The Impact of Modern Wars on Mılıtary-Doctrınal Documents
Abstract
Purpose. To substantiate the impact of radical changes in the theory and practice of the use of military force on the transformation of military-doctrinal documents and to determine the conceptual framework for their adaptation to new geopolitical conditions.
Method. Comparative analysis, case study, systematic approach, and structural analysis.
Findings. Military power relations are undergoing continuous transformation. The concept of total war is gradually disappearing from scientific discourse, being replaced by short, rapid operations that rely heavily on non-kinetic factors in power projection. The expansion of modern combat domains due to non-kinetic capabilities and the shift away from classical concepts of force have become decisive in shaping contemporary military doctrinal documents. These changes are closely linked to the extraterritorial application of force, including active defense and nuclear deterrence, as reflected in the doctrines of major powers. At the same time, the battlefield is expanding, international norms of warfare are being challenged, and new precedents are emerging.
Theoretical implications. Unconventional tactics, information warfare, cyber operations, and economic sanctions have become integral elements of modern military thinking and doctrinal development. This is evident in the doctrinal approaches of the United States (deterrence and preemption), Russia (active defense, nuclear deterrence, and the so-called Gerasimov doctrine), and China (unrestricted warfare and “victory without war”), all of which prioritize new forms and means of conflict and outline theoretical foundations for future warfare.
Practical implications. Modernized doctrinal concepts have demonstrated their relevance in recent conflicts, including Crimea, the Second Karabakh War, India–Pakistan tensions, and Iran–Israel confrontations. In many cases, decisive outcomes were achieved through unconventional strategies. New means and forms of warfare have thus become key drivers of contemporary military transformation and the decline of classical military paradigms.
Value. The study highlights the interaction between theoretical developments and practical applications. Rapid changes in warfare necessitate doctrinal adaptation, while updated conceptual frameworks create new opportunities for the effective use of force in the evolving “post-Clausewitz” strategic environment.
Paper type. Theoretical.
Downloads
References
Hennen, L., Kopfmüller, J., Maia, M., Nierling, L., & Scherz, C. (2023). Ways towards transformation—Conceptual approaches and challenges. Sustainability, 15(20), Article 14867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014867
Sergantov, A. V., Smolovyy, A. V., & Dolgopolov, A. V. (2021). Transformatsiya kontseptsii voyny: Ot proshlogo k nastoyashchemu – tekhnologii gibridnoy voyny [Transformation of the concept of war: From the past to the present – hybrid warfare technologies]. Voennaya mysl’, 30(1), 69–77.
Kofman, M., Fink, A., Gorenburg, D., Chesnut, M., Edmonds, J., & Waller, J. (2021). Russian military strategy: Core tenets and operational concepts. CNA. https://www.cna.org/reports/2021/08/Russian-Military-Strategy-Core-Tenets-and-Operational-Concepts.pdf
Hamilton, D. S. (Ed.). (2004). Transatlantic transformations: Equipping NATO for the 21st century. Center for Transatlantic Relations.
Bocharnikov, I. V., Lemeshev, S. V., & Lyutkene, G. V. (2013). Modern concepts of war and the practice of military construction. Ekon-inform.
The White House. (2025, November). National security strategy of the United States of America.
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. (2014). The Army operating concept 2020–2040: Winning in a complex world. https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/DR-15-1-The-Army-Operating-Concept-2020-2040-Winning-in-a-Complex-World.pdf
Korzhevsky, A. S. (Ed.). (2021). Prognoziruyemyye vyzovy i ugrozy natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii i napravleniya ikh neytralizatsii [Forecast challenges and threats to the national security of the Russian Federation and directions for their neutralization]. Russian State University for the Humanities.
Joint concept for competing. (2023, February 26). Small Wars Journal. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2023/02/26/joint-concept-competing/
Collins, J. J. (2025). Winning without fighting: Irregular warfare and strategic competition in the 21st century. Joint Force Quarterly, 117(2), 92–93. https://digitalcommons.ndu.edu/joint-force-quarterly/vol117/iss2/13
Pietkiewicz, M. (n.d.). The military doctrine of the Russian Federation. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330109811_The_Military_Doctrine_of_the_Russian_Federation
Odiboev, K. M. (2025). Otlichitel’nye osobennosti “Osnov gosudarstvennoy politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii v oblasti yadernogo sderzhivaniya” 2024 goda [Distinctive features of the 2024 “Foundations of state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence”]. Analiz, 3(21). https://pircenter.org/editions/33989-russian-state-policy-on-nuclear-deterrence/
State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2015). China’s military strategy. https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2015/05/27/content_281475115610833.htm
The Jamestown Foundation. (2016). China’s military strategy (2015). https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/China%E2%80%99s-Military-Strategy-2015.pdf
Clouse, D. C. (2023, May 12). War has changed, and the army’s conceptualization of operational art must follow suit. Modern War Institute at West Point. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/war-has-changed-and-the-armys-conceptualization-of-operational-art-must-follow-suit/
Abstract views: 111 PDF Downloads: 88
Copyright (c) 2026 Zafar Nuri Najafov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors agree with the following conditions:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication (Download agreement) with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to complete individual additional agreements for the non-exclusive spreading of the journal’s published version of the work (for example, to post work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), with the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. Journal’s politics allows and encourages the placement on the Internet (for example, in the repositories of institutions, personal websites, SSRN, ResearchGate, MPRA, SSOAR, etc.) manuscript of the work by the authors, before and during the process of viewing it by this journal, because it can lead to a productive research discussion and positively affect the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
