The extremely important geopolitical location of Ukraine does not permit us to disregard nearby events. Subsequently, there is an urgent need for the in-depth analysis of modern military conflicts and their affect on Ukraine’s national security in order to define actions aimed at preserving national security, strategic stability and military sufficiency.

SUBSTANCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF CONTEMPORARY MILITARY CONFLICTS

    In the Soviet military encyclopedia, military conflict was defined as any argument between two states involving military force. In a broad sense - any war, but more often - armed hostility on a state’s border caused by its infringement on the sovereignty of this or that state and so forth.

    In today’s world, military conflict has acquired an entirely new set of definitions dependent on the quantitative - qualitative parameters and types of disputes being fought. Thus, they are now separated by socio - political preconditions of the conflicts, ethnic disputes, separatism, territorial disputes, mentality (egoism) of this or that ethnicity, basic struggle for power, and economic disputes. A particular increase has been noted in social - political conflicts, not only internationally but also internally. The latter cases have often developed from local, regional conflicts to those involving the participation of a coalition of states against one state. Such conflicts, which have occurred in Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Transnestria, Nagorniy Karabakh, touch national interests of Ukraine, in particular – loss of petroleum and gas supplies, arms and drugs smuggling, increase of refugees and so forth.

    Analysis of the above-stated military conflicts shows us that peacekeeping forces were involved in the majority of conflict resolutions.

    Ukraine views its participation in national and multinational peacekeeping operations as the most important component of its foreign policy, when such operations are based on a UN Security Council’s resolution, in accordance with the UN Charter, OSCE and other regional organizations that support global security under the general guidance of the UN’s Security Council (Law of Ukraine “On Ukraine’s Participation in International Peacekeeping Operations”).

    Subsequently, it is necessary to provide definitions of contemporary military conflicts:

    Military Conflict – political, social, territorial, ethnic, religious and other types of disputes between parties that involve the application of military force in order to achieve various political goals. The essence of the military conflict is the armed clash between the parties’ armies based on a uniform military plan of implementation for the achievement of military-political ends.

    Now, with a definition in hand, we will analyze the military conflicts that have taken place over the last decade.

ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY MILITARY CONFLICTS THAT INFLUENCE UKRAINE’S NATIONAL SECURITY

    At the end of the “Cold War”, problems of maintaining global security acquired new features. The end of the bipolar world has resulted in “growing squalls” of local conflicts, mostly internal. These conflicts pose a serious threat to regional stability in various parts of the globe.

    Frequently conflicts have been used to put pressure on probable or potential opponents. This can explain the US policy of intervention in regional conflicts under the guise of protecting “national interests”, “freedom and democracies “ and “human rights”; the conflict in Kosovo is a clear example.

    “The Explosion of Nationalism”, according to English historian A. Toinby, initiated a chain reaction of changes, causing a rekindling of national self-consciousness and an increase of interest in ethnic culture, affecting countries and regions where ethnic questions were previously though to have been solved. Thus, this could be classified as “secondary nationalism”.

    With the realities of today, the occurrence of military conflicts in the world has not been decreasing but actually increasing. Over the last decade 1990 to 1999, more than 50 conflicts have taken place, and in more than 40 cases, military force was applied. In total, the second half of the twentieth centuries witnessed peacekeeping operations in 120 countries. The Geneva Center of Security Problems estimates that up to 90% of the conflicts arise from political, economic, ethnic, and territorial reasons.

    After the end of the “Cold War” we witnessed of flare up of conflicts in Central Europe (the civil war in Yugoslavia) and the new states of CIS (in Nagorniy Karabakh, Georgia, Moldova and Tajikistan), and also in Russia (Chechnya) and other conflicts. Territorial disputes can potentially become a source of future conflicts in East and Southeast Europe. Serious and complex disputes in the Middle East, combined with the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism have impacted the situations in the Transcaucases and Central Asia. Conflicts in the new states of Central Asia are only now coming to a head. Under modern conditions, any military conflict having the potential to develop into local, regional or full-scale wars makes the situation in adjacent regions explosive, and the world fragile.

    The majority of the conflicts (5 of 8, or 62 %) have been internal ethnic and territorial disputes marked by aggressive separatism, for independence and self-determination on the one hand and upholding of territorial integrity of the state on the another. Internal disputes between state structures and separatists cause high political and social pressure and have resulted in armed clash between the sides. As a rule, peacekeeping forces were used to resolve the conflict. Separate conflicts developed to international and even coalition levels (for example, Bosnia - NATO and Yugoslavia). 38 % of the conflicts (3 of 8: Karabakh, Iraq-Kuwait, operation “ Desert Fox “) consist of international conflicts caused by political and economic reasons and, except for the conflict in Nagorniy Karabakh, carry an interregional scope - “coalitions of the NATO states against Iraq”.

    The primary military-political goals of the conflicts are:

    - Securing deliveries of petroleum to Western Europe and the liberation of Kuwait’s territory;

    - Strengthening the US and NATO’s positions of in the Middle East and the Balkans;

    - Destabilizing the regions and attempting to eliminate the lawfully elected governments of Saddam Hussein and Milosevich, who are in opposition to the US;

    - Struggling for the redistribution of power and strategic sources of raw material (in particular, petroleum) in Chechnya between central and regional mafia groups;

    - Coercing Iraq’s leadership to comply with the UN Security Council’s resolution #687 on the destruction of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) (operation “Desert Fox” - 1998);

    - Struggling for independence and self-determination between ethnic groups in the population while upholding of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state;

    - Ending a conflict and supporting regional and global stability.

    The military-political goals of the conflicts, as a rule, were achieved in the following manners:

    - Application of political-diplomatic, economic and other peaceful means and mechanisms of the UN and OSCE (economic sanctions and blockades against Iraq and Yugoslavia), acceptance of the UN Security Council resolution no. 687, that condemns aggression of Iraq against Kuwait and provides for the destruction of WMD);

    - Demonstration of military force (presence of NATO, USA and UN forces in the areas of the conflicts, application of sea blockades, establishment of “no fly” zones, military-political and financial pressure on governments who violate human rights, the presentation of ultimatums);

    - Application of military force, campaigns and operations by coalition forces (multinational forces against Iraq and NATO forces against Yugoslavia), and special operations of the Armed Forces, Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) and State Security Service (SSS) of the Russian Federation against illegal military formations in Chechnya;

    - Realization of peacekeeping operations and provision of humanitarian aid to refugees, safety during their return home.

    Based on military-strategic parameters, the military conflicts of the past decade can be characterized by:

a) scale:

    - Regional - 4 (Iraq-Kuwait, Chechnya, operation “Desert Fox” and Kosovo);

    - Local - 3 (Karabakh, Georgia-Abkhazia and Bosnia);

    - Limited - 1 (Transnestria);

b) number of the participants:

    - Coalition - 3 (operation “Desert Storm”, operation “Desert Fox” and Bosnia, where coalition forces from 30 countries and 16 NATO countries took part against one state);

    - Interstate (one state against a second) - 1 (Karabakh - Azerbaijan and Armenia);

    - Intrastate - 4 (Transnestria, Georgia-Abkhazia, Bosnia, Chechnya);

c) quantity of forces involved in the conflict:

    - From separate small formations to significant forces. Conflicts in which small armies were involved include Karabakh, Transnestria, Georgia-Abkhazia. Basically sub-divisions of the Armed Forces participated. Conflicts in which operative - tactical groups participated include Chechnya, where the Russian Armed Forces, MIA and SSS were used against illegal military formations in Chechnya. The most significant amount of forces were engaged in: “Desert Storm”, “Desert Fox”, Kosovo, where all branches of the Armed Forces were involved, including special services;

d) weapons involved:

    - In three conflicts - operation “Desert Storm”, “Desert Fox” and “Allied Force”, the US and NATO forces utilized the most advanced types of military hardware and ordinance. This included precision weapons, B-2 stealth bombers, F-117A stealth aircraft, sea-based missiles “Tomahawk” cruise missiles, air-based missiles, ALARM missiles(Air-Launched Anti-Radiation missiles), controlled air bombs with laser guidance, bomb and munition stores with depleted uranium, even heated landing strips at airfields, the high efficiency “Patriot” missile systems, space systems of search and communication to ground forces, new methods of radioelectronic combat, etc.

    - In other conflicts (60 %) basic shooting weapons, light artillery systems, armored helicopters, mostly old former USSR versions, were utilized;

e) duration:

    - Brief - from 3 days (operation “ Desert Fox “) to about 2,5 months (Kosovo);

    - Long - from 3 years (Chechnya) to 10 years (Karabakh); and some of them remain unresolved (Georgia-Abkhazia, Karabakh, Iraq-Kuwait);

f) intensity (of combat):

    - Average intensity - 40 % (operation “ Desert Storm “, “ Desert Fox “, “ Allied Force “);

    - Low intensity - 60 % (all other conflicts).

    Analysis of military conflicts of last decade asserts the changing roles and tasks of the armed forces.

    A primary feature of contemporary military conflicts and wars is that the leading role previously filled by ground forces and their initial land invasion, is now accomplished by the air and sea forces. All conflicts in which the US and NATO’s armed forces were involved in began with air campaigns of varying length (3 days in operation “Desert Fox”, 43 days in operation “Desert Storm” and 79 days in the Kosovo conflict). Furthermore, in operation “Desert Fox” and “Allied Force”, ground forces were not used at all. Hence, the basic attack functions were carried out by the air and sea forces in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Therefore it is possible to claim that the role of air and sea armies in wars and military conflicts is growing. They begin the armed conflict and protect vital state and military installations, infrastructure and communications from hits, thus providing the ability to live and function.

    The changing roles of armed forces in military conflicts have predetermined the character of the tasks to be carried out

    An important task for the armed forces in peacekeeping operations, as experience shows, is de-mining roads, districts and installations, preventing terrorist acts and ensuring safety for the returning refugees.

    Experience in de-mining districts demonstrates that in the territory of 65 countries, 110 million mines have been buried. According to the UN, 2.5 million mines were planted in Yugoslavia in 1993. The latest figures have increased to 8 million over an area of ~ 3,8 thousand sq. km.

    Accordingly, the task of de-mining and ensuring safety for the movement of armies and creating conditions for normalizing lives becomes highly important in the resolution of the conflict.

    During the operation “Allied Force” (in Kosovo) over a period of 79 days, NATO’s air forces of more than 680 aircraft, made 31 thousand attack runs using more as 23 thousand bombs and missiles, including 820 sea-based and 115 air-based missiles. As a result, Yugoslavia was completely destroyed, 2/3 its military industry demolished, energy supplies and vital industries were disrupted (35 % devastated), the country’s infrastructure was fractured (70 % of bridges over the Danube were wrecked), Yugoslavia’s armed forces 1, 2, and 3 suffered losses - 35, 20 and 60 % respectively. Preliminary data on the total damage to Yugoslavia is ~ 100 billion dollars. NATO’s forces suffered a loss of two planes (according to NATO figures). Therefore, Milosevich was compelled to accept the US and NATO’s ultimatum on the resolutions of the conflict in Kosovo and the introduction of NATO peacekeepers.

    As experience in the conflicts testifies, 50% of the opponents’armed forces were not used and of the other 50 % - the forces did not execute their tasks and allowed the opponent to take complete advantage in air. There are many reasons for it but mostly due to out-dated radar-tracking systems and low security and low survivability from new weapons systems. Thus, the losses of aircraft of multinational forces in operation “Desert Storm” totaled 41 planes, and in operation “Allied Force”, according to NATO, only 2 planes, which is 100 times are less than “Desert Storm”.

    The largest use of US and NATO’s naval forces were in 4 operations over the last decade: during the air-sea campaign in the Kosovo and Bosnian conflicts, in operations “Desert Fox” and “Desert Storm”. In the last operation, the naval forces consisted of 150 ships, including 6 aircraft carriers, together with more than 135 thousand men. More than 20 battleships with 334 “Tomahawks” took part in the Kosovo conflict.

    In order to fulfill the above-mentioned tasks, separate small formations to significant armies were brought into military action. Soldiers totaled anywhere from 500 men in the Transnestria conflict, up to 700 thousand men in operation Desert Storm. In Chechnya, operative - tactical grouping of armies were created with parts of the MIA and SSS of the Russian Federation. The largest armies forces were created in operation Desert Storm, formed from a 30 country strong multinational force to include: 13 divisions, 4 separate brigades, 2 separate regiments, more than 3,000 tanks and over 2 thousand artillery systems. They were supported by air forces, which comprised more than 1800 combat aircraft, about 1700 helicopters, 6 aircraft carriers, and 150 missile-launching submarines. In this operation, practically all branches of the armed forces and special services, including the strength of the US space command, were applied.

    During the conflicts, depending on their scales, various kinds of arms and military engineering - from light artillery systems, and old helicopters to advanced missile systems and the latest strategic B – 2A stealth bombers, F -117A aircraft, laser guided missiles, ammunition with depleted uranium and systems of energy supply. Wide application in the military conflicts by the US and NATO was found for satellite communications systems.

    The use of armies in the military conflicts was varied

    - from classical to non-standard operations, combat actions, and offensives. The operations were carried out both independently, and together   with armies of other branches, MIA and SSS of the Russian Federation (in Chechnya) - offensive, defensive, air-ground offensive operations (aeromobile, search and rescue, and others), and also peacekeeping. They, as a rule, were limited to operative - tactical and operative scales.

    Combat actions and offensives had mainly tactical scale and character that is particular for combined actions and partisan struggles.

    It is necessary to note some features of separate campaigns: no use of ground forces, only air and navel (“Desert Fox” and “Allied Force”), ground forces were used in the final stages of the conflict (as in peacekeeping forces).

    Taking into account that in military conflicts diversionary-terrorist actions are becoming more wide scope, the basic structure of the involved armies are more often comprised of armed forces and subdivisions from the special services.

    The experience of the conflicts confirms a special role played by mobile forces, air and air-sea divisions, attack planes, and others. The mobile forces from Armed Forces, together with MIA units, can carry out peacekeeping missions, guarding, evacuation, humanitarian and other functions. The use of modern weapons in military conflicts allows the development of new forms of actions.

    Attention in military conflicts should be given to the further development of means to deal with illegal military groupings, terrorists, hostage situations and their liberation, and the safe return of refugees.

    In the military conflicts of last decade, the attacking side endured insignificant losses where ground forces were not used. In the Chechen conflict the Russian Armed Forces, MIA and SSS lost 3.5 thousand soldiers, 4.8 thousand people have been wounded and more than 150 people have been captured. The defending side, in all cases, endured the heavier losses in military-economic potential, military and civil infrastructure, and population. In the Chechen conflict, more than 50 thousand people remained without housing. The conflicts have also resulted in ecological and humanitarian catastrophes (more than 800 thousand refugees in Kosovo).

    Thus, the military conflict concept has been redefined in terms of quantitative - qualitative parameters and types of disputes. The changes in the content of military conflict are influencing the construction and development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Their functions and tasks are not only centered on the defense of the state from outside threats, but also protecting the territorial integrity inside the state and participation in international peacekeeping operations.

    In this sense, there is a statement by the former US President Eisenhower: “Peacekeeping is not work for soldiers, but only soldiers have the opportunity to deal with it”.

    Ukraine’s attitude to the Kosovo conflict is stated in a Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution No. 612 - XIV from 23.05.99. It condemns the aggressive actions of the NATO block against the sovereign republic of Yugoslavia as irresponsible and inhumane. It also condemns any form of ethnic cleansing. The Rada within the framework of cooperation with international structures (European, euroatlantic) consistently and firmly asserted the national interests of Ukraine and its people, as required by the Constitution of Ukraine and Declaration on the National Sovereignty of Ukraine.

    Subsequently, the Armed Forces and other military agencies need to be prepared and able to react quickly to any potential local or regional military conflicts in order to maintain national security in Ukraine. As a whole, Ukraine is driven to have a defense structure that rests on the prevention and neutralization of threats by non-military means and reliance on military strength only in extreme circumstances.

    The analysis of contemporary military conflicts confirms that the development of both external (interstate) and internal military conflicts is a real and increasing threat for Ukraine. Therefore, the overall defense objective of the state is the further improvement of military organization of the state (starting with the Armed Forces of Ukraine) in order to adequately prepare for external and internal threats which could arise for Ukraine in XXI century.