...the war. This could proved by the following.

In 1924, a work titled "Strategiya v Trudakh Voennykh Klassikov" ("Strategy in the Works of Military Classics") was published under the editorship of a well-known military theorist A.A. Svechin. In this work A.A. Svechin gives the following definition of the "war strategy" concept: .".. this concept represents the warfare principles in relation to the issues which depend on the war character and determine its economic, political, geographical data or supply conditions." (1) Here we should pay attention to "warfare principles" concept presence in the definition.

"The Soviet Military Encyclopedia" insists on the following interpretation: "War strategy represents a military art component, its supreme area, which covers the theory and practice of preparing the armed forces for a war, including war planning activity and combat operations conduct." (2) In other words, in peacetime we are getting ready for a war and we are planning it, but when the war breaks out, we just start our operations. Here we should note that the "warfare" concept has disappeared from the definition. This means that the warfare techniques cease to be developed. However, the problem is that we may achieve success in one, two or, perhaps, three operations but lose the war in general. In this respect, we should not forget "The Pyrrhic Victory."

"The Military Encyclopedia" of 2003 edition defines war strategy as "... a specific element of military art, its supreme area which includes the theory and practice of the military activity performed by the state." (3) This definition implies that war is the object of practical and cognitive activity for the war strategy, while armed struggle is its subject--the main specific element of war.

Thus, we continue to insist on military force application only in wartime keeping in mind that its basic contents is the armed struggle which is conducted in accordance with the military-political goals set forth by the country's political leadership. In wartime the leading role belongs to the national armed forces which are applied in various strategic forms of military actions. And what is happening in peacetime? Do interstate contradictions disappear? No, they remain. Does nothing and nobody prevent the state from meeting national interests? And shouldn't the state protect them with the use of all its available capabilities, including the military force? And how all that could be done?

For quite a long time we were incapable of using the assets that had been worked out and accumulated in Russia until 1917. Theoretical works of foreign military scientists have mainly been the objects for criticism. We have taken a great interest in forms, but we have forgotten the statement made by Nikolai Nikolaevich Golovin, a professor at the Nikolaevskaya General Staff Military Academy: "The history of science shows that each time when a human mind concentrates all its attention on the form instead of the essence of the phenomenon, its scholastic implication emerges." (4)

Unfortunately, even now we are mainly focused on the forms. Moreover, we are speaking about them on strategic level: we keep on insisting that the armed forces could be applied (in different forms) only in wartime. However, as early as in the beginning of the 20th century, an outstanding humanist, mathematician and strategist Andrei Evgenjevich Snesarev, who was also a multifarious scientist, an expert in oriental studies and the former Chief of the RKKA (Red Army) Joint Staff Academy, gave the following definition to the state assessment criteria when it maintains its national interests: a simple victory in the war--only a 3 (satisfactory); a policy success in the war--4 (good); success in war avoidance--5 (excellent); defeat in the war--2 (bad); loss of independence, crash of the state--1 (too bad). However, A.E. Snesarev was not familiar with Sinology (b) and Sun Tzu's "Art of War" which says that "the best war is to break the plans of the enemy; then--to break its alliances; and afterwards--to defeat its troops. Therefore, the best and successful military leader is the one who is able to defeat an enemy's army without fighting, conquer enemy's fortresses without besieging, and defeat an enemy's state without holding his army too long." (5) In other...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Military Thought
Coalition issues in Russian and Western military science., July 01, 2007
On multilevel training of military specialists.(Essay), July 01, 2007
The problem of student adaptation in the process of training in the mi..., July 01, 2007
Systems analysis: recommendations for problem identification, formulat..., July 01, 2007
Deceiving the enemy: some points of essence., July 01, 2007

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.