In pointing to the way the United States has conducted limited warfare since the 2003 U.S.-Iraq conflict and then in Libya, Gerasimov believes that the U.S. approach of C4ISR is the way to go for increasing Russian military capability.
C4ISR is Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.
The Russian military will be looking to more of a non-nuclear approach than the way the armed forces are now taking. Gerasimov has the backing of a number of Russian strategists who advocate more of a non-nuclear deterrence.
Such a non-nuclear deterrence will include high-precision, long-range conventional weapons such as the U.S. now uses in its drone campaign against terrorist locations.
See which power is building its military
The problem with the American approach is that it doesn’t actually win wars. It defeats the enemy military, but not the people. So any apparent victory is short lived.
How does one defeat the people?
In order to make the people feel defeated, one has to kill a lot of them. They must be devastated, like the Germans and Japanese at the end of World War II. You have to keep killing them until the people give up. We know this approach works because we have seen it in action in World War II.
Obliviously, this approach (the World War II approach) is not the American way. Now the Russians and Chinese are following the American path, which does in fact look like an excellent approach. It just doesn’t produce lasting results. Also, the World War II approach would be considered a war crime today due to the rise of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism focuses on equality of reaction and really the equality of everything. Never mind that this doesn’t actually solve the problem.
I can’t fault the Russians and Chinese for following the American path. Given the state of the world that is probably their best available option. It’s just that the best available option is not good enough.