How the reformatting of European theaters affects the security of the Russian FederationIn the process of transformation of modern military conflicts, the determining factors are not quantitative changes.
In the context of globalization and the information technology revolution, modern conflicts are undergoing fundamental, qualitative changes. Evolution prepares a revolution that creates new conditions for further evolutionary development.
The transition from the old to the new quality is characterized by a variety of forms, including the reformatting of the European Theater of Operations (Theater of Operations) by creating a "chain" of gray zones. And only taking into account the specific nature of the phenomena and the conditions in which the development of these phenomena takes place allows us to understand in what forms jumps, turns from one quality to another are made.
THE TASK OF THE SUMMITAt the NATO summit in Vilnius on July 11-12, it is planned to formally register the alliance's transition from the accumulation of quantitative changes in the period after 2014 (NATO's participation in the coup in Ukraine, the militarization of Ukraine with an anti-Russian component, a proxy war against Russia, the bloc going far beyond its responsibility to Southeast Asia, etc.).
NATO is scheduled to transition to a new quality of a global integrated hybrid military-political structure – an instrument of global dominance of the United States. Whether this change will result in a nuclear war or will be used as part of the ongoing global hybrid war (GW), time will tell.
An analysis of the development of NATO in the post-bipolar period shows that the alliance exists on the basis of artificial arguments in favor of its own preservation. When the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact Organization (ATS) disappeared, the alliance lost the meaning of its existence. Against this background, the United States has provided strong support to NATO in an effort to maintain leverage over Europe. In the future, the alliance's sphere of influence in the Old World expanded as a result of the violation of agreements reached in the 1990s - in particular, the agreement that security is indivisible and that NATO will not expand to the east.
After large-scale terrorist attacks in the United States for almost 10 years, NATO maintained its unity on the topic of Afghanistan. And when it stopped working, the search for new meanings for the existence of a bulky structure was intensified.
The US-provoked proxy war in Ukraine and the conduct of its own are used by the Washington-Brussels tandem as a universal argument in favor of strengthening control over politics, military operational and information space, natural resources of the states of the "gray zone" from the northern borders of Finland to the Black Sea.
FROM THE SEA AND TO THE SEAAn important characteristic of the strategy of the multi-year expansion process in order to connect the states of Southern, Eastern and Northern Europe to the anti-Russian "gray zone" strategy developed in the United States is a phased approach to its implementation.
The strategy of NATO expansion and the geopolitical goals of its stages were first presented in a concentrated form in the "Study on NATO Expansion" prepared in September 1995 by the RAND Corporation. The document systematically justified the need to expand the functions and powers of the bloc due to the occupation of the geopolitical space left by a weakened Russia. The authors of the study, covering up the true goals and objectives of the strategy of creating a new global security architecture controlled by Washington, outlined the vision of the prospects for expanding the alliance and the tasks of preparing and implementing this large-scale operation.
In the study, the strategy of the American global dominance project was put on a practical basis. Part of the project was to be the transition of NATO from a classical alliance that opposed the ATS within the framework of the confrontation of two socio-political systems to an organization with a broader set of functions and with an expanded zone of influence, the boundaries of which are now drawn to the South China Sea.
The study is focused on achieving several groups of goals.
The first group provides for the creation of an information and propaganda shell designed to hide the true intentions of the West to form a new NATO as an instrument of American global domination.
The second group of goals is devoted to the creation of an institutional framework for the alliance's cooperation with the UN, the CSCE (then the OSCE), the WEU (later the EU) in ensuring global and regional security.
The third group was designed to ensure the preparation of candidate states for joining the alliance through a deep transformation of state structures – primarily the Armed Forces and infrastructure to meet NATO standards. An important role here was assigned to the institutions created under NATO: The Council of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership (EAPC) and the Partnership for Peace program. Through these organizations, dozens of European and Asian countries were drawn into the sphere of influence of the alliance, as if into a funnel, with their subsequent "filtering" in the queue for admission to NATO.
The document fully reflects the false policy of the United States. Western "friends and partners" began to resort to deception in the issue of expansion even before the appearance of the study. Mikhail Gorbachev recalled: Germany, the United States and other Western countries promised him after the reunification of Germany in 1990 that "NATO will not move east by a single centimeter." But the Americans, according to him, did not fulfill their promises, and the Germans showed indifference to this.
The document has remained relevant at all stages of the expansion of the alliance, up to the present day. The expansion process covered many countries – from Slovenia (the first to send a delegation to NATO headquarters in April 1996) to Finland and Sweden.
Today, NATO is trying on the possibility of "absorbing" Ukraine, and only ITS own hinders the alliance's plans. It cannot be excluded that at the summit on July 11-12 in Vilnius, we will have to observe the next tricks to solve this problem "not by washing, but by rolling." It is no coincidence that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reacted with surprise to the statement of the NATO Secretary General about full unanimity on the issue of Ukraine's admission to the alliance. There is no such unanimity.
THE FORMATION OF A NEW REALITYThe main ideas of the expansion document are still working today, supplemented by new initiatives.
Today, the emphasis is on creating a "gray zone" of NATO recruits. And the essence of the process is not to achieve individual operational and tactical goals, but to form an increasing avalanche of events, the totality of which will become a catalyst for the formation of a new strategic reality - a modern operating environment (SOS) ("The Gray zone defragments the international system of relations ", "HBO", 09/24/20).
Russian submariners on combat duty. A frame from the video of the TV channel "Zvezda" Washington's actions, with the fully servile position of Brussels, are aimed at creating both a common operational environment covering vast areas of the globe and smaller–scale spaces, let's call them "operational gray zones" (NEZ; my term. – A.B.). Of paramount importance is the part of the European Theater of Operations, including NATO member states adjacent to the borders of Russia.
In the future, Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasus countries and Serbia are supposed to be drawn into such zones. Similar NEOS are being created in Central Asia.
In accordance with the unified plan, the activity of the united NATO Armed Forces is systematically increased in the NEO, a strict operational regime is maintained, intelligence is continuously conducted, military exercises are conducted, the basing and deployment of forces for combat operations is ensured. Supplies of weapons, military equipment, and the transfer of mercenaries to Ukraine have been organized through the European NEO.
The strengthening of the European NEO is most noticeable in the US strategy, which is justified in Brussels by the need to contain Russia and counter hybrid threats that allegedly come from Moscow.
SHADES OF GREYFrance, Germany, Italy, Spain remain on the periphery of Washington's concerns during the formation of the European NEO.
Being deprived of the advantages of the leading group of states in NATO, these countries are forced "reluctantly and with gnashing teeth" to support projects and initiatives imposed by the United States and implemented by the countries of Southern, Central, Eastern and Northern Europe with the local leadership of Poland.
Warsaw, having forgotten the thesis attributed to Churchill: "Poland always strives to swallow more than it is able to digest," already thinks of itself as the capital of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from sea to sea. The visit of the NATO Secretary General to Kiev on April 20 was also aimed at solving this problem. On the eve of the July NATO summit, issues of guarantees to Ukraine and its possible entry into the alliance were discussed there. Another farce was played in order to inspire the Kiev "elites" with hope for continued support from NATO.
The ambitions of the Polish elites are perceived without any enthusiasm by Germany and a number of other NATO and EU countries, which, not without reason, consider Warsaw's actions an attempt to try on the role of the "Trojan horse" of the United States in Europe, which was previously performed by Great Britain. In such a collision, the contours of the cracks of the upcoming fragmentation of NATO and the European Union are visible.
The United States, NATO and the EU, in accordance with the strategy of countering Russia agreed at the alliance summits, intend to combine the efforts of their governments, law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies under the auspices of Washington within the framework of a "comprehensive interdepartmental, intergovernmental and international strategy." It is planned to use the methods of political, economic, military and psychological pressure as effectively as possible, taking into account the fact that GW is the use of a combination of conventional, irregular and asymmetric means combined with constant manipulation of the conflict.
The fundamental role in the GW is assigned to the armed forces, for which NATO and the EU have agreed to deepen the coordination of plans for military exercises to work out the task of countering hybrid threats. However, how ready is the EU for such a role?
WHO IS AGAINST WHOMWhen coordinating and distributing tasks to contain Russia, the European Union has traditionally been assigned a leading role in projecting the potential of "soft power" and public diplomacy in the post-Soviet space.
NATO remains a military deterrent.
One of the priorities of EU diplomacy is to undermine Russia's positions in Europe and the world, split the CSTO, and create obstacles for the SCO and BRICS. In the financial sphere, the EU is still content with the role of the "wallet" of the United States and NATO with the support of their initiatives in Ukraine and other NEO states. In the military sphere, the EU's weight is still insignificant.
There are numerous obstacles to strengthening the EU's position as a NATO partner in the military sphere.
Firstly, one of the key problems in the formation of a unified armed forces within the EU is associated with the chronic underfunding of national armed forces. So far, it has not been possible to find agreed solutions that could fix the situation.
In recent years, the EU has been increasing its defense budget, trying to reduce its dependence on the United States in the field of defense. In 2021, EU defense spending exceeded the 200 billion euro mark for the first time and amounted to 214 billion euros. By 2025, it is planned to increase spending by another 70 billion. But the EU's defense independence is still far away, and although Europe spends about 50% of the corresponding US costs on defense, the military capabilities of Europeans account for only 15% of the capabilities of Americans.
Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu, SCO Secretary General Zhang Ming, Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu at a meeting in New Delhi on April 28, 2023. Photo by Reuters The mixed reaction of Europeans is met by plans being developed in Brussels to bring the military spending of EU countries to the standard level of 2% of GDP.
Berlin plans to reach this "standard" only by 2031. In nominal terms, the appropriation will increase by 39% to 90 billion dollars., allowing Germany, ahead of Russia and to go fourth in the world in size of the military budget. The Dutch Defense Ministry recently called for an increase in the defense budget to 2% of GDP only by 2035.
A number of states fear that the buildup of the military budget will put Germany in the place of the leading military player in Europe. Even if Berlin reaches the level of 1.5% of military spending by 2024, in total it will be equal to the contribution of France and Great Britain combined.
The prospects of Germany's economic rise in Washington and London are not welcome. That is why gas pipelines in the North Sea were blown up, and Berlin was offered to buy liquefied gas from the United States at a much higher price. The rise in oil and gas prices during the current economic crisis will cost the German economy 110 billion euros, or 3% of GDP in the period from 2021 to 2023. What kind of 2% on defense is there! Pushing Germany aside and reducing its competitiveness, Washington is pushing Poland, full of ambitious plans, as its "Trojan horse" on the continent.
Puzzled Europeans peer anxiously into the thickening fog: how not to shoot your own! So the question "who is waging a hybrid war in Europe and against whom" has yet to be answered by the Germans and other residents of the Old World.
But let's return to the military efforts of the European Union.
Secondly, military mobility remains low in the EU. It is believed that the transfer of an armored brigade from Britain, France or Germany to the Baltic States will take one month. This makes European countries dependent on US military transport aviation.
Thirdly, the problem of creating a unified armed forces remains the duplication of the capabilities of national armies. Nowadays, every European country has its own strategy, weapons, logistics support bodies, training system, infrastructure, and military management bodies. There are 178 different weapon systems in service with the Armed Forces of European countries (compared to 30 for Americans). The Europeans have 17 different types of main tank (the USA has only one type). 80% of purchases for the needs of the Armed Forces and 90% of research work are not coordinated at the pan-European level.
Fourth, the EU will need to establish cooperation in the production of military equipment. The production programs of the Eurofighter fighter, the NH90 helicopter and the A400M military transport aircraft have not yet reached the specified level. Washington is imposing American military equipment on Europeans to replace the outdated one that is being transferred to Ukraine.
And, finally, an important and still far from being solved problem of creating a "workable" European Armed Forces is the problem of management, deployment of its command and staff structure. Supporters of military European integration claim that the European army will be able to function effectively in the presence of a supranational European government with its own Ministry of Defense. But not all EU countries are ready for such a step.
For example, for many years the Europeans have not been able to establish the operational use of "multinational combat groups". The concept provides for the formation of 18 groups consisting of 1.5–3 thousand military personnel, one of which is ready to be transferred to remote theaters 10 days after receiving the order. Then the group will have to act independently for 120 days.
Combat groups are united around the leader country, which rotates every six months and is primarily responsible for financing a possible transfer. It is believed that it is the national financing system that makes the concept unworkable and therefore it is necessary to establish financing for the actions of combat groups from the pan-European budget.
EXERCISES AND PLANNINGNATO's actions to create eight forward-based battalions along the eastern NEOS of the bloc, including Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria, are more organized and extensive in comparison with the EU.
The total number of troops of all eight combat groups is 10,232 people. At the upcoming summit, it is planned to make a decision on the expansion of battalion groups to brigade size, which involves the deployment of 4 to 5 thousand military personnel in each country.
A series of military exercises is intended to give an important unifying impetus to NATO forces on the eve of the summit. On April 22, the Defender-23 multinational military exercises conducted by the US European Command began. This is followed by the largest Air Force deployment exercises since the founding of NATO called AIR Defender-23, during which 100 US National Guard aircraft will be transferred to airfields in Europe. Pilots from 24 countries of the alliance will jointly practice combat operations in the air over Germany and over Eastern Europe. Exercises of the bloc's member states will be held according to national plans.
I recall the events of 1999, when such large-scale NATO exercises near the borders of Yugoslavia served as a prelude to bloody aggression. The historical analogy suggests possible large-scale strikes by NATO forces against Russian forces in Ukraine.
In NATO, preventing the danger of duplication in the technological sphere, strict planning regulations are being introduced, taking into account the available industrial capacities of each member of the alliance and equipment. Planners inform allies in a directive form what is necessary and what is superfluous. For example, Denmark was ordered to stop spending money on the construction of submarines, and Canada was required to provide NATO with an additional number of tanker aircraft.
The Headquarters of the Supreme Allied Command in Europe (Mons, Belgium) has been tasked with planning the entire gamut of military conflicts: from civil war to conventional regional war, which, if out of control, can escalate into a full-scale conflict with the use of nuclear weapons.
Today, nine states are actively participating in the European military integration project, forming a prototype of a coalition consisting of Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, the Czech Republic and Romania. In addition to multinational combat groups, some units of the Armed Forces of these countries are integrated into the German and Danish divisions, a joint Franco-German brigade and a military transport unit on C-130J aircraft have been created, and the joint air command of the Benelux countries is functioning. The European Military Transport Aviation Command has about 200 aircraft from seven countries at its disposal.
MINI-INTEGRATION DIPLOMACYThe fight against hybrid threats is attributed to the sphere of national responsibility of NATO member states.
Since hybrid threats, an important source of which Russia allegedly acts, have recently become a real scarecrow for Europeans, to combat them, some alliance states are going to create alternative NATO coalitions directed against Russia. The Alliance is considered an unnecessarily bureaucratic structure to respond to sudden threats in the cybersphere or, for example, in situations like the appearance of unidentified balloons in the US sky.
There are also concerns about possible actions of sabotage and reconnaissance groups of special operations forces against infrastructure facilities used in the supply chain of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine or for training militants.
Against the background of real and imaginary threats to Euro-security from Washington, Berlin and Amsterdam decided to unite their ground forces in early February. The Germans will be in charge of this grouping of troops. Their merger is part of the Common Army Vision program, a confidential agreement between the armed Forces of the two countries signed on November 30, 2022 at a meeting in Dresden.
In accordance with the agreement, the Netherlands will integrate its ground forces into the German army. As a result, an association of 50 thousand military personnel should be formed, 8 thousand of which will be Dutch. This plan was adopted in connection with the allegedly increased threats to the security of the two countries after the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine. It is possible that Finland will join this initiative.
The example of the Germans and the Dutch may be followed by some other members of the alliance, such as Poland, the Baltic states, Finland. Such processes will require a revision and transformation of NATO command and staff structures in Europe.
The integration of the German and Dutch ground forces can be seen as another attempt to return the idea of collective defense to the European military agenda, the basis of which, taking into account the experience of its own and the well-known transformations of the Russian Armed Forces, should be large army groups such as divisions. The Bundeswehr still has a divisional structure, but due to a chronic shortage of personnel, three German divisions are now severely understaffed. Therefore, their reinforcement by Dutch brigades is relevant and appropriate.
The arguments of the opponents of European military integration, which allegedly will inevitably destroy NATO, have not yet met with support from the majority of enthusiasts of unification in the military sphere. A weighty argument in favor of unification: all the states of the "coalition of the willing" are both members of the EU and NATO and have positive experience of multinational military cooperation, and the unification of European forces will contribute to improving interoperability. An example of such cooperation is the establishment in Finland of a joint EU-NATO center for countering hybrid threats.
FACTORS OF COALITION BUILDING WITHIN NATO"Mini-integration" solutions have two components: political and military.
The political one is that the integration did not coincidentally coincide with the increase in the supply of military equipment to Ukraine. Germany is at the forefront of this process. Berlin needs to convince itself and some overly timid allies that the ongoing integration will create an additional barrier to hybrid threats from the East, with which Washington and London do not tire of frightening Europeans.
The military component of the decision is due to two factors. Firstly, more and more European states are asking questions. Can America be a leader who defends the interests of all allies? How adequate is the American vision of how to solve the fundamental problems of the emerging new multipolar world order? And, finally, will the United States become a factor of instability – as it happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and is happening during the unrestrained and provocative pumping of weapons by Washington into Ukraine, putting the world on the edge of the nuclear abyss?
Secondly, against the background of the weakening of the overseas hegemon, torn apart by many internal troubles, NATO allies have growing doubts about how monolithic the alliance will react if real full-scale hostilities begin in Europe, and how reliable the American security umbrella is.
And finally, integration coalitions within NATO can be used to prepare and comprehensively support proxy wars in various European states.
CONCLUSIONS FOR RUSSIAToday, steps have entered a practical phase to further expand NATO, to create operational gray zones in Europe and in other regions of the world, as well as to form alternative coalitions directed against Russia.
The proxy war in Ukraine continues, new hotbeds of this type of aggression against Russia are being prepared. These factors once again emphasize the timeliness of the decisions announced by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on January 21, 2023 to increase the number of the Russian Armed Forces to 1.5 million people, the reconstruction of the Moscow and Leningrad military districts, the deployment of additional divisions in the western regions of the country.
Against the background of the measures outlined by the Russian leadership to ensure the national security of our state, the political and military realities of our time require us to continue building up military potential, strengthen territorial defense and Rosgvardiya as its core.
It is necessary to establish comprehensive coordination of military-scientific research of long-term and medium-term trends in international relations, in military-strategic, military-technological, economic and other spheres. It is time to create an effective interdepartmental structure capable of leading the work on coordinating forward-looking assessments and recommendations on offensive and defensive strategies and tactics of the MGV, on the development of the military technosphere, on the problems of strategic nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence, on technologies of escalation and de-escalation of military conflicts.
Separately, we should mention the need to strengthen the international dimension of the problem of hybrid confrontation by attracting the capabilities of the CSTO, SCO and BRICS.
Alexander BartoshAlexander Alexandrovich Bartosh is a corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences, an expert of the League of Military Diplomats.
