In his hearing by the Defense Committee of the National Assembly, General Facon, commander of the Army doctrine and command center, emphasized the necessary awareness for the French and allied armies, as for the politicians who control them, return of the probability of massive engagement between technological states, called high-intensity engagement. He supported his demonstration with examples concerning engagements in Syria, Iraq and especially in the Donbass, where Ukrainian forces have been confronting secessionist forces equipped with men and equipment by the Russian authorities for 4 years.
For those who regularly follow the publications of this site, the declaration of the French general officer will not come as a surprise. Indeed, for several years, countries like Russia and China have significantly evolved their armed forces and their doctrines to be able to gain the advantage over Western forces in the event of armed conflict. This effort is characterized by a strengthening of conventional armies, the modernization of equipment, the increase in exercises and training maneuvers, and the development of new technologies and weapon systems intended to gain a decisive advantage over the adversary, in this case the American forces and their allies. Among these technologies, we can cite access denial technologies, such as the S400 system and the future S500 anti-aircraft, and the anti-ship bastion system, hypersonic weapons like the Kinjhal and Zircon missile, or long-range air-to-air missiles like the R37M. At the same time, conventional forces are being strengthened so as to establish a positive balance of power, in terms of armored forces for Russia, and naval forces for China. Finally, the two countries focused their efforts on strengthening their nuclear deterrent forces, with new ballistic missiles and hypersonic atmospheric re-entry gliders.
At the same time, Western countries remained focused on their interventions in the Levant and sub-Saharan Africa, and the armies were still facing the inertia of the "benefits of Peace" which had the sole virtue of disorganizing a significant part of the defense capabilities of European countries.
In France, the White Paper on Defense of 2013, but also the Strategic Review of 2017, and even the LPM 2018-2025 are borrowed from these paradigms ignoring, or wanting to ignore, the reality of global geostrategic developments. Totally ignored by the White Paper, which nevertheless is still the framework document for the organization of National Defense, the "high intensity" risk is addressed at a minimum by the Strategic Review, and the LPM concentrates the increase in Defense resources to be recapitalized French projection forces, heavy combat forces, such as battle tanks, armored self-propelled artillery, combat helicopters or bombing aviation, being addressed at a minimum by national investments.
The French case is, unfortunately, not isolated in Europe. The majority of Western Europeans have no perception of the increased risk of conflict and, in fact, the same goes for their political representatives. In Belgium, a significant part of the political class is questioning the need to replace the F16s of the Belgian aviation, considering the costs of acquiring a new aircraft too high, in view of the social needs of the country. In Germany, the SPD allied with Angela Merkel's CDU firmly opposed a massive increase in defense funding for an army which nevertheless desperately needs it, and which is in much greater demand than we would like to admit. believe. The new populist Italian government has already announced that it would reduce defense funding to 1,3% of the country's GDP, far from the 2% target imposed by NATO in 2025.
It is therefore not surprising that the countries of Eastern Europe, the most exposed to high-intensity risk, such as the countries of the Pacific Rim (Japan, South Korea, Australia), are at the forefront. both those who are increasing their defense efforts the most, and those who are most seeking to get closer to American protection, perceived as the only credible alternative.
However, in the United States too, awareness is only recent and the observation is bitter. After 30 years of reckless spending on obscure technological programs, American forces are also largely under-capacity, and very exposed to the risk of high-intensity combat. Whether it is the poor performance of its artillery and its close anti-aircraft defense for the Army, the low availability of Air Force and Naval Air aircraft, or the extraordinary forgetfulness replacement of the OH Perry anti-submarine frigates, US military capabilities are far below the minimum level required to be able to face a major conflict on two fronts. In a recent report, the US Navy even admitted that she doubts she will be able to provide a logistical bridgeto Europe if the need arises. In time for US protection…
In fact, today, it is the West as a whole which is becoming aware of its present vulnerability to this risk of conflict. Worse, despite this, the corrective actions undertaken do not allow us to envisage a return to the balance of forces before 2040, with a peak in vulnerability between 2030 and 2035. This is the reason why, like General Facon did it, and General Lecointre before him, or as General Mattis does in the United States, it is urgent and essential to create an electric shock among political authorities to take stock of the risk incurred, and quickly initiate an action plan aimed at moderating its effects.