Clausewitz Research Articles

SOCIO-PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF MODERN IV WORLD HYBRID WAR

The article is devoted to the socio-philosophical analysis of the types of modern hybrid war, their main characteristics, the disclosure of the factors that influence these modern types of wars. The opinion regarding global transformations in the political, economic and technological spheres is substantiated, which led to the need to revise the concept of K. von Clausewitz. It has been proven that today’s war has its differences from previous wars, its typology, color and methods of conduct; the concept of "modern war" is considered and the modern understanding of war as hybrid is given, the types of modern hybrid war are highlighted. The role of technology, technology and science in modern hybrid war is revealed; justified, due to which the modern military picture of the world is formed.

Determinations of the Strategic Military Actions on Economic Actions in the Conditions of Information Technology and Nonlinear Warfare

Abstract In this article, we refer to the impact of strategic military actions on the economic domain, in the context of nonlinear warfare, hybrid warfare, and the use of information technology, focused and based on the conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, triggered in February 2022. Initially, the war seemed to be a blitzkrieg strategy, but in reality, the special military operation of the Russian Federation was a secondary component of the generalized economic warfare led by the BRICS countries against Western economies. Thus, the military action is essentially attrition-based with limited military objectives and more spatial conquests in the critical infrastructure zones of maritime and energy transport. It interesting and represents a novelty the comparison between the classical theory of war of the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz and the doctrine of nonlinear warfare of the Russian general Valery Gerasimov, which highlights the transition from classical and conventional kinetic warfare to other modern forms of unconventional conflict (economic, political, diplomatic, psychological). The concept of fourth-generation warfare emphasizes the use of technique and technology, promoting flexibility and adaptability on a large scale, while the fifth-generation war, currently ongoing between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, is a continuation at another level and focuses on indirect actions and strategic economic objectives, expanding the battlefield much more into the virtual and psychological space. The article offers a comprehensive analysis of how modern warfare combines different domains to achieve strategic objectives in an increasingly interdependent world and provides an integrated perspective on its evolution, emphasizing the need for complex and multidimensional approaches.

O analiză comparată a teoriilor militare ale lui Clausewitz și Liddell Hart și a aplicabilității acestora în războiul modern: perspective din Sri Lanka și Ucraina

The celebrated idea of Prussian war strategist Carl von Clausewitz regarding conventional warfare played a dominant role up to the First World War in the West. In his seminal work “On War”, Clausewitz posits: “If you want to overcome your enemy, you must match your efforts against the power of resistance!” In a way, his idea was akin to annihilating the enemy’s army in major battles. However, this idea was challenged by British military strategist Basil Henry Liddell Hart in his book, titled “The Strategy”, by proposing a different military theory called “Indirect Approach”. The objective of this paper is based on making a comparative analysis between Clausewitz and Liddell Hart regarding the utility of their military theories in modern warfare. While taking a methodology based on a comparative analysis of the utility of the two doctrines, this paper explores the effectiveness of those military strategies against the current asymmetries in modern warfare. To buttress the reliability of this research, the examples from the Ukrainian war and the Sri Lankan civil war between 1990 and 2009 will be examined. The main objectivity of this paper lies in creating a novel discussion on the merits and demerits of Clausewitz and Basil Liddell Hart’s theories of war in contemporary warfare. The results emerging from this research will demonstrate the relevance of re-reading both Clausewitz and Liddell Hart in an era where the orthodox idea of warfare is at stake.

A Comparative Analysis of Clausewitz and Liddell Hart’s Military Theories and their Applicability in Modern Warfare: Insights from Sri Lanka and Ukraine

The celebrated idea of Prussian war strategist Carl von Clausewitz regarding conventional warfare played a dominant role up to the First World War in the West. In his seminal work “On War”, Clausewitz posits: “If you want to overcome your enemy, you must match your efforts against the power of resistance!” In a way, his idea was akin to annihilating the enemy’s army in major battles. However, this idea was challenged by British military strategist Basil Henry Liddell Hart in his book, titled “The Strategy”, by proposing a different military theory called “Indirect Approach”. The objective of this paper is based on making a comparative analysis between Clausewitz and Liddell Hart regarding the utility of their military theories in modern warfare. While taking a methodology based on a comparative analysis of the utility of the two doctrines, this paper explores the effectiveness of those military strategies against the current asymmetries in modern warfare. To buttress the reliability of this research, the examples from the Ukrainian war and the Sri Lankan civil war between 1990 and 2009 will be examined. The main objectivity of this paper lies in creating a novel discussion on the merits and demerits of Clausewitz and Basil Liddell Hart’s theories of war in contemporary warfare. The results emerging from this research will demonstrate the relevance of re-reading both Clausewitz and Liddell Hart in an era where the orthodox idea of warfare is at stake.

Shrewdness and Coup d’œil: The Cognitive Attributes of the Consummate General (Greek Antiquity, Byzantine Era, Modern Times)

Abstract This article tests Everett Wheeler’s hypothesis that the Greek concept of ankhínoia finds its equivalent in the 18th-century military writers’ notion of the coup d’oeil by comparing treatises on the art of war written in the two periods. After highlighting the different meanings of the coup d’oeil in 18th -century military terminology, Carl von Clausewitz’s approach is examined in his new conceptual way.

Carl von Clausewitz and Foucault on war and power

ABSTRACT Carl von Clausewitz's political theory of war was the source of many disagreements over readings of its most popular theses. Foucault viewed it as part of a broader political-legal discourse of sovereignty, which underlies modern biopower. Foucault's contemporary commentators try to develop his position by arguing the analogy between the discourse prevailing in Clausewitz's time and the contemporary neoliberal discourse and technological revolution on the battlefield, which create a new order of power. However, postmodernists focusing on showy stylistics in their assessments rely on a mythologized narrative about Clausewitz, reducing his theories to a discourse of war as a way for nation-states to conduct foreign policy. In this article, Clausewitz shows that his theory goes much deeper and provides a critical perspective on the relationship between war and politics. The dialectical structure makes it possible to understand war as a historically variable but constantly policy-dependent phenomenon.

Escalation of armed violence: the problem of the limit

The article, based on the mimetic model of military activity, examines the problem of the escalation of armed violence. The author identifies constructive mimesis, aimed at strengthening of social solidarity, and destructive mimesis, which can be regarded as a source of escalation of violence. For the classic of military theory Carl von Clausewitz the limit of violence acts as a speculative figure, but in the nuclear era the absolute maximum of violence received clear empirical contours. The article analyzes escalation ladders, the final step of which is the large-scale war using nuclear weapons. It is concluded that modern reflection on armed violence includes the phenomenon of the limit as its integral horizon; it is further connected with the search for tools for self-limitation of military activity.

Рене Жирар, нигилизм постправды и эскалация насильственной неразличимости

Today’s cluster of geopolitical threats are helpfully addressed by the mimetic theory of René Girard. He accounts for human order and stability in light of cathartic violence preserved in socio-religious form, enabling the peaceful management of desire and the restraint of violent disorder. The challenge to this mechanism represented by Judeo-Christian revelation offers a nonviolent alternative vision but also brings the threat of instability, which has returned in modern times — an insight that Girard identifies in Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Carl von Clausewitz. In phenomena such as fake news and political populism, the culture wars in which Western self-aggrandisement is matched by its cultural self-laceration, the climate crisis, and the potential escalation to extremes of modern military conflict, the pathologies of mimetic desire threaten humanity with apocalyptic consequences.

Hermann von Boyen the Elder and his Impact on the Prussian Army After 1815

Author of Hermann von Boyen's biography, Friedrich Meinecke stated that the contributions of Prussian twice (1815–1819 and 1841–1847) Minister of War to the military theory were almost completely forgotten. Despite the existence of many thousands of manuscript pages, this opinion is still considered valid to this day. The chief architect of the Landwehr system was also the founder of the concept of the ‘defence system’, crucial to understanding Prussian military thought in the first half of the nineteenth century. This idea influenced, in my opinion, the way of thinking about warfare within the Prussian Army far more than the Carl von Clausewitz's Vom Kriege.

Out of the Shadows: Ukraine and the Shock of Non-Hybrid War

Abstract For two decades, a large body of security practitioners and scholars axiomatically expected “future war” to be ambiguous and hybrid, based on recent cases. The scale and overt form of the Russia–Ukraine war, which begun on February 22, 2022, demonstrates the limits of this orthodoxy. This article asks why informed opinion fell prey to such false expectations. It argues that as well as the pathologies of fashion in military-academic circles, there was an intellectual failure. Those who confidently expected war to remain in the shadows did not take seriously enough war’s political nature, and the possibility that it will intensify as political stakes rise. Either they assumed apolitically that war’s form was determined by the tools of globalization, or that the politics would be of the status quo, whereby the stability of the unipolar era would endure. Paying lip service to Carl von Clausewitz, in fact, they were unwittingly channeling Francis Fukuyama. To demonstrate this failure, I examine three representative texts of the genre and unpack their assumptions, by David Richards, Antoine Bousquet, and Sean McFate.

Geniuses Dare to Ride Their Luck: Clausewitz’s Card Game Analogies

Scholars have been using the wrong card games to analyze Carl von Clausewitz’s analogies in On War, which has led to errors in understanding his ideas. This article identifies the games Clausewitz discusses, allowing for a more accurate interpretation of his original meaning for the study of war. Since Clausewitz’s ideas underpin strategy development within service education systems, it is critical his ideas are fully understood in context.

Dialectics and the Problem of Freedom in On War

Through this contribution, it is reflected on the dialectics of Carl von Clausewitz in conjunction with the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel – in particular, his insights regarding the relationship between the lord and the bondsman. Understanding war through this relationship is significant to understand the opposites through their predicates and in their unity. Then, each party in opposition is implied in the other; they are not to be understood as fixed entities situated in a dualistic juxtaposition. Together with his dialectics, Clausewitz’s historicism is fundamental to educe the notion of freedom from his work. He emphasises the singularity of any war, in the sense that it is being a social interaction contingent on the social milieu that it takes place. This corresponds also to the absolving of the commander from the doctrinal manuals on war drawn up with respect to wars that happened in the past and that approach them as if they were merely technical and military matters. His elaboration on war provides the scope for a commander to assert the subjectivity he constitutes through his insights into the objective world he acts within. Clausewitz’s method indicates that his theory possesses a discernible universal essence, thus, his work is relevant not only to understand the wars of the era that he lived in but also the contemporary ones.

Reading Clausewitz: On War for 21st-century Practitioners

Carl von Clausewitz’s classic work On War illuminates the practical value of approaching war on a theoretical basis, the relationship between war and policy, and the demands that war’s nature imposes on both civilian and military leaders. This essay places familiar passages of the treatise in context and sheds light on how On War still informs matters of utmost importance to today’s policymakers and their civilian and military advisers. By approaching On War as an inquiry into war and its inherent tensions, twenty-first-century national-security practitioners can cultivate an awareness and sensitivity essential to the military planning and advising that they undertake.

The Invisible Enemy: From Metaphor to Concept

The problem, the solution of which this article is devoted to, is related to the lack of special studies of the concept of “invisible enemy” in political philosophy. Existing theoretical works do not pay enough attention to this concept. Its metaphorical use fails to make explicit all of its potential and importance for political philosophy. As “invisible enemies” only in the metaphorical sense of this term can be regarded objects that have a non-anthropogenic nature (viruses, bacteria, sources of disease), as well as extraneous elements of the political body that have destructive potential. The analysis carried out revealed two semantic areas of using the concept of “invisible enemies”, relevant to political philosophy, and namely physical and symbolic invisibility. The physical invisibility, which is regarded in the works by Сarl von Clausewitz, Сarl Schmitt, Zygmunt Bauman, Grégoire Chamayou and others, belongs to enemies on the battlefield or to remote warfare. Russian philosophers look at this concept from an ethical perspective (Vladimir Solovyov, Lev Karsavin, Nikolai Berdyaev, Fyodor Stepun). The author of the article substantiates the thesis about the situational and relative nature of the phenomenon of the invisible enemy, associated with reaching the limit of perceptual indistinguishability. The physical invisibility of the enemy is caused by the appropriation of new war spaces in which vertical dimensions are established. Arguing with the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the author uses this concept not only in relation to the irregular fighters (partisans), but also in relation to modern combatants. The ways of acquisition of the symbolic invisibility are revealed in the works of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Carl Schmitt. It is based on the transfer of the war actor to a different semantic field, in which it is depoliticized and re-symbolized as a civilian object.

War in Ukraine and Enduring Relevance of the Clausewitzian Theory

The article discusses selected theoretical and practical problems of the ongoing Russian Ukrainian war since 2014 from the perspective of Carl von Clausewitz’s political theory of war. It argues, first, that defining the first phase of the conflict as “hybrid war” on theoretical grounds is an unnecessary exercise that obscures the methodologically important difference between war and peace. Second, despite technological innovations, the concepts of “fog of war” and “friction” remain relevant. Third, the current phase of the conflict shows that the spontaneous and grassroots involvement of citizens in the war was a transitional phenomenon that became subordinated to central command structures. It also shows that from the perspective of Clausewitz’s theory, Russia’s strategic failure in the first part of the second phase of the conflict is completely understandable.

Сущность и причины войн в социал-демократической мысли XX−XXI веков

This article deals with the problem of war and peace in the works of representatives of the social democratic thought of the 20th and 21st centuries. The focus is on the works of Marxists (K. Kautsky, A. Bebel, R. Luxemburg, F. Mehring, G.V. Plekhanov) and neo-Marxist I. Wallerstein, as well as their opponents: realists (C. von Clausewitz, R. Aron, and others) and supporter of liberal idealism W. Wilson, as well as on some studies of contemporary authors. Much attention is paid to defining the essence of wars, their causes, ways to achieve peace, and ideas about the ideal world order. Further, the evolution of social democratic theory on the issue of war and peace in the 20th century is traced. The views of Marxist theorists are compared with those of representatives of other areas of the science of international relations. It is concluded that socialist theory, which is based on the understanding of the essence of war laid down in the works of the founders of Marxism and has much in common with the realist school, has evolved towards liberalism in matters of peace and post-war world order. At the same time, it made a significant contribution to the theory of international relations and not only became the basis for neo-Marxism, but also enriched political realism and liberalism as well as modern science in general with some conclusions. Works of researchers of the 21st century develop and summarize the most important conclusions on war and peace made by representatives of Marxism and other schools of the theory of international relations, which indicates the aspiration of the world scientific community to solve this global problem through joint efforts.

Effective strategies against COVID-19 and the importance of infection sequelae.

COVID-19 is a serious threat to human health and development. The acute burden of the pandemic includes more than 18.2 million deaths worldwide, and is unprecedented in modern times. This represents only a fraction of the total burden, as it excludes infection sequelae. An effective global strategic paradigm has been missing throughout the pandemic. The 'flattening the curve' approach neglected the importance of infection sequelae, and being centered on healthcare capacity was conceptually contrary to a people-centered health system. In March 2022, the World Health Organization revised its pandemic approach, importantly shifting emphasis away from managing transmission and towards prevention. Despite limitations, this now recognizes the role of infection sequelae, whose impact is becoming clearer in both variety and scale. Drawing on the foundational concepts of Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz, most country approaches do not qualify as strategies, but rather as operational plans. They are also largely ineffective, neglecting infection sequelae, viral evolution dangers and other parameters. The purpose of this article is to summarize the evidence on COVID-19 infection sequelae, and alongside other contextual parameters use this to motivate that infection should be prevented. This is then used to answer the question: What is an effective strategy against COVID-19?

Some Existential Reflections on Self-Determination in the Conditions of the War

Although any war is a "continuation of politics by other means" (Karl von Clausewitz), the article examines the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war from the point of view of existentialist philosophy as a philosophy of human crises. The Russian-Ukrainian war actualizes the forgotten existentialist ideas of choice, situation, freedom, duty, responsibility in the context of individual and collective self-determination. In the article such philosophers as Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Karl Jaspers, are analyzed from existentialist ideas. War destroys a person's life world, and therefore it must resist such destruction. Russia's war against Ukraine is seen as the destruction of the individual and collective existence of Ukraine. The resistance of Ukrainians is resistance to this destruction, and this resistance gives a new, relevant meaning to coexistence based on the solidarity of all Ukrainians. Therefore, Ukraine is constituted as Res-Publica, i.e. as a "common case", "being-in-common" (Jean-Luc Nancy).

Improving Maneuver Warfighting with Antoine-Henri Jomini: Warfighting Functions, the Single Battle Concept, and Interior Lines

After distilling 2,500 years of military thought, particularly that of Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, and U.S. Air Force colonel John R. Boyd, Warfighting, Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication (MCDP) 1, does a remarkable job describing war and a warfighting philosophy. Noticeably absent in this document, however, are the ideas of Swiss military theorist Antoine-Henri Jomini. More importantly, Warfighting contains three interrelated gaps, namely identifying the significance of the seven warfighting functions, describing the importance of warfighting function integration, and explaining warfighting function integration in terms relative to an enemy. Consequently, Warfighting conveys a nonholistic approach to war and, consequently, articulates an incomplete warfighting philosophy. When applied within a modern context, however, contextualizing Jomini’s theory of war offers a solution to each of these gaps. Therefore, the U.S. Marine Corps should amend Warfighting to include equal emphasis on all warfighting functions, utilization of the single battle concept to explain the importance of integrating all warfighting functions to achieve a desired end state, and adoption of Jominian interior-exterior lines framework to describe warfighting function integration in relative terms to an enemy. Failure to do so invites an inability for maneuverists to achieve greater tempo and create combined arms dilemmas in the twenty-first century.

International Law Issues of Cyber Defense

International Law Issues of Cyber Defense