Search

The article discusses research about the factors that contributed to the change in military art during the early 21st century. Topics mentioned include the techniques of military leadership, methods of combat actions, practice of preparing and conducting warfare, and definition of war, armed struggle, military art, military science, and theory of operational art and struggle.

The article discusses battlespace, cyberspace and information environment and their relationship within the context of combat actions conducted by military formations. Other topics examined include efforts to conduct military operations in cyberspace, turning a division in U.S. army as a tactical high-precision weapon with electronic and computer capabilities, capabilities needed to defend against hacker attacks. Also mentioned are implications of these tactical military developments.

The article discusses how the Russian military theory was formed, as well as the concerns regarding its development that occurred at various times, even at the present stage. The authors note that first attempts at the systematization of military science knowledge stored on the military history of Russia were recorded in the 9th-10th centuries, and that its military history is connected to its continued participation in wars, armed clashes and conflicts.

The article sets out a broad idea of "form of military combat actions" as a category, its substance and significance for the theory and practice of military art and weapons development. It offers a methodology for defining forms in which Russia's troops are employed in different conditions. It also defines the modern meaning of "form of military combat actions" as that of an organizational ground work of troops employment.

The article presents the views of the author on ways to define forms of military actions, as well as on the article "Methodological Recommendations for Defining Forms of Military (Combat) Actions," by M.G. Valeyev, N.L. Romas and A.V. Belomytsev in the first issue of "Voyennaya Mysl'" for 2012. The author explains that the methodology used in defining forms of military actions is based on the dialectics of content and form, and on relations between content and how military actions are fought.

The article investigates the forms, existing ways and methods of interaction in operations by groups of troops in strategic sectors which determine the success of combat operations. It discusses two stages implied by the traditional approach to organizing interaction to control and command formations in preparing operations. It also cites several faults of the existing form of organizing interaction that lies in work by principal officers in a given locality.

The article offers suggestions on creating a systemic way of describing certain conditions which will allow the Russian Federation's (RF) military forces to act more effectively. It cites research which claims that the existing terminology is inefficient and non-systematic, and suggested to affect the military's ability to understand and respond. An example is the lack of a single term for describing guerrilla forces. It suggests further study to create a specific set of words or terms which will more accurately describe various conditions.