Connect with us

Defense

AUKUS and the US planning to annex of Australia and Japan to the NATO’s alliance

Avatar photo

Published

on

The American planning has actually emerged during the last years in the era of “Trump”, by seeking to (the annexation and inclusion of “Australia and Japan” to the list of new members of NATO, especially after the signing of the new Aukus defense agreement led by Washington and before it the “Quad Quartet agreement” with Japanese participation), although this basically contradicted the charter and constitution of the alliance since its inception, and made it limited  mainly around the (concentrated Atlantic Ocean members), this was not the only American precedent for violating the constitution of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by including new members, but was preceded by several precedents and other evidence, This can be analyzed, as follows:

The extent of these American pressures on Europe and NATO and the extent of (the subordination of the NATO’S security agenda to the American administration itself), which began with the recent developments of the global agenda, specifically with the (New NATO Security Document of August 2019), which NATO announced that: (NATO has expanded the scope of its security operations, to include the Asia-Pacific region). This is despite (this is inconsistent with the alliance charter), by restricting it only to the countries of the Atlantic Alliance.

 Of course, the logical result of this increase in the number of NATO members is (the increasing scope of financial burdens to meet the defense, security and military needs of containing China in many other regions and regions that are geographically far from NATO interactions), especially with the entry of Russia as a major actor in the interactions of NATO’S members, as well as China.

The most important point that stopped the Egyptian researcher is that (the American attempts to expand the number of NATO members and include Australia with them and then Japan later after the signing of the Aukus agreement), and this can be fully understood even before the signing of “Aukus”, after the visit of the US Secretary of Defense  The former “Mark Esper” and the former Foreign Minister “Mike Pompeo” to Australia from 3-6 August 2019, and the joining of the Secretary-General of NATO to them based on an American invitation to him, and everyone in the Australian capital “Canberra” discussed opportunities for Australia to join the alliance, and discussed (the possibility of Australia joining NATO).

In my personal analysis, Washington’s success in its plan with its Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea and others, as well as the Australian side, and I mean specifically here, in the event (the success of the American planning for Australia and Japan to join the list of NATO members to expand the security and military scope of the alliance against China). This is enough to cause a “disruption in the Asian regional and global security”, especially after Washington’s invitation to the Asian partners, namely: “Japan, Australia and South Korea”, to join NATO, and they are not allies of NATO in the first place, but rather to achieve Washington’s ambitions, and to participate in the security file in the region for further actions and confrontation to China.

The Egyptian researcher analyzed the previous dangerous point about Australia joining NATO, from the danger that (the possibility of Australia joining the alliance will lead to a profound change in the composition and meaning of the NATO alliance, which is limited to countries on both sides of the Atlantic), and perhaps if the attempt to include Australia in NATO succeeds, it will follow (an attempt to open the way for Japan’s membership later as an ally of Washington as well), and perhaps for other distant countries based on narrow individual American interests, which empties the alliance of its content and the charter of the goals of its first establishment.

We find here, that (the recent American attempts to include other new countries in NATO were not the first precedent in the history of NATO, but were preceded by three other actual attempts to include dozens of countries for membership in the alliance). Hence, the process of NATO expansion has become capable of bringing (more crises for the alliance from within, i.e. from within its network of members), especially in light of the tense relations with the Russian side with NATO countries in Eastern Europe, with (NATO being forced to defend them, because they are from its network of members).

We find that (the first phase of NATO expansion) began through the process of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on March 12, 1999, by including (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland), with a great symbolism for the state of Poland, given that its capital is “Warsaw”. It was previously (the headquarters of the Warsaw Pact of the eastern bloc of the Soviet Union), as a major military alliance for the eastern bloc led by Moscow in the face of the United States of America and the policies and interests of the West and Europe.

While (the second phase of NATO expansion) included the beginning of the second expansion phase of NATO member states, on March 29, 2004, which led to the inclusion of countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia), which resulted in the atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust towards the “the return of Russia to threat the West”, with the escalation of voices claiming that the American hostility to Russia is caused by the fact that it is the heiress of the Soviet Union, the sworn enemy of the Americans for decades.  This American hostility to Russia is linked to the “historical hostility” between the two Western blocs led by Washington and the Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union before its fall and disintegration in 1991 into several small states and countries on the borders of Russia.

These grave strategic, security and military mistakes in the face of NATO increased, especially with the start of the (third phase of NATO’S expansion), which is the stage that started from April 2009 to June 5, 2017. The third expansion of NATO took place after the end of the cold war, by the annexation of (Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro), which was interspersed with the events of Ukraine, and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014, which Russia considers as a return to it and not an annexation of it, in addition to the worsening relations between the Russian and Ukrainian countries, to the point of their almost collapse,  this is due to (the aggravation of the crisis with the intervention of “NATO” in defense of Ukraine as a new member of NATO), which led to the provocation and anger of Russia, especially after the imposition of US and European sanctions on it as a result of its annexation of NATO member Ukraine.

Here, many argue that the cause of the exacerbation of crises in (the Eurasian region, or the post-Soviet countries), contributed to their making by American policies, which motivated Russia and the hard-line nationalist voices to take the lead again to confront the American influence within Russia’s own spheres of influence in order to prevent its dismantling from  New, in a re-memorial of the “Cold War scene” in the international community.      

What the Egyptian researcher confirms about this previous analysis is (the increase in the wave of American hostility to Russia, with the emergence of revolutions against Moscow with American support). It is noted that all the revolutions and uprisings of countries close to the Russian borders came almost simultaneously, which confirms (the theory of supported colored revolutions by the USA directed against Russia from its border areas), which is what Russia called, that what is happening is (a wave of color revolutions in the face of Tsarist Russia with American support and assistance), revolutions that affected several former Soviet countries on Russia’s borders.

Perhaps this explains the reasons for (the opposition of the most prominent American and international figures to the American intervention within Russia’s borders and areas of influence, and even their rejection of the annexation of countries from eastern Europe to NATO), and their far-reaching vision of its impact on the security of the United States of America, and the increasing military burdens on NATO. In addition to (the increasing severity of the Russian threat to US national security in response to US attempts to provoke it on its territorial and geographical borders).

We find that the most prominent of those American personalities who led the scene of rejecting Washington’s annexation of Ukraine and countries from eastern Europe to NATO, and thus interfering on its behalf in security and challenging Russian influence, is the one who is called the architect of the Cold War, “George Kennan”, who described the first stage of expanding  NATO in 2004, as (the worst decision made by the United States of America and the main NATO members in their history).

We can notice here that the American diplomat “William Burns” has agreed on the same opinion of “George Kennan”, notifying that “William Burns” isthe former American diplomat and intelligence man, he is as well (the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the former American diplomat), who criticized this expansion, and even (William Burns) warned against to include Ukraine in NATO on American national security. In his book “Back Channel”, issued in 2019.

In light of the tense atmosphere between (Moscow, Kiev, Tbilisi) on the one hand, and their Western allies on the other hand, and after holding a (red lines Summit) between Presidents “Biden and Putin” at the beginning of 2021, the state of “regional strategic instability of Eurasia has increased”,  and its impact on global security.

  Through the previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, we understand (the USA is leading the regional and international scene by trying to expand the scope of NATO members, and despite its success in this, it has negatively affected NATO and its members).  At the present time, this also coincided with the increase in the ceiling of American ambitions and expectations to confront China, with its attempt to include (Australia and Japan), especially after signing the “Aukus Defense Agreement”, which ultimately led to the weakening of the alliance, and the failure of its operations with (the conflicting agendas of the alliance with the goals of its member states are facing each other).

Associate Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Politics and Economics / Beni Suef University- Egypt. An Expert in Chinese Politics, Sino-Israeli relationships, and Asian affairs- Visiting Senior Researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES)/ Lund University, Sweden- Director of the South and East Asia Studies Unit

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Internet of Military Things (IoMT) and the Future of Warfare

Published

on

The Internet of Military Things (IoMT) is a class of heterogeneously connected devices employed for future warfare. It has wide applications in advanced combat operations and intelligence-oriented warfare. For example, it allows real-time connection among devices, such as between unmanned vehicles and a central command station. Likewise, it would enable a broader warfighting concept interpreted as Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) by the United States (US) military. JADC2 is based on a similar network of sensors that connect all battlefield devices.

A majority of highly advanced military units have integrated IoMT into their battlefield operations to enhance their surveillance and response strategies. This concept offers multiple strategic options to militaries. For example, deployment of multiple sensors of IoMT across various domains (air, land, sea, space and cyber) can support data to acquire comprehensive situational awareness and understand the information ecosystem of the battlefield. This will ultimately speed up the Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) loop of decision-making and help in prompt and accurate planning and execution in future warfare.

IoMT can connect not only battlefield devices but also military troops through wearable devices. Under challenging terrains such as mountains, jungle or deserted terrains, wearable devices such as a jacket or a wristband can sense and track troops’ health status, weapon state, atmospheric conditions, relative locations and communicate all such information to the central command. The central command can analyse the tactical data of the soldiers to make decisions, based on incoming real-time information. It is expected that with the advancement of neural networks, wearable devices will also be able to evaluate the physical, psychological and emotional state of Air Force pilot. It is also anticipated that automated battleground devices, such as mechanised snipers would be equipped with IoMT. Such a sniper would have two units, a firing unit and a control unit. A webcam and a sensor would detect movement while the control unit would order fire.

Cloud computing would be essential for the storage of data gathered from multiple sensors of IoMT. A 5G connection would, therefore, be vital for data transfer through high bandwidth and low latency. Likewise, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data analytics would be crucial for data processing.

The US and China have actively invested in IoMT. The US military has developed an integrated warfighting network that converges and combines all the data from IoMT sensors, radars, and satellites. This data is filtered to pinpoint critical data for successful missions. IoMT solutions have also been used to integrate the Army’s ballistic missile defence system and classified communication networks into one central hub to interact with and engage threats. US defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, L3Harris and Northrop Grumman have worked on various elements of this integrated battle network.

Similarly, China has also shown great interest in IoMT. The model China has adopted to develop IoMT includes a high level of collaboration between academic and government research organisations, the private sector and defence industrial complexes. Like the US, China has also developed a strategic outline for integrated warfare. The Chinese National Defence White Paper (NDWP 2019) characterised future warfare as ‘Intelligent Warfare.’ A round of cutting-edge IoT technologies would drive the development of an intelligent military and ultimately create a modern military force for the future. This process is expected to be completed by 2035.

The Indian Army is using IoMT for communication purposes. It has been developing an LTE-based mobile communication grid with integrated IoMT sensors to provide a secure and failsafe communication system. This communication system would have layered security for voice, data and video, and protect the network from intrusions and interceptions. This communication system would be provided to formations and units along Pakistan and China’s border. For developing this IoT-based communication grid, the Indian military would choose only Indian vendors and those foreign companies who have registered offices with production, maintain and repair infrastructures in the country.

The IoT ecosystem in Pakistan is nascent as the country lacks the basic infrastructure to produce IoT devices on a large scale. Presently, small start-ups have been engaged in building IoT devices through outsourcing, mainly to China. These start-ups have developed wearable medical devices, smart home appliances, trackers for electric consumption­, etc. IoMT devices require a large upfront budget; however, these applications offer long-term benefits. As Pakistan is heavily inclined towards developing its capacity in emerging technologies, IoMT should not be neglected as it could be a force multiplier that facilitates the network of communication and data transmission. Coupled with advancements in the telecom industry and 5G, IoMT can deliver effective and precise military capabilities that would help in tackling any future threat environment.

Continue Reading

Defense

The Greatest Threats to U.S. National Security: Russia, China, and Iran/Terrorism

Avatar photo

Published

on

In May 2, 2022 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Scott D. Berrier and Director of National Intelligence Avril D. Haines identified China, Russia, and Iran, as well as terrorist organizations, as the greatest threats to U.S. national security. Both China and Russia are nuclear powers and both have significant intelligence, cyber, and information warfare capabilities.

Russia

Russia’s threat to the United States includes: direct military conflict, cyber attacks, supporting separatists, threats to freedom of navigation, and territorial expansion. On November 15, a missile blast killed two people in Poland, near the Ukraine border. Russia was the primary suspect. President Joe Biden later told the Poles that the missile was part of a Ukrainian defense system. Whether the missile actually came from Russia directly or was the indirect result of Russian shelling, the incident underscores the danger Russia poses. A perceived attack on a NATO member could cause NATO to invoke Article 5, which states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against the entire alliance.

Moscow has repeatedly accused the U.S. and NATO of wanting to destroy Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, 13 countries have been admitted to NATO: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); Albania and Croatia (2009); and, in 2017, Montenegro. Consequently, Russia has been focused on maintaining its influence and control in former Soviet republics, including Ukraine, Belarus, and the Central Asian states.

Defeating the U.S. or breaking from a U.S.-led world order was a primary goal of the USSR and has carried over to modern Russia. Opposing Europe and the U.K. are secondary objectives, seen as a proxy for defiance against the U.S. One of the concerns of the Department of Defense is that Putin often uses threats, including the threat of nuclear war, to get what he wants. If his threats continue to go unheeded, there is the danger that he will finally act, launching a strike, to show that he is serious.

Since the fall of the USSR, there have been numerous opportunities for cooperation between the U.S., E.U. NATO, and Russia, including participation in joint military exercises and peacekeeping operations. Tensions, however, run deep, complicating attempts at relationship-building. In 1999, Russian and NATO forces nearly engaged in a firefight at Pristina Airport, at the end of the Kosovo War. In 2004, Russia accused the U.S. of supporting the revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, and raised objections when the Bush administration positioned U.S. ballistic missile defense systems (BMD) in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia then positioned its own missiles in Kaliningrad, the former East Prussia. In 2008, Russia opposed Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia. In August 2008, Russia blamed the U.S for supporting Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in a war against separatist South Ossetia. At one point, Georgian and Russian forces exchanged fire.

In 2014, NATO canceled all attempts to cooperate with Russia, in response to the invasion of the Crimea. Four years later, Russia attempted to assassinate Sergei Skripal, a British citizen living in the U.K.

The current invasion of Ukraine is making cooperation between the West and Russia less likely, while increasing the chance of war.

Ukraine became independent in 1991, shortly after the collapse of the USSR. In 2004, Viktor Yanukovich, a pro-Russian candidate, won a general election, which was presumed to have been rigged. In 2014, Russia backed separatists in the Donbas region, sparking off a conflict in which

an estimated 15,000 people died before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In 2019, pro-European candidate Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president of Ukraine, and the country began its pivot back to the West. In 2021, Zelenskyy asked President Biden to support Ukraine in joining NATO.

In December 2021, Russia began deploying troops close to its border with Ukraine. At the peak, 190,000 Russian soldiers were threatening Ukraine. Putin demanded that the U.S. remove its weapons from Eastern Europe. In response, the U.S. sent 3,000 troops to Poland and Romania. In February 2022, Russian-backed paramilitaries seized parts of Ukraine’s Donbas region. Shortly after, Putin recognized the region’s independence. Three days later, on February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Since the invasion began, the U.S., NATO and the E.U have been supporting the Ukrainian military with weapons, money, and intelligence.

Smaller nations, particularly in Southeastern Europe, are worried about being gobbled up, should Russia continue its expansion. Apart from the threat to U.S. interests in continental Western Europe, there is also the threat of Russia’s expansion into the Arctic, positioning submarines and missiles, which could potentially threaten shipping and freedom of navigation in the North Sea, as well as possible attacks on Canada, Alaska, and Scandinavia. Most recently, Finland and Sweden have been given permission to join NATO.

China

China seeks to surpass the U.S. militarily, economically, technologically, and in terms of global influence. The FBI identifies China as the greatest threat to the U.S. in terms of information warfare. China coopts U.S persons, politicians, academics, and businesspeople, to support legislation which is favorable to Chinese Communist Party. Beijing’s stated goal is to become the world’s number-one superpower, a goal they are slowly achieving through predatory lending to developing countries, systematic theft of intellectual property, as well as hacking and other cybercrimes.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin identifies China as the single greatest threat to the United States. While he also considers Russia a threat, he pointed out that China, unlike Russia, has the stated goal to remake the world order in their own image and that China has the economic and military capability to do so. The Department of Defense reported that, in China and Russia, the U.S. now faces two hostile nuclear powers.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has vowed to capture Taiwan, and has declared that China has the right to use force to do so. If he launches an invasion, given the ambiguity of the Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, it is unclear if Washington would go to war. President Biden, however, has publicly stated, on several occasions, that the U.S. would defend the island nation. Japan also identifies an attack on Taiwan as an attack on Japan, because a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invasion of Taiwan is sure to violate Japanese air and sea space. If Japan is forced to defend itself, the U.S. is treaty-bound to join the fight. Consequently, Taiwan is the single most likely flashpoint for a war between the U.S. and China.

Iran

According to the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, published in February 2022, “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qa‘ida, and Iran and its militant allies, will take advantage of weak governance to continue to plot terrorist attacks against U.S. persons and interests, including to varying degrees in the United States, and exacerbate instability in regions such as Africa and the Middle East.”

While Russia is dominating headlines with the Ukraine invasion and China’s economic, political, and military expansion is monitored by the media, as well as national security and military intelligence agencies, Iran and Iran-sponsored terrorism remains the third-largest challenge, according to the U.S. intelligence community. Iran’s threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East include direct missile attacks, cyber attacks, assassinations, and sponsorship of terrorist organization and proxy forces, as well as the increasing danger posed by Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Iran projects its own power in the Middle East and North Africa, eroding U.S. influence. In particular, Iran threatens U.S. military and civilians in the region, Israel, and U.S. oil-trade partner Saudi Arabia. Although the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has been fraught with difficulties, Saudi Arabia is crucial to U.S. interests, because they are an important oil trade partner, a weapons trade partner, and they offer support for the internationalization of the U.S. dollar. Additionally, U.S. forces use Saudi Arabia as a base of operations to counter other threats in the region, such as Iran. As important as Saudi Arabia is to U.S. operations, they are not exactly a reliable ally. In October, OPEC, which is led by Saudi Arabia, refused a U.S. request to raise production volumes. Many in the U.S. Congress advised the president to stop providing Saudi Arabia with weapons, which would leave the kingdom vulnerable to an Iranian attack.

Saudi Arabia, which shares intelligence with the United States, warned in November 2022 of possible Iranian attacks on targets inside of the Saudi territory. Iran was also blamed for missile attacks on Saudi refineries in 2019. Iran backs Shia forces in Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and Lebanon, which fight proxy wars against Western countries and Sunnis in the region. Iran supports terrorist groups, including Hammas, as well as Lebanese Hizballah, Shia militias in Iraq, the Huthis in Yemen, and provides direct support to the regime in Syria. Through their support of the Syrian government, Iran and Russia together are indirectly responsible for the deaths of over 400,000 Syrians.

Iran often engages in provocative actions against U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Over the past three years, Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence has been responsible for cyber attacks, including attacks on Israeli water infrastructure in 2020, the Boston Children’s Hospital in 2021, and Albania’s government in 2022.

In September, Iran captured two U.S. Navy drones. In 2020, Iran launched missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting U.S. forces. In August 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice formally charged a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Shahram Poursafi, with attempting to pay for the assassination of former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton and of a second individual, who authorities believe was former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Iran has also sold drones to Russia which are now being deployed in Ukraine. U.S. authorities believe that the August shipment of Mohajer-6 and Shahed-series drones to Moscow is the first of many planned transfers of Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) of various types to Russia. In October, Iran agreed to sell Russia surface-to-surface missiles, as well as more drones.

With over 3,000 missiles, Iran has the world’s largest arsenal of conventionally armed ballistic missiles, many of which are precision-guided, with ranges of up to 2,000 kilometers. And this does not include Iran’s growing supply of land-attack cruise missiles. While Iran does not possess nuclear capabilities yet, many of these missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear payload. For this reason, watchdog agencies keep a close eye on Iran’s nuclear development programs. In August 2022, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami threatened that there were “hundreds of thousands of missiles” pointed at Israel.

The threat from Iran has increased since anti-government protests started in September 2022. The government has reacted violently to the protests, killing at least 130 protesters. In October 2022, the country’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, publicly blamed the protests on the U.S. and Israel.

The Institute for Science and International Security monitors the threat posed to the U.S. from Iran. As of October 2022, the institute ranked the Iran threat as “high danger,” 130 out of a possible 180. The assessment is conducted across six dimensions, each of which is assigned a score of 0 to 30 points. Hostile actions scored 22 out of 30; hostile rhetoric, 28; lack of transparency in compliance with nuclear inspections, 17; nuclear breakout, 30; sensitive nuclear capabilities, 17; and beyond breakout, converting highly enriched uranium into nuclear weapons, scored 16. The institute concluded that Iran’s recent hostile actions and deeds, as well as speculation that they are closing in on nuclear weapons technology, have increased the threat level.

Continue Reading

Defense

Rostec State Corporation Promoting Development, Manufacturing and Exporting Military High-Tech Products

Avatar photo

Published

on

During the gala event dedicated to the 15th anniversary of the Rostec State Corporation. Russian President Vladimir Putin With Rostec CEO Sergei Chemezov.

The Rostec State Corporation was established 15 years ago. Workers and foremen, researchers, engineers, designers and test operators, and all personnel of Rostec enterprises, on this important occasion.

There are thousands of people – highly qualified, unique specialists, some of them are one of a kind, of very different profiles who give their efforts, energy and talent to contribute to the industrial progress of our country and are directly engaged in resolving crucial state tasks in a number of priority high-tech areas.

These include aircraft building, automobile industry, radio electronics, engineering, chemistry, medicine, new materials and, of course, strengthening Russia’s defence capabilities since a significant share of the state defence order goes to Rostec enterprises, the largest corporation in the military-industrial sector.

The tangible results it achieves must continue to be among the corporation’s unquestionable priorities. It was established for this reason and generally to ensure, consolidate, preserve and thus guarantee the development of our technological, industrial and innovative potential.

The days when the corporation was being established and the way it proceeded underscore today that the decision of forming such an industrial powerhouse, a flagship of the Russian economy, and concentration of financial and managerial resources have fully justified themselves.

Yet we must keep moving forward, set new tasks and give proper responses to the most complicated challenges in defence and security, and global technological competition.

The key priority today, the number one task is to do everything possible to meet the needs of our Armed Forces, and crucially, the units and detachments engaged in the special military operation.

Production must be stepped up as well as deliveries of all required products; the state target tasks must be executed precisely, with high quality, and strictly on schedule. We spoke about this repeatedly, including yesterday at a meeting of the Russian Government Coordination Council.

Let me reiterate, we will promptly take any decisions to support our enterprises. Meanwhile, there are not doubtful about the people working there. Plants in Moscow, St Petersburg, the Urals, Siberia, the Far East and in dozens of the country’s regions are operating at maximum capacity working in several shifts. 

Incidentally, under the current conditions, this definitely gives an unparalleled boost to the development of high-tech production, not just in the defence industry but also in related civilian sectors. Indeed, the people are working at full tilt following the example of our ancestors and great traditions of our gun-makers who proved with their work that Russian weapons are the weapons of victory.

The labour teams for this work, for such dedication, for their patriotic commitment to do everything for the defence of Russia, for enhancing its sovereignty so that our heroes, who are now fighting on the frontlines or are being trained in training camps, get all they need.

The heads of the enterprises must take additional measures of social support for the personnel and their families. This concerns, among other things, special incentives and bonus payments to the best specialists and workers.

The experience we have been getting during the special operation and countering modern Western weapons is very valuable and should be used to raise the quality, reliability and military characteristics of some of our weapons and Russian military goods.

In this context, close interaction of Rostec and all respective enterprises, design bureaus, corporations and scientific centres with Defence Ministry specialists is also important.

In addition, internal competition should be organised and encouraged – the domestic Russian competition between enterprises. Serial production must be launched of the best kinds of military equipment based on those which are now being used in the hostilities, which work and confirm their specifications.

Since its inception, Rostec was responsible for the design, production and export of high-tech products, both military and non-military. The work in major promising areas which ensure Russia’s technological sovereignty, must not only be continued but also intensified.

We obviously expect notable breakthrough results from Rostec in such areas as microelectronics and electronic components, aircraft building, equipment for 5G communication networks, and overall, in selecting, implementing and promoting Russian high-tech solutions in all areas which matter to our economy, determine modern living standards and remove dependency on imports.

We have everything in our hands for that: excellent, unique world-class scientific schools, innovative and ambitious groups of researchers and inventors, a powerful industrial base, qualified workers and a talented, strong and well-motivated youth.

A hefty part of this huge intellectual and manufacturing potential of the country is concentrated within the Rostec State Corporation management system. I firmly believe your results and new achievement will match the colossal scale of the strategic tasks for the country’s development.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Religion16 mins ago

Pakistan On Its Way to Promote Interfaith Harmony

People from various cultural, racial, and religious backgrounds live in Pakistan.  96.28 percent of the country consists of a Muslim...

Middle East2 hours ago

The challenges lie ahead Ankara’s decision to normalize relations with Cairo and Damascus

Although Egypt and Syria are at the bottom of the list of states with which Turkey intends to reconcile, the...

afghanistan terrorism afghanistan terrorism
Terrorism4 hours ago

Terrorist Upsurge in Taliban’s Afghanistan: Regimes, Attacks and the Concerns of Neighbors

The U.S. undersecretary of defence for policy, Dr. Colin Kahl had wisely predicted in October 2021, that a possible resurgence...

South Asia6 hours ago

The Dragon’s Perception Creation and Passivity: A Never-ending Bottleneck

Vijay Gokhale, The Long Game: How The Chinese Negotiate With India ( Penguin Vintage , 2021) Multiple divergences have shaped...

Economy7 hours ago

Explainer: African Leaders Should Accelerate Industrialization Without Short-Haircut Processes

At the end of their four-day deliberations, African leaders and participants have issued a joint statement relating to the future...

East Asia9 hours ago

A review of popular unrest in China in light of the ongoing anti-lockdown protests

Late 1970s saw the Chinese people standing up to exercise their right to dissent for the first time since the...

Defense14 hours ago

Internet of Military Things (IoMT) and the Future of Warfare

The Internet of Military Things (IoMT) is a class of heterogeneously connected devices employed for future warfare. It has wide...

Trending