next door to La Rochelle - the Kirkes were burned in effigy as French traitors.

1635 to 1654 - the French Gallicans of Richelieu's 100 Associates fought is out with the Rochellais Huguenots protestant company for control of Acadia. Britain was fighting its civil war against the Gallican allies, the Stewarts (Stuarts).

1642 - Montreal is established as a third way between the Gallicans and the Huguenots under the Sulpiciens of Port Royal (subsequently associated with the Jansenists - declared heretics)

1659 - Olier of the Sulpiciens and Laval of the Roman persuasion contest the Quebec diocese and Laval wins by declaring allegiance to both Rome and to France. Olier is contained to Montreal.


1663 - the College of Sorbonne solemnly declared that it admitted no authority of the pope over the king's temporal dominion, his superiority to a general council or infallibility apart from the Church's consent - separating France from Rome
1664 - Britain takes New Amsterdam from the Dutch and also takes over the Dutch trade with the Iroquois.
1665 - France responds with the Regiment Carignan-Salieres for a couple of years


1688 - Father Beaudoin of the Musketeers and Sulpiciens encourages the MikMaq with arms and cash to resist the British in Acadia
1694 - Father Rale of the Jesuits encourages the Abenaki with arms and cash to resist the British in Acadia
1713 - Treaty of Utrecht cedes Acadia to the British but Father Rale continues to encourage the locals
1715 - France under writes the anti-Hanoverian, pro-Jacobite risings in Britain and the failed Stuart invasion of Scotland
1722 to 1725 - Father Rale's War

1745 - France under writes the anti-Hanoverian, pro-Jacobite rising in support of the Stuarts that failed at Culloden
1749 - Abbe Le Loutre of the Sulpicien Societe des Missions Etrangeres encourages the MicMac with arms and cash to resist the British in Acadia
1749 to 1755 - Le Loutre's War.

1776 - France under writes the anti-Hanoverian rising in the US with cash, arms, training (LaFayette) and military forces (Engineers, Gunners and the Navy)

Underlying all of the above is the economic struggles of various Houses.

My point?

If war is about economics and Little Green Men then we are in for centuries of war.

If war is about battles fought and won. We may go centuries before we see another Plains of Abraham, much less a Waterloo.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
Wow. Someone knows their history... I humbly admit I am woefully ignorant of French history. Something very much driven home by reading the above 😅

Unfortunately, I believe war is driven by the first option. Economics and little green men.

If it wasn’t, would the west have been involved in so many foreign conflicts over the last few decades? Iraq 2 being a prime example, along with our meddling in Iran’s affairs in the past. (Although I am surprised & actually somewhat concerned at how easily the Chinese have secured influence & future financial opportunities throughout Africa without any real US competition.)

Money keeps the world turning, sort of speak. And with that, inevitably comes conflict.

0.02
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,060
The Indo-Pacific looms large as an arena of intensifying geopolitical competition. Typically, governments look to their militaries to balance competitors in such circumstances. But the great-power competition we’re seeing now is not merely military—it’s political, economic, technological and ideological. It’s a competition for strategic advantage, waged in the ‘grey zone’, the no-man’s land that sits between peace and war.

The importance of the grey zone has long been recognised. The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu argued in the 6th century BC that the height of strategic success was to win wars without having to fight. Nowadays, with the costs of war increasingly high and power diffused among a wider range of actors, the grey zone is host to an escalating number of strategic challenges. It has also become somewhat of a catch-all term, stuffed with every anxiety-inducing action from a foreign power.

For the purpose of strategy, however, more is needed than just a list of activities we don’t like. After all, some ostensibly grey-zone activities—influence, competition, funding—may be comparatively benign, or potentially even positive, such as the provision of infrastructure to poorer nations. Nor can we afford to securitise every uncomfortable action short of war or assume every action will lead to war.


 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
17
Points
230
So, is DIMEFIL (diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law) competition really war at all? Should we be ignoring those fields of competition? The way we used to? Should we disregard efforts to foment revolution in our streets? Should we disregard buccaneering and transnationals that are capable of writing their own rules?

My own particular frame of reference on that is a very Canadian one and it centres on Acadia.

France has always portrayed itself as a Catholic country, even when it wasn't.

His Most Christian Majesty, the Parisian King of France, negotiated the supremacy of the king over the Papacy (in my view the UN of its day) with the 1438 Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. The 1516 Concordat of Bologna renegotiated the terms but still left the King of France in charge of the Church on his territory, and maintained the right of his Gallican Church to continue to use the brand "Catholic".

In the 1520s the Swedes, Danes, Swiss and Northern Germans caught up on the freedom front but had to give up the "Catholic" brand.

Henry Tudor in London followed suit in 1534.

France had a problem though. Paris, then and now, was not France. The regions were unruly and didn't follow direction well. Some remained tied to the Roman Church. Some foreswore the Church completely and followed Navarre in embracing Calvin's Huguenots. Some had never lost faith in the Avignon Papacy. These factions left room for independent economic interests, financial houses, to make a profit that was not available to the King. They simply had more purchasing power. Some of those set up offshore accounts in places like Geneva, Amsterdam and London. And financed competitors to the French crown.

The French crown responded with assymetrical warfare.

It offered letters of marque to "official" pirates to disrupt the trade of its competitors. It encouraged competing nations like the Ottomans to make life difficult. It turned a blind eye to freebooting unofficial pirates. It armed foreign competitors (like the Algonquin and the MicMac - choosing sides against the Iroquois, which in turn encouraged the Iroquois to seek assistance from the Dutch and the English). It created its own Missions, under the auspices of the Gallican Church, promoting the Recollets, the Sulpiciens and the Societe des Missions Etrangere in competition to the Hapsburg Vaticans Jesuits.

And then it sent those missionaries to Acadia.

Some of those missionaries should be better known now than they are. They used to be well known.

1609 - Champlain, working for merchants from the La Rochelle region, makes friends in Quebec by going to war with the Algonkian the Huron against the Finger Lakes Iroquois starting France's century of Beaver Wars with the Iroquois (1609 to 1701)

1628 - the French protestant capital of La Rochelle, support base for Quebec and Acadia, was seized by Gallican Cardinal Richelieu.
1629 - the Kirke's, French protestants of Dieppe, sailed under the British flag to take Quebec from Champlain who hailed from Brouage, next door to La Rochelle - the Kirkes were burned in effigy as French traitors.

1635 to 1654 - the French Gallicans of Richelieu's 100 Associates fought is out with the Rochellais Huguenots protestant company for control of Acadia. Britain was fighting its civil war against the Gallican allies, the Stewarts (Stuarts).

1642 - Montreal is established as a third way between the Gallicans and the Huguenots under the Sulpiciens of Port Royal (subsequently associated with the Jansenists - declared heretics)

1659 - Olier of the Sulpiciens and Laval of the Roman persuasion contest the Quebec diocese and Laval wins by declaring allegiance to both Rome and to France. Olier is contained to Montreal.


1663 - the College of Sorbonne solemnly declared that it admitted no authority of the pope over the king's temporal dominion, his superiority to a general council or infallibility apart from the Church's consent - separating France from Rome
1664 - Britain takes New Amsterdam from the Dutch and also takes over the Dutch trade with the Iroquois.
1665 - France responds with the Regiment Carignan-Salieres for a couple of years


1688 - Father Beaudoin of the Musketeers and Sulpiciens encourages the MikMaq with arms and cash to resist the British in Acadia
1694 - Father Rale of the Jesuits encourages the Abenaki with arms and cash to resist the British in Acadia
1713 - Treaty of Utrecht cedes Acadia to the British but Father Rale continues to encourage the locals
1715 - France under writes the anti-Hanoverian, pro-Jacobite risings in Britain and the failed Stuart invasion of Scotland
1722 to 1725 - Father Rale's War

1745 - France under writes the anti-Hanoverian, pro-Jacobite rising in support of the Stuarts that failed at Culloden
1749 - Abbe Le Loutre of the Sulpicien Societe des Missions Etrangeres encourages the MicMac with arms and cash to resist the British in Acadia
1749 to 1755 - Le Loutre's War.

1776 - France under writes the anti-Hanoverian rising in the US with cash, arms, training (LaFayette) and military forces (Engineers, Gunners and the Navy)

Underlying all of the above is the economic struggles of various Houses.

My point?

If war is about economics and Little Green Men then we are in for centuries of war.

If war is about battles fought and won. We may go centuries before we see another Plains of Abraham, much less a Waterloo.
That is a good capture of New France
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
17
Points
230
Russian mercenaries fighting for Assad are 'wearing BRITISH uniforms' - astonishing claim

RUSSIAN mercenaries fighting for President Assad's government forces in Syria are wearing British uniforms to deflect blame
for their ‘off the grid' operations, it is claimed.

By BY MARCO GIANNANGELI DEFENCE EDITOR
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sun, Jul 18, 2021 | UPDATED: 14:31, Sun, Jul 18, 2021

It follows images taken a week ago of a Russian military contractor wearing a British combat shirt emblazoned with the Union Flag patch sewn on to the left upper arm. Wearing another nation’s emblem directly contravenes a raft of international conventions including the Hague and Geneva and is technically banned even by the Russian Federation.
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
17
Points
230
Russia unveils new 'Checkmate' stealth fighter jet at air show

The Kremlin has made modernization of the country’s arsenals a key
priority amid tensions with the West that followed Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula


By Brie Stimson | Fox News

Russian President Vladimir Putin inspected the country’s newly unveiled "Checkmate" warplane on Tuesday.

The prototype of the Sukhoi fifth-generation stealth fighter was revealed at the MAKS-2021 International
Aviation and Space Salon, Reuters reported. The show opened Tuesday in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow.

Fifth-generation refers to the jet’s stealth characteristics, a capability to cruise at supersonic speed as
well as artificial intelligence to assist the pilots, among other advanced features.

More at link below


And

Russia unveils new fighter jet as Putin touts aviation industry

For some reason I can't post the video, however, it is available on You Tube using the headline above

(Short video)
 
Top