geopolitics-00768
Taranis alongside a RAF Typhoon.

Vladimir Gujaničić

 


The West as well as the East cannot be imagined without the development of armed forces and new conceptions of warfare. The speed of adaptation to the new needs of warfare and geopolitical moves is crucial, all in correlation with the system of the home country or group of countries conducting operations. Nine years ago, the great operation of the “Arab Spring” began, which was rarely comparable in character to anything until then. Insurgent masses in the Arab world, followed by air strikes by Western countries and special forces on the ground, pushed a powerful wave of change from the west to the heart of M. East that everything was perfectly covered by media operations. The great operation of the “Arab Spring”, despite the synchronization of actions, ultimately lost and did not achieve its ultimate foreign policy goals, because purely military executive power was insufficient to achieve the ultimate goal, victory over the “Axis of Resistance” (Syria, Iran and Hezbollah) supported by side of Russia. This tells us that new interventionist concepts must have perfect synchronization in order to achieve the ultimate goal and the technological base that must do so. Defeats or victories in major geopolitical operations such as the “Arab Spring” have direct consequences for changing the balance of power. This raises the question of how the liberal world will regain the interventionist concept against enemies who have respectable armies.
The Western world is mostly culturally liberal, while its executive power is increasingly mercenary, serving that world but not sharing common values ​​with it. The earlier conservative base from most of the 20th century was spent, and mass armies in the colonial wars showed problems of stability of a society fighting for unjust goals, so professional and mercenary armies remained the only acceptable model. The problem arises in the correlation of the technological base and the human factor, whose role is still significant. Recently, G. Britain, the country that first introduced tanks into use during the First World War, made the decision to deprive them and direct resources in another field, primarily the massive drone army. This act seems pragmatic, because recent battlefields have proven that even small forces on the ground, if they have complete air superiority, can defeat an enemy who will receive blows and sooner or later kneel down, so the issue of offensive power is mostly air superiority. The professional armies of the European Union and various corporations fighting under the guise of intelligence services can carry out interventions and special operations in much of Africa that civilization level is still low, but when it comes to a growing number of medium-sized countries gaining more respectable and more respectable armies, the circle of possible interventions is narrowing. Therefore, it is not surprising that a large part of the world rushed for drone technologies, swarms and all other “toys” that need to overcome the air defense shield of the country they are attacking. And while we saw Turkish drones melt Armenian forces, in the case of Syria, except for strikes from a distance outside the air defense zone, we did not see anything similar except at times, because the country has adequate air defense means that prevent deep penetrations of aviation and drones.

geopolitics-00769
Richard Browning launched himself from Britain’s largest aircraft carrier during the ship’s visit to Annapolis last November. (Dan Pendleton Photography)

One of the main factors in the failure of the entire “Arab Spring” operation was that the organizers calculated that a large combination of all factors would lead to such pressure that the goal would be achieved. In the field of special operations, the media war, the Western world showed exceptional qualities, but in this case they were obviously not enough because in the end it was decided by naked force. However, the wars on M. East is slowly coming to an end, what about other parts of the world?
And if it is completely clear that no EU country, not even their synergistic action in a purely military sense, can not intervene or defeat countries in the rank of Syria, Iran, Venezuela and similar potential targets, they can  contribute to a new technological level, which they do. However, when it comes to large-scale operations such as the “Arab Spring”, there is no question that anything can be done without the United States, which, according to some analysts, should try to regain leadership. Without military operations, of course, that will be impossible. Given that, except for America, all the countries of the Western hemisphere have small armies in terms of expeditionary power, we come to the point where the technological base must surpass  human factors on higher level. This will certainly result in more and more professional and mercenary armies, which of course will have and already has consequences, just like in ancient Rome, on the correlation of the system and the army. However, the only way out of prolonging the interventionist concept in relation to the evolutionary path of Western societies lies in the growing robotization of armies. The crucial question here is whether the technological base will provide an interventionist model at neuralgic points or will it lag behind the processes of multipolarism when it comes to Third World countries, which potentially can be targets it remains to be seen.