Victory in the hybrid war includes joining NATO, powerful sanctions, strong economy and prohibition of propaganda.
How can Ukraine win the hybrid war against Russia? Do we need nuclear status and when Ukraine join NATO? We talked about this during a live broadcast on the Ukrainian Politics Channel on Facebook with Ivan Vinnyk, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, secretary of the Verkhovna Rada’s Committee on National Security and Defense.
– So, Mr. Ivan, how can Ukraine win this hybrid war against Russia?
Ivan Vinnyk (I.V.). First of all, we need to determine what the hybrid war is and what its constituent parts are. After the Second World War, all military conflicts had signs of a hybrid war, similar to the one that is going on in Ukraine today. These conflicts were characterized by four components.
First, it is a military component: a war can be officially proclaimed, may not be proclaimed, and be conducted with the use of mercenaries or troops with no identifying marks. The second component is diplomatic and political: this is how diplomats provide conflict information to the world community. The third component is informational: how the conflict was covered for domestic and foreign consumers. And, in fact, the fourth component of the hybrid conflict is economic.
As an example of Russian aggression, we see that Russia is using its military formations as the first component of the hybrid war. In the Crimea, it uses them publicly, without hiding the fact of the presence of their troops in the Ukrainian territory, in Donetsk and Luhansk regions it uses the hidden ones.
Russia’s diplomacy, meanwhile, says that there is a purely internal civil conflict in the Donbas. The information policy is presented respectively and supports the position of diplomacy. At present “Russia Today” spends USD 3 billion for propaganda, its information aggression and an explanation of what they are doing in the Donbas and in the Ukrainian Crimea.
Indeed, the economic sanctions that Russia actually imposed against Ukraine, trying to cut supplies of resources from which Ukraine was dependent, and destroying co-operation in the industrial sphere and in the productive sector, should have weakened the Ukrainian economy and our ability to withstand the aggressor.
All this was implemented. Therefore, in order to win the hybrid war against Russia, we need to be strong in all four of these components.
– If we analyze these four components, so where do we win, and where do we lose?
– As for the military component, today Ukraine has 250,000-strong army, and if we had such an army as of February 20, 2014, then we certainly would not have seen either the invasion of Crimea or the violations of the borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Diplomatic component: Here, of course, we are ahead of Russia, because those sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation cost the Russian economy at least USD 350 billion – they are painful, and Putin is trying hard to mitigate them. He does not hide it.
Information component: in this we lose, unfortunately. We did not decide to allocate any reasonable funds from the budget to counteract the Russian propaganda. Yes, we have created the Ministry of Information Policy, but it actually acts only on paper: it has no resources or strategy. We do not distinguish between the terms “freedom of speech” and “propaganda” in the legislation, and Russia definitely abuses this powerfully.
Economic component: Russia is trying to put pressure on us at the Azov Sea today. We are trying to take steps to counteract. I have already mentioned sanctions; their goal is to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to pursue its policy and maintain its army.
Actually, Ukraine’s integration into NATO will unite all these capabilities of Ukraine, because it is a collective form of security – it is based not only on the use of military force, but also on the unity of diplomacy and information policy – to say the parts of the hybrid war, in which Ukraine needs to be strong.
We in the Verkhovna Rada are taking appropriate steps – we reformed the national security legislation. In fact, the National Security Act was written at the NATO offices and the United States Embassy, we do not hide it. We must take coordinated steps in order to gain membership in NATO in the near future – in fact, this is the direction and strategy of Ukraine’s victory in the war that Russia has started against us.
– Up to this moment, in the fifth year of the war, there are Ukrainians who are hoping that Russia can be reached an agreement. Say do you personally believe in it?
I.V. Any agreements in the modern world are based on negotiating positions. It is possible to negotiate with Russia only on the basis of a strong one, when we have a strong negotiating position and we will be able to protect our national interest. But it means the liberation of the territories from the Russian invaders both in the Crimea and in the Donbas, and in further compensation for the destroyed infrastructure, the material and non-material damage inflicted. Well, we definitely sympathize with the 10 thousand dead and their families – but Russia cannot compensate this for us.
– The UN further expresses concern about the situation in the Sea of Azov, and trying to avoid the conflict calls on Russia to refrain from further escalation. Do you think will these appeals affect Putin and the Russian Federation?
I.V. This is regulation and procedural appeal, as you called. In fact, this was a resolution. As a rule, such things are preceded by further sanctions. This is the last warning, a black mark – then there will be sanctions.
– Volodymyr Yelchenko, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations, said at the UN Security Council that Russia supplies weapons to the militants of the Donbas and its units in the occupied territory through the Sea of Azov. Has this issue been discussed at the National Security and Defense Committee?
I.V. We, of course, discussed this issue. By the way, within the next days the Committee will have to meet with a specific agenda. The situation in the Azov Sea is on the agenda, as well as the fact that Russia applies an economic zone within the Azov basin for the delivery of illegal cargoes to illegal armed formations.
– Should not in this case denounce an agreement with Russia on the joint use of the Azov Sea?
I.V. This agreement regulates passage through the Kerch Strait. According to it, Ukraine and Russia have a parity right to use the Kerch Strait. If we cancel this agreement, there might be a question about the prohibition of the crossing of this important water artery by the Ukrainian vessels. Therefore, it is worth paying attention carefully and reasonably – we are waiting for the conclusion of the Ministry of Justice with simulations of possible actions of the Russian Federation, if this agreement is completely denounced.
– What do you think, is Russia’s aggression in the Sea of Azov possibly a consequence of the construction of the Turkish Stream pipeline?
I.V. First, several streams in the direction of Turkey have been built. Secondly, I do not think that the Azov Sea has any connection with the implementation of Russian oil and gas projects that are being built in the Black Sea or the Baltic Basin.
At the same time, these infrastructure projects are undoubtedly dangerous for Ukraine, because Russia is trying to diversify ways of delivering gas to Europe in order to destabilize the Ukrainian gas transport system. In this case, Ukraine will lose its strategic transport potential for the countries of Europe, which today holds the countries of Europe in a state of conscious or unconscious allies of Ukraine. Putin is clearly aware of this, so he uses enormous resources to build gas pipelines around Ukraine.
Certainly, Europe can change its attitude towards sanction policy, because economic cooperation of certain European countries with Russia is more important for them than preservation of sanction measures for the containment of Russian aggression in Ukraine and the world. This is a false policy, it can lead to the fact that Russian tanks can be found on the border of Poland. And, by the way, it can happen not necessarily through the Ukrainian territory.
– What does Europe think about this? New Hitler is growing side by side, and do they just curry favour him?
I.V. Europe must remember the experience of the Second World War, when the Soviet Union, uniting efforts with Germany, tried to divide Europe. This has led to tragic events with millions of dead and ruined economies. Therefore, in this context, Ukraine should look at the position of the United States as the key and long-term strategic ally of our country, maintaining friendly relations with the European Union and convincing of the danger of Russian aggression.
– Are the USA able to protect Ukraine?
I.V. The USA is the most powerful, most capable army in the world; it’s nuclear potential; it is the main donor of forces in the NATO bloc; it is the largest economic entity in the world; this is a dollar as a reserve currency in many economies of the world; this is a developed diplomatic relationship; this is an advanced information technology and cyber security. In fact, I call all components of the hybrid war, so the USA capabilities are the most interesting for Ukraine.
– The United States believe that Putin’s statements about the development of missile systems (these are cartoons that showed in Russia) indicate Russia’s violation of the Treaty on the Reduction of Medium and Low Range missiles. Accordingly, USA President Donald Trump said that the States are coming out of an agreement on the elimination of medium and short-range missiles. In Moscow, for their part, stated that Russia will have to take measures of “military-technical” character, if the United States still make this decision. In your opinion, what are the consequences of these mutual threats by the USA and Russia with regard to nuclear weapons?
I.V. This will lead to the collapse of the RF, as a subject, as a state. In fact, Trump uses the same technology used by Reagan at one time when he fueled the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. The arms race has led the Soviet Union to spend too much on militarization, which has led to a major socio-economic collapse in the Soviet Union, and its breakup.
Russia is now channeling even more resources for militarization, and this will lead to an economic collapse and breakup of the Russian Federation. This is what the USA is trying to achieve, and this is what is in the interests of Ukraine today.
Х: What would be the destiny of Ukraine if we did not give up nuclear weapons? Was this way possible?
I.V. No, it’s not possible. We signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was signed by other countries in 1968. Ukraine has joined it with an obligation to destroy the nuclear potential that we got from the Soviet Union, which became the legal successor of the Russian Federation. That is, Ukraine, as an independent state, could not have its nuclear potential. If we did not get rid of it, the world would not recognize our sovereignty.
Thus, Ukraine has gained its independence, which, in my opinion, is of much greater value than the nuclear potential that we inherited from the Soviet Union.
– We have abandoned nuclear weapons, signed the Budapest memorandum, but why now does not the solution to the problem of Russian aggression occur within the framework of this memorandum?
I.V. The official translation of the Budapest memorandum into the Ukrainian language is not correct. The English version uses the term “assurance”, which in Ukrainian is correctly translated not as a “guarantee” of security, but as a “security assurance”.
It’s a pity that after two decades after the signing of the memorandum, we have not yet received a full membership in NATO. But we cannot blame NATO bloc on this because we have overthrown the Bucharest summit in 2008 due to a change in the domestic political field, which was directly influenced by the Russian Federation, with the aim of disrupting any advance of NATO to the east, on the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
Only this year, having passed the law on national security and re-loaded our attitude to NATO integration, we returned to the state of 2006-2007 and expect to receive a plan of action for Ukraine’s accession to NATO in the coming year or two. Upon receipt of this plan, we will need up to 3-4 years to implement it. That is, in aggregate, 5-7 years is a deadline for Ukraine to become a member of NATO.
– That is in the next 5-7 years Ukraine can become a member of NATO, can’t it?
I.V. Yes, it can. This is my expectation. For my part, as Secretary of the National Security and Defense Committee, I will do my best to ensure that it is implemented.
– What prospects does Ukraine gain as a member of NATO in victory in the war against Russia? Is this one of the ways to win?
I.V. Certainly. Even if we get the action plan for joining NATO, we are already starting to win in the hybrid war. Because, along with reforming our legislation and changing the attitude towards the components of the deflection and containment in the hybrid war we talked about at the beginning, Ukraine will begin to receive additional financial resources from various NATO funds to carry out
reforms in the army. In fact, these reforms will already carry out the function of counteraction and deterrence.
– We can only win thanks to a strong professional army. When will the wages be increased for military personnel?
I.V. In 2016, Ukraine began the reform of the army’s transfer to professional one, and we started this reform at the expense of increasing the salaries of servicemen. In 2017, seven thousand hryvnias were relevant to the minimum salary, but today, such a minimum salary is no longer relevant, and we see a large outflow of personnel from the Ukrainian Army. All this is due to the negligent attitude of the Cabinet of Ministers as the subject of ensuring the implementation of state policy, in this case the transfer of the army to professional rails.
We appealed to Prime Minister V. Groisman to take urgent measures to increase the minimum amount of monetary support for Ukrainian servicemen to at least UAH 11.5 thousand, which, in our opinion, will at least stop the outflow of personnel who are now returning tens of thousands to civil life.
– Will someone be responsible for the explosion in the warehouses?
I.V. We believe that there were five explosions in ordnance arsenals – the first in Svatov, then Balakliia, then Novoianysol, then Kalynivka, and actually in Ichnia. Our committee has studied all these situations, and came to the conclusion of the functional responsibility of V. Muzhenko, the Head of the General Staff. The committee sent an appeal to the President of Ukraine on the release of V. Muzhenko from the post of Head of General Staff, since the General Staff and his head are responsible for the logistics service, but just the logistics service is a balancer of all warehouses and arsenals. The Head of the General Staff has all the power to oppose any sabotage or negligence that may lead to detonation of arsenals that Ukraine has watched.
Our recommendations were not fulfilled, and we can only repeat them. It is also unacceptable to store open-air supplies. This is a fairly simple target for a sabotage group. Therefore, the committee insists on the construction of secure storage facilities for ammunition.
– Were the explosions sabotage?
I.V. It does not matter which key version is. Apparently they were sabotage. At the same time, if they were not sabotage, but were the result of official negligence – in any case, this is the responsibility of the head of the General Staff.
– And finally, once again – what, in your opinion, is Ukraine’s guarantee of peace?
I.V. Again I will repeat my thesis. Hybrid wars are characterized by at least four components: military, diplomatic, information that tells the domestic consumer and the world about how it should be perceived and economical one. If we are strong in these four components, we will win in a hybrid war.
