For better or worse, let us be clear: Russia and Georgia are the last subjects of international relations at the moment that have waged a conventional war.

 

What are the reasons for this exceptional character of the Russian-Georgian War?

 

First of all, the breakdown of the world colonial system led to a large extent to the expansion of intrastate conflicts, both internationalized and non-internationalized, driven by the national liberation struggle, as well as the cold war confrontation. That is why after World War II the number of interstate conflicts has consistently diminished.

 

Second, despite the precedents of the use of military force against another state - not for the purposes of self-defense - without the UN Security Council authorization, the restraints of waging war against the other state the UN Charter have established has been significant.

 

Third, it is no exaggeration to say that in the course of the Cold War, the UN Security Council was merely aimed at preventing a large-scale war between the Soviet Union and the USA. However, as a result, the conflict potential showed in the world periphery as intrastate proxy wars. Thus, if the conflict is intrastate, it means that at least one counterpart does not represent the state and its structures.

 

Fourth - it is worth referring to the notion of one of the leading American war historians Max Boot - the "hit-and-run" tactics has been practiced in a primitive society prove very effective. The West has been maintaining an absolute military domination for a long time simply because other countries have been trying to emulate them by creating armies, Central Commands, standardized uniforms, signing international conventions on the rules of warfare. Under these circumstances, the West armed with much better weapons had been easily maintaining its preponderance. While a guerilla warfare, Boot notes, "even if unsuccessful, might have staved off ultimate defeat for years, if not decades, and inflicted considerable costs on the invaders [1].

 

The Americans got stuck in the Iraqi and Afghan wars precisely because they faced a guerilla war after the occupation had been accomplished. Francis Fukuyama, a distinguished philosopher and sociologist, therefore, wrote: "The success of American military technology during the 1990s created the illusion that military intervention would always be as clean or cheap as the Gulf or Kosovo wars. The Iraq war has clearly demonstrated the limits of this form of light, mobile warfare: it can defeat virtually any existing conventional military force, but it provides no special advantages in fighting a prolonged insurgency" [2].

 

For almost five years, the world has not seen any war between the states, but will that change in the future? Even if we presume that the military intervention in Syria is going to take place - which is least possible - this is not going to be a war between the regime of Asad on one hand and another state on the other hand. One of the counterparts are still going to be insurgents, both volunteers, and mercenaries and, criminal actors. That is why the war in Libya cannot supersede those five days in August on the "podium" of the history. Let us presume that the Iranian nuclear programm's issue will be resolved with the use of force, it is still impossible to rule out a "third party". An eventual war between both Koreas is the next possible conventional war.

 

It is obvious that the difficulty of waging war against the guerillas are increasingly acknowledged by political leaders of many countries. Terrorists, insurgents, and guerillas unwittingly contribute to the development of military technology. In particular, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, both surveillance and combat, increases constantly in frequency. As part of the troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and reducing defense costs, President Obama gave the order to increase tenfold the frequency of launching the drones [3]. The German minister of defense Thomas de Maizière has repeatedly stated the intention to acquire combat drones for Germany, as well as to develop own models [4].

 

The need to combat the insurgents, as well as the use of new military technologies will inevitably run against the restraints of international law. Hence, the intentions to revise or - much likely - to violate it will grow. That is, the civilized society will increasingly tend to sporadic "hit-and-run raids" in order to reduce costs and casualties. Back to the roots, indeed!

 

 

[1] Boot M. The Evolution of the Irregular Warfare // Foreign Affairs. – 2013. - №2. P. 107.

[2] Fukuyama F. America at the Crossroads. Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. Yale University Press, 2006. P. 36.

[3] Braml J. Der amerikanische Patient: Was der drohende Kollaps der USA für die Welt bedeutet (Kindle Edition). München, Siedler Verlag, 2012.

[4] See: Самоловов И. Бундесвер перейдёт к боевым беспилотникам? - URL: /blogs/eu/?id_4=319.