Understanding WAR:

War is an extension of a Nation’s Policy by other Means. Such ‘Means’ continually expand. The costs of War are today more the indirect Economic costs, that include the flow of money and supplies, Social and Development costs and losses of Infrastructure and Resources, than that of only the immediate personnel/soldiers and even of non-combatants.

Types of War –

Old style wars, direct frontal and flanking combat, guerilla or hit and run tactics. Today, mostly even for soldiers, non-direct contact, using advanced technology far beyond the Battle field, such as High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) which perhaps is based on the work of Nickola Tesla, Acoustic, Directed Energy Laser and Maser weapons, Drones, Autonomous weapons platforms and even Aircrafts, Satellites and anti-satellites, Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons and delivery systems (COVID?) and Missiles, and Sensor of various types. Also, the involvement of civilians using weapons in combat roles, and in Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, Psychological and Information warfare activities.

Chanakya’s perspective on War and Diplomacy as written in his ‘Arthasashtra’ emphasises winning through state-craft rather than through costly warfare. His four strategic methods to deal with adversaries are given as ‘SAMA’(Conciliation and Diplomacy), ‘DANA’(Donation or Gifts), ‘BHEDA’(Sowing discard within the adversary/enemy), and only then finally, ‘DANDA’(Punishment or War).

Today’s strategic thinking about war requires not only the thinking of a ‘CHESS’ player, seeking to capture/kill the king, but also the thinking of a ‘GO’ player, seeking to encircle and disable/destroy each element/resource of the adversary/enemy.

It is such thinking that enables a Nation to deal with, Economic-Trade wars, Currency wars, control of Choke points and ‘High-Ground’ which could be any sort of power position, geographic or even with respect to key technology, and resources. Modern warfare is increasingly becoming a contest of systems.

To engage in War,

• The Nation must have a good reason to go to War.

• There must be a deep understanding of the Strengths, Weapons, and other circumstances of the Enemy/Adversary, (including their ability to call on their Allies and use Proxies) and their attitudes, resources and capabilities, even social circumstances.

• There must be a clear Objective that is understood by All. They must also have a clear understanding of the END STATE to be achieved and when and how to disengage.

The three Wars/Conflicts mentioned above:

Did they meet the above requirements, and how, if at all, it can all best be resolved for the USA and for Universal benefit? If not, where did they fail, and why. Discuss-

1). Objective-

a). Ukraine war: The NATO countries, mainly the USA, sought dominance over Russia and for their own economic benefits, prolonged the war by becoming proxy allies of Ukraine providing weapons, training, intelligence and money as support to the Ukrainians. They underestimated the Russian resolve and capabilities and also overestimated their own abilities. They also had earlier orchestrated a regime change in Ukraine and made Volodymir Zelensky their selected President replacing the earlier Russian inclined and elected Poroshenkov. They did not allow him to reach a peaceful territory settlement with Russia and encouraged him to go to war, offering him the support of the NATO countries and projecting a speedy end to the war. Also offering consideration of membership of NATO at the earliest even though it was against their agreement with Russia to not increase the NATO membership by including the earlier Soviet Republics. This was a costly attempt to bring Russia down ensuring that the costs were mainly born by Ukraine.

It should be noted here that even till today, Ukraine does not have clearly demarcated borders with Russia recognised by the United Nations, having only an agreement providing for demarcation which was not executed and hence its claims on territory are not really tenable, especially as it did not recognize the Russian speakers in the Ukrainian areas claimed by Russia, as proper citizens, and did not even grant them voting rights perhaps due to the territories being outside Kiev’s control even then. This could have been done using postal ballots if they wanted to do so, but they did not. Good borders make for good neighbours (See: Annexure-2). The only way this war can now be ended, after all the human and other losses it has borne, is by Ukraine accepting the Russian terms.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5