Asymmetric warfare

The term “asymmetric conflict” was coined in 1975 by international scholar Andrew Mack , known as “Why Great Powers Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict.” The author discussed the causes of the paradoxical defeat of major powers and noted the following factors:

• loss of political will to continue the war;
• a complex of asymmetric relations between opponents, determined, in particular, by the logic of total war for the weak side and limited war for the strong side;
• application of asymmetric fighting strategies ( Partisan War );
• the influence of non-military factors (domestic, social, international).

Thus, following the logic of Andrew Mack , the essence of asymmetric conflict can be defined as follows: "the political defeat of a great power in a war against a knowingly weaker opponent, when superiority in military power does not guarantee victory and under certain conditions can even be counterproductive." ^[one]

Back in 2000, US Secretary of Defense William Cohen noted the existence of a “superpower paradox,” which means that no country can directly challenge the United States , but can pose an indirect threat through asymmetric conflicts, such as the threat of using biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. In this case, asymmetric conflict means a situation where a weak player threatens to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the civilian population of another country. So, after the events of 9/11 in the USA, the term “asymmetric threats” is used in relation to international terrorism, as well as in case of danger of terrorists gaining access to WMD.

Another example of the expression of asymmetry is the Iraq War (2003). The coalition of Western countries could not end the war in accordance with the original plans, and hostilities went into a guerrilla war. Indeed, the power capabilities of the adversaries are incommensurable, a clear imbalance of their statuses and tactics of military operations is revealed. It is important to note that guerrilla wars under occupation or colonial rule, national liberation movements were classified as asymmetric conflicts in the 1960s.

Key Features

1. The unpredictability of the outcome with the apparent disproportion of power capabilities and statuses of the warring parties;
2. Use by the weak participant of the strategy of searching for “weaknesses of the strong”;
3. The appeal of the weak side to the prohibited means of warfare ;
4. The tactics of "indirect" military operations used by the weak side;
5. The inability of the strong side to defend its position and reliably crush the weak.

Thus, asymmetry characterizes paradoxical conflict situations in which a strong adversary is not able to defend himself and achieve victory over a weak one. In most such conflicts, a weak adversary is not able to win a military victory over a strong one. Nevertheless, the first, as a rule, manages to impose on the second a favorable (weak) type of the course of the conflict. In this sense, the weak imposes his will on the strong and thus achieves a political victory, for which, in fact, force is used from the point of view of the classical definition of war. ^[2]

The desire to take into account the specifics of asymmetric conflicts was, first of all, that the states sought to modify the strategy of military operations, taking into account the peculiarities of the struggle against relatively weak opponents.

The following trends prevailed:

1. Development of scenarios of direct military clashes of a limited scale ( local wars , low-intensity conflicts );
2. Preparation of the armed forces for warfare by small contingents of specially trained troops;
3. Conducting preventive actions against irregular units and the use of intelligence and intelligence networks;
4. Implementation of measures to ensure contact with the local population, under the slogans of protection of which the weaker adversary acts, as well as the provision of military and material support to groups of their supporters in local society;
5. Limiting the scale of military operations and the transition to non-military methods of exerting pressure on a weak enemy. ^[3]

American analysts say the need to expand the meaning of the term “asymmetry” and highlight differences in values, organization and goals, and not just in methods and technologies. ^[4] Often, along with the term “asymmetric conflict”, the term “asymmetric war” is used, however, the use of the terms “conflict” and “war” as synonyms is unlawful. The second term is narrower, the conflict does not always flow into war.

In addition, many researchers who deal with problems of asymmetric conflicts are confident that its subjects are states, on the one hand, and non-state actors, on the other. That is, in their opinion, the interstate conflict cannot be asymmetric, thus, wars (or conflicts) between strong and weak states are symmetrical, that is, traditional.

According to a number of opinions, examples of asymmetric wars are:

• The Scarlet and White Rose War .
• The Hundred Years War (periods from 1360 to 1369 .., 1396-1415 .. and from 1422 to 1429 ..).
• The Pyrenees wars of the beginning of the XIX century, when the Spanish side without an army and government successfully neutralized the invincible war machine of the Napoleonic Empire .
• Caucasian war
• Revolutionary terrorism in the Russian Empire ^[5]
• The People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia
• War of Independence of Algeria ^[6]
• The war in Vietnam ^[6]
• Afghan war (1979-1989) ^[7] - according to other sources, Dushmans switched to an asymmetric war in 1982 ^[8]
• The first Chechen war ^[7] - according to other sources, does not apply to asymmetric wars ^[8]
• The second Chechen war ^[7] - according to other sources, the militants switched to an asymmetric war in 2006 ^[8]
• War in Afghanistan (since 2001) ^{[6] [8]}
• Iraq war ^{[6] [7] [8]}
• Lebanon Second War ^{[7] [9]}
• Islamist terrorism in the North Caucasus ^[8]
• Operation Cast Lead ^[9]

• Dergilazova L. V. Asymmetric Conflict in Contemporary American Political Science - International Processes Journal. No. 2. 2002
• Deriglazova L.V. Paradox of asymmetry in international conflict. - Journal "International Processes" No. 3 (9). 2005
• Deriglazova L.V. The concept of asymmetry in the theory and practice of international relations. March 16. 2006.
• Clausewitz K. background. About war. M .: Eksmo, 2003.
• Teteryuk A. S., Chizhevsky Y. A. Asymmetric conflicts in the theory of international relations: modern aspects of study. - Comparative policy. No. 4 (21). 2015.
• Arreguin-Toft I. How the Weak Wins Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. June 1. 2005.
• Stepanova E. Terrorism in Asymmetrical Conflict: Ideological and Structural Aspects. SIPRI Research Report No. 23. 2008