|The Distinction of the Combat: Enemy and Competitor Nation based Opposition
Excerpt from Youve Been Briefed: A Collection of Strategic Thought Essays available at the following link http://stores.lulu.com/TJonesStore
Enemy/competitor opposing force distinction:
Opposing forces that articulate their opposition through diplomatic and military related initiatives must be meticulously studied in order to assess the strategic premise and diplomatic realities of their existence.
Enemy/ Opposing Force Distinction-This distinction is given to enemies of a particular nation/state. While nations work tirelessly to facilitate the demise of their enemies through shrewd acts that are both covert and overt in nature, enemy nations are willing to risk exponential increases in civilian casualties to accomplish their objectives. In modern times, enemy nations have opted for initiatives that are based on asymmetrical warfare and strategic use of terrorist affiliated insurgent groups. Russia is a perfect example of an enemy/opposing force that is dedicated to achieving its goal, which is to regain the superpower status she enjoyed in the past. There are those who would suggest that I am out of line by suggesting that Russia is capable of facilitating terrorist attacks as a strategy to supplant Americas global dominance. Lets take a look at historical facts:
Opposing forces that articulate and exemplify their opposition in a diplomatic and military manner must be analyzed and assessed by the strategic premise and diplomatic realities of their existence at the time of their opposition.
The analysis suggested in the above quote should lead us to a thorough assessment of volatile region specific climates that are ripe for war due to the current age of proliferation that threatens to reduce Russia to nuclear storage region due to the ascension of China and influential nuclear and non nuclear nation/states like North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. The rise of these nations has made their inclusion or future inclusion to the society of nations with nuclear weapons making capabilities, highly probable and the risk of war inevitable due to Russias irresponsible actions in regards to rewarding the provocative actions of rogue and terror sponsoring nations. These factors have facilitated the following scenarios:
1. Russia is forced to strengthen their proxy war relationships with rogue and state sponsors of terrorism in order to expand their influence to regions of strategic importance economically and militarily. Russia currently faces the threat of experiencing a dramatic reduction in their regional and global standing due to an era of nuclear proliferation that has spiraled out of control. This proliferation threatens Russia?s strategic initiatives that are geared towards regaining their past prominence as a global superpower.
2. Russia is currently using its strategic relationship with China to facilitate military intervention based flashpoint factors that will stretch the defenses of America. Russia and China hope that European nations will remain unaware of the consequences of this indecisiveness concerning their support of America, as Russia?s insurgency fatality related proxy war strategy does not bode well for the European nations hopes for peace.
3. The continuity of a Russia/China alliance will allow them to utilize oversight authority over proxy war subordinate nuclear nations (North Korea) with a limited means of dispersal capability and non nuclear nations who can be used to stretch the defenses of America and its allies. These nations can also be used to launch provocative actions that will facilitate an American based preparatory warfare commitment to deploy forces, equipment and materials to region specific areas across the globe.
*Note- Issue number one proves that Russia is capable of obtaining benefits from the terrorist acts of state sponsors of terrorism and the various fundamentalist/insurgent groups they hold significant influence over in regards to command and control. The fact that Russia would make a commitment to share nuclear technology with a state sponsor of terrorism without demanding that they sever ties with the terrorist groups they have ties with, suggests that Russia has decided to give their ruthless inclinations free rein. It should be noted that by making this decision, Russia will benefit from their rogue and terror sponsoring proxy war subordinate?s asymmetrical and terrorist capabilities. The fact that Russia has formed this type of strategic alliance suggests that they plan to survive the current age of proliferation with their global standing in tact or increased at any cost.
The Russia/China relationship will not last beyond the next 10 years. Russia?s desperation has made them react in a manner unworthy of their internationally viable stature. The fact that Russia has resorted to assisting a stat