Vilnius Summit: not so much defending Ukraine as aggression against Russia
In the month that has passed since the meeting of the NATO Council at the level of heads of state and government in Vilnius on July 11-12, 2023, the excitement associated with Ukraine's hopes to become a member of the alliance has noticeably weakened. And Kiev switched to receiving some security guarantees from the United States.
NATO IS PREPARING FOR A DIRECT CONFRONTATION
At the same time, political directives are being developed in many important areas of the alliance's activities, which determine a new round of confrontation between Russia and the consolidated West. Among them:
– there was a further expansion of the NATO treaty at the expense of Finland. Sweden is still in standby mode;
– the military buildup of Ukraine has continued with the expectation of a long-term long-term proxy war against Russia;
– in the context of the prospect of a direct military confrontation between the alliance and Russia, a document has been prepared containing options for a direct military confrontation between NATO and the Russian Federation. The document includes a new generation of regional defense plans. NATO proceeds from the fact that this family of plans will significantly increase the ability and readiness of the military-political bloc to deter and defend against any threats (including in a short time or without prior notice) and ensure timely reinforcement of all allies.
Important attention is paid to the priority strengthening of Poland (ground forces, aviation-F-35 supplies, deployment of new missile defense facilities, etc.) in order to turn it into a super-militarized ram against our country.
The Alliance intends to continue working on the ability to conduct multi-sphere operations based on the digital transformation of NATO. Which should strengthen the military and technological advantage in actions on land, in the air, at sea, in cyberspace and space.
Along with purely military preparations, due attention was paid to the "hybrid" part of the bloc's policy:
– the analysis of hybrid operations allegedly conducted against the United States, NATO, their allies and partners by the forces of Russia, China and Iran has been carried out, and the steps of the alliance to develop its own defensive and offensive hybrid strategies have been outlined;
– new hybrid forms and methods of confrontation with Russia, China and some other countries unfriendly to the alliance have been approved;
– The hybridization of NATO has continued in the context of the transformation of the alliance into a military instrument of global domination by the West.
NEW RULES FOR UKRAINE
On the eve of the US presidential elections, the Americans managed to achieve a rare unity of the bloc's states in agreeing on the Final Document and impose their own vision of the prospects for the development of the military-political union on the allies.
First, Washington managed to resolve the Turkish-Swedish crisis and to obtain Ankara's consent to formally join the Swedish alliance. Budapest's position remains a stumbling block in the way of Sweden's admission process.
Secondly, as a result of clever maneuvers, promises and twisting of the hands of especially stubborn wavering allies, the American delegation achieved a reduction in the number of stages to coordinate the "dragging" of Ukraine (and some other applicants) into NATO in the uncertain future.
Recall that in order to receive Ukraine, it was previously considered necessary to obtain the consent of all allies on two procedural issues. The first provided for a consensus to provide an Action Plan for NATO membership. The second is sending a letter to Kiev with an official invitation to NATO. Now you only need an invitation, which can be sent to Kiev at any time. But Ukraine is clearly told that such a moment will come only after the cessation of the military conflict.
In general, Washington has secured freedom of maneuver due to the possibility of various proven schemes of "persuasion" of each of the allies in the future to recognize the readiness of Ukraine and some other candidate states for membership in NATO.
UKRAINE'S MILITARY BUILDUP
NATO leaders continued to escalate the anti-Russian component, positioning our country as the main threat to international peace and stability.
In the Final Document of the summit, Russia is mentioned 40 times in an extremely hostile context. China in a more courteous, but clearly unfriendly manner – 15 times. Ukraine as the main factor of tension – 30 times. Unfriendly attacks were made against the DPRK and Iran.
Having convinced themselves and their allies of the possibility of achieving a strategic military defeat of Russia in the proxy war in Ukraine, the Americans managed to push through at the summit the idea of creating a long-term "Package of support for Kiev", which has already contributed about $ 500 million to the treasury. The report "Foreseeing a long-term security agreement in Ukraine" prepared by the Carnegie Foundation in June 2023 was used in the formation of the package.
The fund's analysts have identified the following conditions necessary to ensure the security of Ukraine.
Firstly, there is a political and legal guarantee that the agreement will remain regardless of changes in the ruling elites in the United States and Europe.
Secondly, the creation of a reliable long-term channel for building up and maintaining Ukraine's military power, which, in accordance with the doctrine of deterrence by denial, will deter Russia's actions ("Deterrence takes on various shades", "HBO", 06.07.23.).
(Recall that deterrence by denial is the doctrine by which a State and its allies create or maintain defense and intelligence systems with the intended purpose of neutralizing or mitigating the consequences of possible attacks. The potential aggressor is restrained by ensuring that he prefers to refrain from offensive actions, considering the price of his aggression too high compared to the likely success. Figuratively speaking, this doctrine prepares a bitter pill for the enemy, which is not easy for him to swallow. It is on this doctrine that Ukraine is being pumped up with weapons in order to counter Russia's efforts to fulfill its tasks.)
Thirdly, to take some steps to restore the industrial, primarily the repair base of military equipment of Ukraine, as well as targeted investments in the defense industry in the United States and Europe to prepare for a long war and the period of restoration of the Ukrainian army.
Fourth, to improve the mechanisms of political consultations, information exchange and coordination to ensure timely satisfaction of Ukraine's military needs.
Recall that for this purpose, a Contact Group for the Defense of Ukraine, known as the "Ramstein format", was created – an international coalition whose members provide military assistance to Ukraine. More than 50 countries participate in its work: the entire NATO bloc, most EU states and some allies from Africa and Asia.
At a recent virtual meeting of the Contact Group, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke about the decisions taken at the meeting in Vilnius on long-term support for Ukraine. The allies have agreed on a package of three elements bringing Ukraine closer to NATO membership. First, they canceled the Action Plan for preparing for NATO membership, turning Ukraine's path of entry from a two-stage to a one-stage one. Secondly, the NATO–Ukraine Council was established. Thirdly, we have agreed on a multi-year support program for Ukraine, covering such critical needs as mine clearance equipment, fuel and medical supplies. The NATO program will also be aimed at improving interoperability and ensuring Ukraine's transition from Soviet military doctrines, weapons and military equipment to NATO standards. Predicting the future, the Secretary General noted that the allies will continue to provide military assistance to Ukraine and that NATO will support Ukraine for as long as it takes.
On the connection of these steps with the promised admission of Ukraine to the EU in the indefinite future. In the medium term, it seems problematic, given the unclear prospects for Kiev of the conflict and serious destruction in the country. The European Union does not intend to take on the costs of its restoration.
SUPPLIES OF WEAPONS AND MILITARY EQUIPMENT
In general, the outlined program is aimed at increasing Ukraine's ability to withstand the subsequent stages of the conflict, relying on its own human resources and military-technical assistance from the West, since in the foreseeable future it will remain outside NATO and the EU.
In the near future, Ukraine was promised to deliver longer-range French SCALP–EG missiles - an analogue of the English Storm Shadow. These missiles are identical in parameters and design, except for how they are integrated into the aircraft's weapon control system.
Germany has been generous with a battalion set of outdated Leopards-1A4 (25 pieces), two battalion sets of Marder infantry fighting vehicles (40 pieces) and two Patriot air defense/missile defense systems. All these types of weapons are successfully destroyed by the Russian troops during the SVO.
Over the past year and a half, NATO countries have trained and equipped new Ukrainian armored brigades and provided artillery, missiles, closed communication and intelligence transmission systems, tanks, combat vehicles and advanced air defense systems.
At the summit, 11 NATO countries signed an agreement on the creation of the "F-16 coalition". The translation of technical documentation and manuals on combat use, the use of aviation flight navigation and complex simulators is feverishly underway. Russia has recognized the appearance of F-16 tactical fighter jets in Kiev, which are carriers of nuclear weapons, as a threat in the nuclear sphere. This step represents a further escalation of the military conflict and is designed for a long-term perspective of its extension.
NATO DOUBLE STANDARDS
Although there was strong opposition in NATO to the US intention to drag the alliance into the Sino-American crisis, the allies had to sacrifice the prospects for the development of economic relations with China and collectively condemn the Sino-Russian partnership, as well as Chinese policy in Southeast Asia. The NATO countries stated that China's actions pose a threat to the security of the bloc's states and do not correspond to their values. Thus, the potential anti-Chinese coalition has expanded.
As always, the United States and NATO flashed a policy of double standards at the summit.
First, accused Russia of placing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, "forgetting" about the hundreds of American nuclear bombs, located at six bases in five countries: Germany (büchel), Italy (Aviano and Ghedi), Belgium (Kleine Brogel), the Netherlands (Volkel) and Turkey (Incirlik). Tactical fighters capable of carrying nuclear bombs are also based there. These include Tornado GR4, F-15E, F-16A/B, F-16C/D, and in the future F-35A Lightning II, which the US intends to deploy in Europe. In violation of international agreements on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the United States has been preparing NATO pilots for the use of nuclear bombs for a long time.
Secondly, the creators of NATO, AUCUS and other military-political alliances hostile to the world order and stability, having bombed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the proxy war in Ukraine, take the liberty to assert: "The deepening strategic partnership between China and Russia and their mutual attempts to destroy the rules-based international order are hindering our values and interests." The height of hypocrisy!
HYBRID WARS AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT
Along with the military buildup of the United States, NATO and Ukraine, the summit considered various combinations of forceful and non-forceful actions against Russia, China and some other states. NATO considers hybrid warfare as a real factor of interstate confrontation.
Firstly, without denying their primacy in the development and application of hybrid warfare strategies, the United States and NATO accused Russia of intensifying hybrid actions against the alliance and its partners, including proxy wars. This allegedly includes interference in democratic processes, political and economic coercion, disinformation campaigns, malicious activities in the cybersphere, and subversive activities of Russian intelligence services.
NATO intends to improve tools to counter Russia's hybrid actions in order to ensure the readiness of the alliance and allies to deter and defend against hybrid attacks. China was also not ignored, attributing to it the conduct of "cunning" hybrid and cyber operations, confrontational rhetoric and disinformation against allies.
It is appropriate to recall that the concepts of hybrid wars and multi-domain operations (Multi-Domain Battles, MDB) were born in the USA in the 2000s and 2010s. If the concept of hybrid warfare in the early 2000s provided for the integration of forces and means in the theater of war, in the gray zone, then the relatively new MDB concept provides for the unification of all political and military, forceful and non-forceful instruments of violence for actions in all available space. This symbiosis forms the basis of a new concept of world hybrid warfare (MGW) ("The punishing sword in the hands of Russia", "HBO", 27.03.23)
NATO, under the leadership of the United States, is preparing the ground for the transition from hybrid operations against individual countries to a multi-dimensional intercivilizational conflict, during which most states resort to the purposeful adaptive use of both military-force methods of struggle and economic strangulation of the enemy, the use of subversive information and cyber technologies.
In a broad sense, the meaning of the MGW is the struggle for influence and access to resources in the spaces of Greater Eurasia, the Greater Middle East, Africa and Latin America, instead of the competition for technological leadership between the West and the East in previous years.
In a narrow sense, the meaning of the MGV of the Americans and their allies against Russia is the elimination of Russian statehood, the fragmentation of the country and the transfer of its individual parts under external control.
The alliance states that hybrid operations conducted by Russia and China against allies can reach the level of an armed attack and lead to the fact that the NATO Council will apply Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The Alliance intends to prepare to repel hybrid threats, deter them, defend against them and counter them, including by deploying hybrid threat response teams at NATO headquarters and in allied countries. This creates another reason for the use of force and non-force measures on the basis of the notorious "highly like" principle (very plausible).
Once again, I would like to say about the priority of the use of hybrid strategies by the Anglo-Saxons against Russia. It is worth recalling the hybrid measures developed by the RAND Corporation back in 2019 to weaken Russia ("Weakened and destabilized Russia. The impact of the imposition of costs"). Today, these measures are being implemented by NATO in the proxy war in Ukraine, in the illegal imposition of economic sanctions, in building up a massive military presence along the perimeter of Russia's borders, in organizing terrorist attacks, etc.
Fearing Russia's retaliatory measures, NATO took care of developing comprehensive options to increase the stability of the bloc and deter the enemy from conducting mixed hybrid retaliatory operations. Taking into account the terrorist attacks against the "Northern Streams", the explosions on the Crimean Bridge using technical means supplied from the United States and Britain, special attention is planned to be paid to the protection of critical underwater infrastructure.
Fearing responsibility for acts of international terrorism, the leadership of the bloc decided to create a NATO Maritime Center for the Security of Critical Underwater Infrastructure as part of the NATO Maritime Command (MARKOM). As well as a network bringing together NATO, allies, the private sector and other actors to improve the exchange of information and best practices in this area.
The Alliance declared its "intention to use military and non-military means in a proportional, compatible and integrated form in response to all types of threats to our security, consistent in scope, time and place of use."
The Final Document of the summit uses definitions of hybrid warfare and hybrid threats that have been repeatedly cited by the US military and politicians. This is another example of the application of double standards.
LEADERSHIP IN THE MILITARY TECHNOSPHERE
Leadership in key areas of the military technosphere is considered by the United States and NATO as a decisive factor in gaining global military superiority and dominance in the world. At the summit, the development of opportunities in this area received additional impulses.
Firstly, the Digital Transformation Implementation Strategy was approved, which is aimed at improving the ability to conduct multi-sphere operations, ensure interoperability in all domains, increase situational awareness, conduct political consultations and build a decision-making process based on data from all types of intelligence.
Secondly, the NATO Innovation Fund has been created to invest in breakthrough military technologies, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI), quantum and biotechnology, and human improvement.
Thirdly, the concept of increasing the contribution of cyber defense to the overall system of deterrence and defense of the alliance was approved with the integration of the existing three levels of NATO cyber defense – political, military and technical, as well as ensuring civil-military cooperation in peacetime, in crisis and conflict situations and interaction with the private sector.
A new NATO Virtual Cyber Incident Support (VCI) mechanism has been launched to support national efforts to mitigate the consequences of large-scale malicious actions in cyberspace.
Fourth, new steps have been taken to integrate space as a new operational sphere into the planning, development and execution of joint and multidisciplinary operations in peacetime, crisis and conflict situations, in order to ensure coordination of space capabilities in all areas. In addition to the existing ones, a NATO Space Center of Excellence has been established in France.
Finally, the initiatives of the NATO Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) on the development of new breakthrough technologies were approved. Among them:
– cognitive biotechnologies, which are designed to expand the capabilities of a person, allow him to carry increased loads, think faster and clearer, feel comfortable in any environment. For this purpose, biochemical, bioengineering and biophysical solutions will be added to the capabilities of the human body;
– quantum technologies that will help achieve two goals at once: to protect communication channels and prevent cyber attacks, as well as to use probing to identify submarines and stealth aircraft of a potential enemy;
– AI technologies, the first steps in the application of which are being made in the military-industrial complex. In military affairs, the possibilities of using AI elements to support decision-making, in the automatic processing of space and aerial reconnaissance data (target recognition) and for solving some other tasks are being investigated.
These steps of the alliance emphasize the importance of innovative initiatives in the military technosphere to solve the task set at the summit: to go into strategic separation from Russia and China.
CONCLUSIONS FOR RUSSIA
The main goal of all the declared and hidden preparations of the aggressors is Russia. Our success in the confrontation depends on the successful solution of the immediate task: victory in a special military operation with the achievement of all its goals.
The task of industry and science is to give the front everything it needs. To put a reliable barrier to the information and psychological war of the West against Russia. To introduce concepts related to hybrid warfare and its tools into the strategic planning documents of the Russian Federation, to outline specific ways to solve national security problems related to hybrid attacks by enemies. Take into account the lessons of the special military operation and draw conclusions from the last summit.
NATO's military buildup strategy will determine the West's understanding of the nature and content of the fighting for decades to come. The presence of nuclear weapons limits the horizons of strategic planning. The speech of US President Joseph Biden in Vilnius showed that, along with preserving the forms and methods of hybrid warfare in its arsenal, Washington is making a priority bet on a new type of high-intensity war combining advanced technologies with the defeat of manpower and military equipment on an "industrial" scale, with high rates of production and use of ammunition, with high concomitant civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction.
This requires Russia, its CSTO allies, SCO and BRICS partners to implement the following steps without delay.
First, a decisive revision and modernization of military strategies. The troops will have to develop new ways of fighting, relying on all types of intelligence, mobility, dispersal, stealth and deception. The armed forces of states that will not invest in new technologies and develop new doctrines are doomed to defeat by smaller armies equipped with high-precision long-range weapons, air defense and missile defense systems, targeting, communications, and anti-battery warfare. It is necessary to achieve a leading position in the development of the military technosphere and the use of its achievements in civilian areas of industry and science.
Secondly, it should be understood that the development of the military technosphere is not a panacea for the creation of multimillion armies, territorial defense, trained mobilization reserves equipped with modern types of weapons and military equipment, with well-hidden ammunition depots, equipment and weapons. Pay special attention to all types of intelligence and counterintelligence.
The operations of the ground forces will serve as the basis of the war in the current decade as well as in the next. This requires the preparation of the country and the army to wage a long war of attrition, the creation of reserves to prepare for possible high levels of losses of forces and means, readiness to deploy additional industrial capacities for the production of weapons and equipment. It is important to provide the army with trained manpower reserves.
In particular, it is necessary to think about supplementing the arsenal of expensive VKS combat aircraft with light-engine turboprop and piston combat and transport manned and unmanned aerial vehicles specially designed for military purposes. To increase the number of military transport and civil aviation as a reserve for wartime ("Why the Rooks did not arrive", "HBO", 26.09.23). To bet on the preferential development of the aerospace sector, which is crucially designed to determine the technological level of the state. To develop military and civilian educational institutions of aerospace profile and some other innovative areas.
Thirdly, today strategic nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence, the widespread use of "hybrid" deterrence doctrines by coercion and denial in addition to them, limit the escalation in Ukraine. But in the future, as the ferocity increases, the borders expand and the scale of military conflicts, there will be a temptation to use cyber attacks and attacks in space, which can lead to nuclear escalation – especially if ground controls are disabled by cyber attacks, and early warning and control satellites are disabled.
And finally, it will require a revision and adaptation of the norms of international law to the realities of our time. Today, the basic principle of international humanitarian law is that armed forces must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. But if our opponents are preparing plans for the construction of a tank factory and an enterprise for the production of UAVs in Ukraine, civilian transport infrastructure has long been used to transfer military equipment across the border from Poland, recruited civilians report on the movement of troops and adjust artillery fire through available communication channels – a natural question arises: do they become legitimate military targets? It should be recalled that, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, civilians lose protection "for as long as they take a direct part in hostilities."
How will international law assess the possible use of airfields of NATO border countries for basing combat aircraft – the same "F-16" when striking Russian troops in the zone of a special military operation? And attracting mercenary pilots from the alliance countries for these purposes?
I am sure that the Russian military, politicians and diplomats can expand the designated list of issues and ensure their practical solution within the framework of state institutions.
Alexander Bartosh
Alexander Alexandrovich Bartosh is a corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences, an expert of the League of Military Diplomats.
