Executive Summary
This article comparatively analyzes the multi-domain operations (MDO) concepts of NATO and its main strategic competitors: Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. It highlights how these actors adapt military doctrines to exploit operational domains and gain strategic advantages. The study concludes that NATO's continuous adaptation to these doctrinal changes is crucial for maintaining strategic superiority.
Why It Matters
This document is crucial for defense analysts as it provides a comparative overview of multi-domain operational doctrines among major global powers, revealing strategic adaptations and potential future conflict dynamics.
Key Takeaways
- NATO and its main strategic competitors (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea) are adapting military doctrines to multi-domain operations (MDO) to gain strategic advantages.
Source evidence · PDF page 1
This article examines the approaches to the concept of multi-domain operations (MDO) from the doctrinal perspective of NATO’s main strategic competitors. The study provides a comparative analysis of the multi-domain operational concepts adopted by major powers, highlighting both the similarities and differences in their strategic approaches.
- Russia has transitioned to a 'new generation' warfare doctrine, focusing on A2/AD capabilities and integrating emerging technologies across multiple domains.
Source evidence · PDF page 10
Russia has evolved from a non-linear/hybrid warfare doctrine to a “new generation” warfare doctrine, characterized by the synchronization of operations in multiple domains (land, air, sea, space and cyber). It has focused on developing A2/AD capabilities in the Euro-Atlantic region while integrating emerging technologies and multi-domain strategies to counter and deter NATO operations.
- While not explicitly adopting MDO doctrine, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea demonstrate multi-domain characteristics in their military strategies, requiring NATO to continuously adapt.
Source evidence · PDF page 11
While Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea do not explicitly adopt a “multi-domain” doctrine, their military strategies exhibit multi-domain characteristics similar to those found in the USA and NATO doctrine. It can be inferred from their force structure reorganizations, capability development priorities, and the tactics employed in recent military operations and exercises.
Strategic Relevance
The document provides a comparative analysis of multi-domain operational concepts, which are central to modern military strategy. Understanding these diverse approaches is critical for assessing global power competition, anticipating adversary actions, and informing NATO's strategic adaptation and force development.