Marco Rubio represents the highest-ranking American representative at this year’s conference. His speech was intended to serve as a tone correction after last year’s chaotic performance by J.D. Vance. Rubio finds himself in a challenging position where he must appease Europe while simultaneously maintaining the hard line of Donald Trump’s administration.

What did he say?

The civilized tone compared to Vance represented the first key element of his appearance. Recent disputes with allies, the fiasco of aggressive policy toward Greenland, criticism for dismantling the international system and demolishing transatlantic relations, together with the shocking report published by MSC about the demolition of the international system by the US administration, literally demanded a significant correction of approach.

Rubio devoted the largest part of his speech to returning to shared history and emphasizing the common civilizational path and shared values. In this way, he tried to refute partners‘ feeling that the USA is destroying rules and burning bridges behind them. He paraphrased it with the words: „The USA may dominate the western hemisphere, but we are still children of Europe.“

The second significant element was the rejection of the narrative that the USA is destroying international order. According to Rubio’s argumentation, the rules-based world system, free movement of people, liberalism, and climate agenda were incorrectly set up, are now broken, and our enemies have exploited them for their growth. They used them unfairly while we deindustrialized. According to him, the USA is not destroying the system but wants to build a new system that corresponds to the new geopolitical reality. Europe should join this process. He paraphrased it as: „We must build our own Western raw material supply chain independent from other centers of power.“

The third point was justification of steps toward Iran and Venezuela as necessary. The USA had to act because the world is failing. The UN and world community did not prevent the tragedy in Gaza or Ukraine, they didn’t even stop attempts to acquire nuclear weapons by the ayatollahs. Other powers outside the West are abusing the poorly set international system. The global world order needs to be redefined anew and fairly – competition of powers is reality and has replaced the system based on „poorly set“ rules.

The fourth element was emphasis on Christian heritage, character of civilization, and conservative values as defense of the ideology of the current American administration. According to Rubio, the USA is not a disruptor but a consistent defender of these fundamental values.

The fifth point concerned the complete failure of the UN, due to which the USA must act and invites partners to do so. It is necessary to reevaluate international formats and alliances. The USA wants a strong alliance with European allies, but not at any cost. It is desirable for Europe to be strong and thus strengthen our common Western civilization alongside the USA. He paraphrased it with the words: „The purpose of our alliance is to defend citizens, our countries and our interests, the meaning of the Alliance’s existence is not protection of the welfare state.“

It should be noted that pressure on increasing defense spending and fairer distribution of the burden of common defense was not so strong and straightforward, but rather implied.

The sixth point was assurance of US commitment to NATO, but with conditions. Europe must add more effort. The goal of the USA is not the end of the Transatlantic era. Europe must have means to be able to defend itself.

Conclusions and assessment

Regarding conclusions and assessment, the performance was good to listen to, but reality is far harsher. Messages about alliance with Europe were strong and clearly articulated. However, unpredictable steps by President Trump and his administration, absence of any transparent discussion with partners, and even threats of using military force against an ally relativize this and return us to harsh reality.

About Marco Rubio’s real priorities, which are in conflict with his speech, the cancellation of participation in the meeting with Zelensky and his allies testifies. Diplomatic talk about a packed schedule is a poor excuse. What had higher priority than this meeting with allies and Zelensky?

Europe must stand on its own feet. This will not spoil anything, it will be a better and more balanced partner to the USA. If American real politics would tear to pieces soaring speeches like Rubio’s, at least we won’t be left empty-handed.

The post Expectations versus Harsh Reality appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

In the first decade of the third millennium, the American drone RQ-170 Sentinel allegedly flew deep into Chinese airspace on a secret surveillance mission. What’s shocking is that it returned unnoticed. This stealth drone, nicknamed the Beast of Kandahar, was designed to avoid radars. It gathered intelligence information including about nuclear facilities. The mission was classified for years and no one officially confirmed it. It showed how invisible drones can be – even to a superpower.

Rarely do you have the luck in life to not only observe but also be part of a great change. Drones were known in armies for a relatively long time. A narrow group of intelligence and reconnaissance specialists or experts in fire destruction worked with them. When I took office as chief of operations staff of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan in 2007, such a change occurred.

We began to use drones more intensively not only for reconnaissance, but also directly for conducting combat from the air. The complex mountainous terrain of vast Afghanistan directly demanded such innovations. We began to use the already known MQ-1 Predator more massively. The drone was already modified – capable of carrying two Hellfire missiles or other ammunition. Suddenly we had a multifunctional tool at our disposal. While one drone maintained situational overview over the battlefield, with the second we could execute a quiet and effective air strike. We could immediately evaluate live the effectiveness of the executed strike – so-called battle damage assessment.

Such missions are classified to this day. But much has changed. During the mission in Afghanistan, I began exceptionally allowing the display of live footage from drones monitoring ongoing operations on one of the large screens at the operations center. Some soldiers were scandalized. They were bothered by the live display of combat. Today on social networks and the internet you can find plenty of footage from drones or FPV drone strikes from Ukraine.

In autumn 2007 we received significant reinforcement – the MQ-9 Reaper drone. It was larger than the Predator, lasted longer in the air and could carry more than ten times the combat payload. It could monitor the situation on the ground for entire hours from great height, transmit data to intelligence officers and then strike massively.

In civilian life few people suspected it, but soldiers from ISAF command knew about the use of Predators and Reapers. Besides that, another story was also unfolding out of sight of most ISAF members. At the end of 2007, grainy photographs began spreading on the internet showing a mysterious aircraft with bat wings parked at Kandahar airport in Afghanistan. Aviation enthusiasts were confused. The US Air Force remained silent. Only in December 2009 did it officially acknowledge the existence of the RQ-170 Sentinel, a stealth reconnaissance drone developed by Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works division.

One of its most dramatic roles? The RQ-170 allegedly flew over Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistani Abbottabad during Operation Neptune’s Spear in 2011. It transmitted live video to American commanders and to the White House. It provided oversight over how Navy SEALs executed the raid in which the world’s most wanted terrorist died.

The mystique around the drone deepened later that same year. Iran claimed it captured the RQ-170 intact. According to the Iranians, the drone was flying 140 miles inside their airspace. It was probably monitoring nuclear facilities. They claimed they hacked into its control systems and forced it to land. The US rejected this claim, but footage of a seemingly undamaged drone appeared on Iranian state television.

Pentagon Shaken by $26 Hack

At the end of 2008, American soldiers in Iraq arrested a Shiite militant. In his laptop they discovered something unexpected – hours of live video recordings from American Predator drones. The footage was captured using SkyGrabber software for $26. It was developed by a Russian company for downloading satellite television and media streams. One teenager came up with this trick.

The insurgents didn’t hack into the drone’s control systems. They simply intercepted unencrypted video channels. Information from these channels was transmitted from drones to ground stations and command centers. Because they weren’t encrypted, anyone with the right satellite antenna and software could tune into them.

The breach was first reported by The Wall Street Journal in December 2009 and later confirmed by CNN and other media. It turned out that the military had known about the vulnerability since the 1990s, already during operations in Bosnia. Encryption had been removed from many channels at that time to prevent latency problems with real-time monitoring.

The Pentagon reacted quickly after the hack information was published. Encryption protocols on UAV platforms were updated. The military began modernizing the ROVER system – Remote Operated Video Enhanced Receiver, which was used to share footage from drones with soldiers on the ground. Officials acknowledged that solving the problem was not trivial, because almost every drone in the fleet used similar connection for downloading information.

Although no missions were compromised, the incident was a wake-up call. It showed how low-tech solutions can exploit high-tech systems and how even the most advanced military tools can be vulnerable to digital espionage. This story shows that drone development is not just about engineering, but also about playing cat and mouse in cybersecurity and electronic warfare.

Aerial Torpedoes

According to Cambridge Dictionary, a drone is an aircraft or small flying device that has no pilot but is remotely controlled by someone on the ground. It is used for monitoring, filming or dropping payload. Key characteristics include the absence of an onboard pilot. It can have various propulsion systems such as battery, combustion engine and similar.

A drone is often part of unmanned aerial systems – UAS or Unmanned Aerial System, which include the drone itself, ground control station and communication equipment. Today the designation drone is no longer tied only to flying devices, but also to remotely controlled ground, surface and underwater devices.

Most people associate drones with the advent of digital technologies that enabled more precise remote control as well as live image transmission. But the history of drones begins much earlier, already during World War I.

The stalemate in trench warfare forced armies to look for innovative ways to attack enemy positions without risking pilots‘ lives. One idea was to develop aerial torpedoes – essentially flying bombs that could autonomously deliver explosives across enemy lines. These early concepts were predecessors of glide bombs, guided missiles and modern UAVs.

Several key initial projects got underway. One of the first was Britain’s Aerial Target project from 1917. It was a radio-controlled aircraft designed by A. M. Low, intended for intercepting German airships. Although the machine never entered combat, it represented pioneering effort in remote-controlled aviation. Low is often called the father of radio guidance systems.

Americans came up with the Kettering Bug in 1918. It was developed by Charles Kettering and the US Signal Corps. It was a small biplane powered by a four-cylinder engine. It used gyroscopes and a mechanical timer for flight guidance and payload dropping. It had a range of up to 120 kilometers and was supposed to be a disposable flying bomb.

At that time, digital technologies or devices for image capture and transmission were not available. Using such flying devices to destroy targets meant great technological challenges. Navigation was the biggest one. It was based on gyroscopes, barometers and mechanical counters. Remote control was in its infancy and reliability was low. Most prototypes were experimental and were never deployed in combat operations.

They left behind a legacy that paid off later. These initial efforts laid the foundation for future development of guided missiles, kamikaze drones and eventually reconnaissance UAVs. They proved the feasibility of pilotless flight, even though technology was not sufficiently advanced at that time for wide use. The idea of a pilotless aircraft for dangerous missions was revolutionary in World War I and remains central to UAV philosophy today.

Military strategy also began to change. These first attempts proved that risk-free reconnaissance and attacks were possible, which influenced the development of unmanned aircraft during the Cold War and modern doctrines such as persistent surveillance and targeted strikes. Every military conflict brings a revolutionary leap to the evolution of technologies. During World War II and the Cold War, these ideas matured into combat drones, spy aircraft and eventually combat UAVs like the Predator and Reaper.

Today’s UAVs use artificial intelligence, GPS and real-time data connections. But the main mission – performing tasks too risky or tedious for humans – remains unchanged. The connection between the Kettering Bug and the Tomahawk cruise missile is direct. Both are unmanned long-range weapons, precisely guided.

Secret Cold War Missions

After the end of World War II, the Cold War began between East and West. The competition moved from land, seas and air also to space. It continued intensively also in the field of unmanned vehicle development. The competing sides suspected each other and wanted to know what secrets the other side was hiding. Espionage and deep reconnaissance over enemy territory became a strategic task. The Ryan Firebee and Lockheed D-21 were two of the most important early American drones. Each represented a different philosophy of unmanned aircraft development during the Cold War.

The Ryan Firebee became a versatile workhorse. The first flight took place in 1952, a year later it was introduced into service. It was a response to the US Air Force’s request to develop a jet-powered target. Originally it was thus a target drone for fighter pilot training and testing missile anti-aircraft systems. Later it was modified into reconnaissance variants – the Model 147 series – during the Vietnam War and Cold War. It was used for electronic warfare, surveillance and even decoy missions.

It was equipped with jet propulsion, capable of reaching speeds close to Mach 0.96 and altitude over 18,000 meters. It could be launched from aircraft like the B-26 Invader, or from the ground with RATO – Rocket-Assisted Take-Off boosters. The RATO booster provided short-term but powerful thrust that allowed the drone to quickly leave the launch ramp. After fuel exhaustion, the RATO booster detached and the drone continued flight using its own turbojet engine. It was controlled by radio connection and equipped with parachutes.

Modified Firebees flew over China and North Vietnam and collected intelligence without risking pilots‘ lives. Some were destroyed by enemy defenses, but many missions were successful and helped shape UAV doctrine.

After the shooting down of the American U-2 spy plane over the USSR came the Lockheed D-21 spy drone. Its development began in 1962, the first flight took place in 1964. It was in active military service only briefly, from 1969 to 1971. It was intended for deep reconnaissance over enemy territory, mainly China and the USSR. It could fly at Mach 3.3 speed at altitude of approximately 27,400 meters.

It had a high-resolution camera and inertial navigation system. The drone was launched from M-21 Blackbird aircraft and later from B-52 bombers. After completing the reconnaissance mission, the machine could drop a film capsule and then proceed to self-destruct so enemies couldn’t capture it. Its use was accompanied by problems. One M-21 launch aircraft crashed during drone startup, killing a crew member. Operational missions over China were unsuccessful, leading to program cancellation in 1971.

During the Cold War, the US and Western countries developed and used several other types of unmanned aircraft, such as the Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bug, Lockheed Q-Star, and at the end of the Cold War, the Teledyne Ryan RQ-2 Pioneer.

The Ryan Model 147 was a reconnaissance drone derived from the Firebee. They used it for flights over North Vietnam, China and North Korea. It was equipped with cameras and radar sensors. Interestingly, it was launched from a DC-130 aircraft and after the mission recovered in the air using a C-130 with a hook.

The Lockheed Q-Star or Compass Cope was an experimental UAV for long-term reconnaissance. They developed it in the 1970s as an autonomous reconnaissance system with the ability to return to the launch site. The Teledyne Ryan RQ-2 Pioneer served for tactical reconnaissance. It was used by the US Navy and Marine Corps during Operation Desert Storm. It was one of the first UAVs used in combat conditions.

Soviets Respond

Countermeasures to American development also came from the Soviet bloc. After the U-2 incident in 1960, when pilot Gary Powers was shot down over Soviet airspace, the USSR realized the threat posed by high-altitude reconnaissance. The Soviets began developing unmanned systems that would match US capabilities and reduce dependence on vulnerable manned aircraft.

The key Soviet UAV was the Tupolev Tu-123 Yastreb. It was introduced in 1964 and intended for strategic reconnaissance over NATO territory. The drone was equipped with supersonic jet propulsion and had a preprogrammed flight path. It carried cameras and electronic reconnaissance equipment on board. It was a one-time mission, after which the machine dropped a film capsule and then self-destructed.

Later the Soviets introduced the Tupolev Tu-143 Reis for tactical battlefield reconnaissance. It was introduced into armament in the early 1970s. It was a subsonic machine with short range, a parachute was to serve for its rescue and recovery. It was used in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic it was introduced under the designation VR-3 Reis. Its use was more similar to the Firebee and was used to obtain real-time battlefield information. It was introduced to Czechoslovakia in 1985 and used until 1995. Its role was photographic and television reconnaissance, radiation situation assessment, target tracking at depths of 60 to 70 kilometers.

During a 1988 incident, one of these drones fell by parachute into a kindergarten area in Prague, causing a stir. Officially it was then covered up by designating the VR-3 as meteorological apparatus. The drone was launched from a mobile launcher and could be used up to five times. One VR-3 specimen is now displayed at the Aviation Museum in Kbely and another in Lešany.

The Tu-143 drone went through several modifications and renewals. The M-143 was a target drone version introduced in the mid-1980s. The Tu-243 Reis-D was an improved version with longer range and improved engine. The Tu-300 Korshun was a further refined model with modern sensors and optional ammunition – development renewed in 2007. The Tu-143 system was deployed in Afghanistan by Soviet forces. Syria used it during the 1982 Lebanon War for reconnaissance of Israel. Ukraine during the 2022 war converted it into substitute cruise missiles or for revealing air defense.

Like the Americans, the Soviets also needed target drones for training their pilots and testing missile anti-aircraft systems. The solution was the Lavochkin La-17. They introduced it in 1950. It had a jet engine and was radio-controlled. Later the Soviets developed it into reconnaissance variants.

However, the Soviets faced several technological challenges. Their drones often relied on film cameras, which limited real-time intelligence. Navigation systems were less advanced than American ones and relied on inertial guidance. Recovery or extraction after mission was difficult, especially for dynamic missions or missions with deep penetration over enemy territory.

Soviet unmanned aircraft enabled surveillance over NATO forces and border areas. They were extensively used in Warsaw Pact exercises and some were exported to allies like Syria and Iraq. These programs laid the foundation for modern Russian UAVs including the Orlan-10 and Forpost.

Conclusion

After the end of the Cold War, few suspected what would come. With digitalization came enormous drone development and it continues to accelerate. In the next part we will look at four generations of modern drones, activities of key countries and drone diplomacy.

The post Evolution of Military Drones – Part One appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

Note: The article was originally published in the journal .týždeň

The End of the Rules-Based System

Since the end of World War II, we have had an international rules-based system built on the foundation of the UN Charter. This was never ideal, but the powers competed only in proxy conflicts and avoided direct confrontation. The foundations of the UN were laid as early as January 1, 1942, when 26 countries in Washington signed the „Declaration by United Nations.“ The name „United Nations“ was coined by F.D. Roosevelt and was also the official name of the war coalition that committed to defeating the Axis countries and not agreeing to a separate peace.

From August to October 1944, a USA-UK-USSR-China conference was held in the USA, which created a proposal for the UN structure – General Assembly, Security Council, great power veto rights, International Court of Justice. This laid the technical foundation of the UN, which was politically confirmed by the great powers at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. The USA, UK and USSR agreed on the final form of the UN Security Council, confirmed veto rights and agreed on entry conditions for members. On June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, 50 states signed the UN Charter and after ratification by all great powers on October 24, 1945, the UN was officially established.

Unfortunately, as soon as World War II ended, the Cold War began. The world split into two competing blocs and a massive bloc of non-aligned countries. These were silent observers of the competition between the main blocs, objects of their efforts to win them to their side, and occasionally the scene of proxy wars. The USA and USSR led or managed their blocs, kept each other in check and avoided direct confrontation. The UN never functioned as its founders envisioned in 1945. During the Cold War it was paralyzed, after its end it had a brief golden era and today it is again overshadowed by great power rivalry. It is not a guarantor of peace, but an administrator of global chaos.

In Europe, the principle of immutability of post-war borders prevailed for a long time. This was further strengthened by the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the OSCE. The Helsinki Final Act was a paradox: in the short term it stabilized post-war borders and confirmed the Soviet sphere of influence, but at the same time it inserted principles into the system that eventually decomposed the Soviet bloc from within. Helsinki was thus both the peak of the post-war rules-based system and the beginning of its transformation. The 1975 Act was a „grand bargain“ between East and West. The OSCE became the institutionalized guardian of this order, until Russia began systematically destroying it after 2014.

All of this definitively fell on February 24, 2022, when Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and embarked on a path of revision and attempts to restore the former Soviet sphere of influence through brutal military force. Rules suddenly don’t apply, Ukraine is to cease to exist. The UN Security Council was paralyzed and unable to take a position and act against the aggressor. The EU, NATO, G7 and the democratic community condemned Russian aggression, military aggression cannot be a tool for revising state borders or liquidating their sovereignty. However, they did not find the strength and courage to end the aggression.

Powers like China and India were unable to take a clear stance on the aggression, and Iran or North Korea openly support Russia. North Korea directly joined the war. A shock comes from the USA with the advent of Donald Trump. He replaces the previously cautious principled stance with transactional pragmatism and acceptance of the use of military force. This thinking is based on the principle „everything is allowed if you have the cards.“ US leadership believes that peace is an enforced state based solely on force regardless of moral issues, legitimacy and justice.

A Dangerous Multipolar World

President Trump told the New York Times that he doesn’t need international law and that the only limit to his global power is his own morality. This is a fundamental departure from American post-war tradition and a serious signal for allies who rely on a rules-based world. This departure was formally expressed by the USA in its new security strategy and confirmed by the strike on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro. Despite Maduro’s depravity and his regime, such an operation has no place in international law. Trump used the law of the stronger and gave arguments to defenders of Russian aggression, as well as motivation to China and other potential aggressors.

The international rules-based system that the USA painstakingly built when putting together the United Nations is paradoxically collapsing thanks to the current US leadership. Current threats of violent takeover of control over Greenland also threaten key alliances that ensured that all of Europe did not fall into the hands of USSR-led communists. President Trump justifies considerations about taking over Greenland with US national security needs. This is an unacceptable argument similar to Vladimir Putin’s arguments and factually doesn’t fit. Arctic space security is vitally important not only for the USA, but also for their NATO and EU allies. Compared to the Cold War, only that China is more active in this space today has changed. But the basic military premises and arguments remain unchanged.

American presence in Greenland is neither new nor symbolic. The USA has been operating there since World War II. During the greatest threat from the USSR, the USA, by agreement with Denmark and in accordance with NATO interests, built a network of military bases in Greenland. The most important of them, today’s Pituffik Space Base, is still active and is among the key sensors for early warning against missiles and space monitoring. It operates based on a valid agreement with Denmark, within NATO, and is the northernmost American base.

Besides it, Americans had other large facilities in Greenland. Sondrestrom was a transit and meteorological base that the USA used until 1992. Narsarsuaq was important during the war for transatlantic flights and naval operations. And then there is Camp Century – an experimental city built in the glacier, even with a small nuclear reactor. All this shows that the USA had enormous possibilities in Greenland, which they later reduced themselves when their strategic priorities shifted elsewhere.

If Washington claims today that Greenland is necessary for American national security, then first it must be said that legal mechanisms already exist. The USA has a valid defense agreement, has a base, has access to infrastructure and can expand it in cooperation with Denmark and the Greenlandic government. Therefore, it is very difficult to defend rhetoric about annexation or military pressure against an ally. The United States does not need to own Greenland – it is enough for them to use the possibilities they already have, and which they themselves did not fully utilize in the past.

A US attack on Greenland would not be just another NATO crisis, but a systemic break: an alliance built on trust would lose its meaning. A world would emerge in which Europe would have to quickly learn to be a great power. Not out of ambition, but out of compulsion.

In reality, the world began changing as early as 2008. Authoritarian models began returning and gradually asserting themselves. Although the Communist Party rules politically in China, authoritarian capitalism has established itself in the country. Russia was taken over by revisionism and military imperialism. Theocratic expansionism is asserting itself in Iran. These models don’t want to be liberal democracy, are capable of surviving and cooperating. Power politics gradually began returning and manifested itself in the annexation of Crimea, the war in Syria, the war in Ukraine, Chinese expansion in the Indo-Pacific. There is an increasingly sharp competition for the Arctic, Africa, or Latin America. Spheres of influence are returning to the scene. Russia wants to forcibly control the post-Soviet space, China the Indo-Pacific, Africa and Latin America. The USA wants to control Latin America, Europe and the Pacific. Regional power projects of Turkey, Iran and India are joining these main powers.

Ideological competition has also returned. It is no longer about the competition between communism and capitalism, but liberal democracy and authoritarian capitalism compete, open society and closed society, rule of law and power state. These are today’s decisive ideological clashes that define the new multipolar world in which military force is again becoming a key tool of competition and advancing interests. Powers compete for their spheres of influence using military force, technology and economics.

Competing Powers and Their Ambitions

In a multipolar world, powers strive for a redistribution of the world. It is about defining not only new spheres of influence in a geographical sense, but mainly power, economic and technological influence. With increasingly sharp competition, the role of military potential grows and the willingness to actually use it to advance one’s interests or protect one’s sphere of influence. Not only arms races are beginning, but also the risk of serious military conflicts. Let’s look at what the main poles and powers are in the new multipolar arrangement, what their goals are and the main military development trends.

USA – Striving for Dominance

The first Trump administration still talked about great power competition. The second, however, moved to a doctrine that has no equivalent in post-war US history: unilateralism that relies on an aggressive reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The attack on Venezuela and threats against Greenland show that the USA is no longer talking about competition, but about dominance. And this changes the entire global system.

President Trump comes with a shocking demand for a military budget of $1.5 trillion. This would be a year-on-year increase in defense budget by 66%. This is more of a political signal than a realistic budget. Congress will probably reduce it, but it will still be the largest increase since the Korean War.

The goal of the USA is dominance in oceans, technologies and in the Western Hemisphere. The USA can realistically achieve dominance in the Western Hemisphere, which is their traditional sphere of influence that Washington considers „untouchable.“ The USA will want to maintain the largest projection of power at sea and the position of leader in technological standards in the field of AI, chips, cloud services and software. They will want to maintain their dominant influence in the Anglophone sphere – UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. They will compete with China over the Indo-Pacific region. Europe can, according to the development of American politics, be either a solid ally or a zone of some kind of delegated security.

The USA is today undergoing the largest transformation of armed forces since the end of the Cold War. The goal is to prepare for conflict with an equal adversary, especially China. The Pacific is the main battlefield of the 21st century. The USA wants to reduce vulnerability to hypersonic weapons, move from a „heavy“ army to an „intelligent“ one.

Military dominance is to be ensured by key modernization projects. Americans are striving for a missile defense and space revolution. Golden Dome (new missile defense against hypersonic and ballistic threats) represents a massive project to create a „protective dome“ over the USA. It is to have a satellite layer for tracking hypersonic targets, space interceptors are also planned. The goal is to neutralize Chinese and Russian hypersonic weapons. The space hypersonic and ballistic sensor layer is to have satellites capable of tracking hypersonic missiles in real time. The goal is to gain information and decision superiority in the first seconds of an attack.

Navy modernization is to be ensured by the Golden Fleet project. The USA is building a fleet for the Pacific, which will include new classes of destroyers, modernized nuclear submarines, unmanned surface and underwater platforms, satellite and network systems for „distributed naval operations.“ The goal is to maintain dominance in the Pacific against the rapidly growing Chinese fleet. The new generation of aviation is to consist of new 6th generation stealth fighters F-47 „Dream Fighter“ and NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance). The F-47 has AI-assisted control and the ability to lead swarms of combat drones. Extreme emphasis is placed on electronic warfare. NGAD is to be a „system of systems,“ i.e., a piloted machine plus autonomous wingman drones, which are essentially unmanned combat fighters. The goal of aviation modernization is to maintain air dominance after 2030.

The ground forces await the largest reorganization in a generation. The USA is implementing a fundamental reform that changes structure, equipment and the way of fighting. Old programs will be eliminated or limited. New priorities are long-range fires, autonomy and drones, AI in combat control, network command, anti-drone defense. TIC brigades (TIC = Transformation in Contact) are to be developed. This is a completely new type of brigade having hundreds of drones, autonomous vehicles, AI tools, satellite communication, new organizational structures. The goal is a brigade that fights like a swarm – quickly, distributed, autonomously.

China

Will concentrate on the core of Asia, the global South and economic ties. China will try to gain and maintain a dominant position in East Asia both economically and technologically. In the South China Sea area, it wants to achieve gradual control. It wants to dominate the Global South, i.e., Africa, Latin America and the Middle East economically, not militarily.

China’s main areas of competition will be in the Indo-Pacific with the USA, Japan and India. In Central Asia with Russia economically and with Turkey politically. However, China probably will not win India – it will always be autonomous, or Europe – it is too distant, too connected with the West. It will try to gain Russia as a vassal. Russia will be dependent, but not completely obedient.

The People’s Liberation Army is to be „world-class“ by 2049 – i.e., an army that can operate globally and defend Chinese interests anywhere, not just at its own borders. China’s strategic goals in the military are to ensure the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation by 2049. The army is a key tool to guarantee sovereignty, territorial integrity (especially Taiwan) and protection of Chinese interests at home and abroad. By 2027, it should achieve the ability to force Taiwan to submit and deter the USA from intervention. By 2035, a fundamental completion of modernization is expected – joint integrated forces capable of conducting „informatized and intelligent“ warfare. By 2049, it should be a full world-class force at the level of the USA in key domains such as navy, missiles, space, cybernetics and nuclear weapons. China’s ambition is a transition from local wars on the periphery to global power projection, i.e., to protection of sea lanes, investments, diaspora and corridors.

Russia

Russia’s strategic ambitions are to maintain the status of a great power and nuclear pole against the USA, to have the ability to militarily dictate to the near abroad and be a factor in Europe, the Arctic and the Middle East. The political goal is to have armed forces capable of supporting revisionist politics, i.e., changing borders, maintaining sphere of influence, blackmailing the West with nuclear and conventional forces. The operational goal is to be able to quickly deploy well-prepared forces in the neighborhood (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus), intervene in crises outside the region (Syria, Africa). The long-term goal is to have an „at least sufficiently modern“ army – not necessarily as a technological leader, but capable of actually fighting and maintaining pressure on NATO and neighbors.

The 2022 invasion of Ukraine fully revealed Russia’s persistent weaknesses. However, despite problems in Ukraine, Russia is adapting and rapidly modernizing. The country is in a regime of economic mobilization of war production and the political leadership does not give up the ambition to militarily restore its sphere of influence in Central and Eastern Europe.

Europe

Europe’s security pillar is still NATO and the USA, not the EU. The discussion about „strategic autonomy“ returned after February 24, 2022, but the reality is that without the USA, Ukraine and the eastern wing can only survive with great difficulty today. Putin brutally reminded us that military force is back as the main language of politics, and thus paradoxically launched not only NATO, but also new debates about the European Defense Union. Trump and volatility from the USA, especially Trump’s statements that he „will not protect delinquent NATO members,“ were a shock and at the same time a catalyst. The EU today openly talks about Europe having to learn to „take care of itself,“ which can serve at least as insurance. The EU is therefore an economic giant, a regulatory superpower, but a military semi-finished product. This can be a deadly combination in multipolar competition.

Europe today stands in the middle of a great power storm as a rich but militarily immature actor. If it doesn’t want to be just a space that Washington, Moscow and Beijing decide about, it must do what it has avoided for 30 years: build its own defense capacity, unite the arms industry and protect its democracies as critical infrastructure.

What Awaits Us?

If today’s dynamics continue, the world will not be divided into territories, but into ecosystems. The USA will maintain oceans and technologies, China Asia and the global South, India autonomy, Russia only its region and Europe will have to decide whether it will be a pole or periphery. The division of the world in the 21st century is a competition for influence and power, not just for maps.

The world is heading toward harsh competition between three military poles – the USA, China and a nuclear-armed but weakened Russia. The decisive factor will be whether we manage to maintain competition in the regime of managed rivalry, or whether we break down into a fragmented, conflict environment in which small states will only be pawns in the game of great powers.

The post Are We Returning to the Law of the Stronger? appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

Note: This is a transcript of the original broadcast at .týžden in Slovak language

Moderator: Welcome to listening, and I can hardly believe it, to the 150th edition of the Security Radar of my friend General Pavel Macko. Welcome, Pavel.

Pavel Macko: Thank you very much, pleasant listening.

FOG OF WAR

Putin’s „Ceasefire“ on Ukrainian Infrastructure

Moderator: How did Putin’s ceasefire on attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure turn out?

Pavel Macko: It turned out like all the ceasefires that Putin declared – simply big talk. He actually used the time when he didn’t attack for those few days – he didn’t even keep to those 7 days. He used the fact that he accumulated missiles and drones and made an even more intensive attack, which was even harder for the Ukrainians to stop.

This means that his effect was far higher than if he had attacked every day. And that’s actually the result of Putin’s „ceasefire“.

But it’s essential that none of us normal people, who know this, expected Putin to make any fundamental turn. But the falseness, even complete monstrosity of these peace activists was confirmed, who are actually making a defense of such aggression and claim they are trying to achieve peace. In reality, they are trying to achieve Russian victory.

Overall Picture of the Week

When I look at this overall, the overall picture of the week on several levels is as follows:

▪️First: Russia is intensifying pressure on multiple front sections, but any advances are not large

▪️Ukraine is achieving local counter-attacks, especially near Kupiansk and Kostiantynivka

▪️This winter campaign is extraordinarily exhausting – after several years, actually for the first time during these 4 years of war, when it’s truly the toughest winter

▪️The impacts are enormous and meanwhile the Russians have also gained some additional resources

▪️Ukrainian air defense after 4 years is exhausted

▪️Russian losses are however record-breaking – in January they again lost 30 thousand soldiers

▪️On the other hand, they are massively replenishing equipment and continuing that long-term war economy

Diplomatically: Russia is again stalling for time, not retreating from its demands and actually negotiating only to prevent greater pressure, greater sanctions and a tougher stance from those countries and Ukraine that want to achieve that ceasefire and ensure that this war finally ends.

Situation on the Front Lines

Moderator: So let’s go to the front line and I suggest we go to Kharkiv and Kupiansk.

Pavel Macko: Good. When we look at Kharkiv and Kupiansk, there were partial counter-attacks by Ukrainian forces. Near Kupiansk, they managed to regain some positions again.

When we look, I have notes here that Russia has been pushing for a long time from the north and east. They also had such a bridgehead on the other side of the Oskil river and the Ukrainians managed to push back in these areas.

Other Front Sectors

Lyman, Siversk, Sloviansk: There we know that fighting is already taking place in Siversk. Russian units continued attacks toward Novoselivka, Vykhivka, Serednie, Drobysheve and Dybrova, but there was no fundamental advance there.

Near Kostiantynivka, Druzhivka: Ukraine conversely achieved significant successes.

Near Yablunivka: The Russians advanced slightly east of the city.

Pokrovsk, Myrnohrad: There the Russians were slightly successful. Reconnaissance-sabotage units penetrated directly into Myrnohrad and increased pressure along one of the main transport routes. Ukraine however repelled dozens of attacks around Rodynske.

Zaporizhzhia Oblast: The biggest battles around Hulyaipole have been continuing for a long time. West of Dobropillia. But it’s extreme there – the Russians attack 32 times daily on just this one small front section.

In Kherson: There the classic shelling continues. The Russians still claim in those negotiations that they want Kherson back, but de facto they want to completely destroy it just like the destroyed Vovchansk and all those cities on the contact line.

Middle East – Gaza and Israel

Moderator: Let’s go to the Middle East. Are there any changes in Gaza and Israel?

Pavel Macko: That overall picture is… The ceasefire formally continues, we were supposed to move to the second phase. But it’s actually eroding:

▪️Israeli activities continue

▪️Hamas reacts similarly or provokes clashes

▪️International mechanisms are not yet functioning

▪️Humanitarian crisis (the situation is difficult)

Indeed, now the crossing at Rafah has also been opened, but it’s insufficient, the UN components are not functioning there either.

Problems with Humanitarian Organizations

Israel called on Doctors Without Borders to leave the Gaza Strip because they again suspect them of collaborating with Palestinians – not the citizens they should serve, but collaborating with Hamas.

Moderator: I read such a report in the Israeli press – there was their own reporter who showed one Palestinian doctor who during the war appeared as a doctor, showed victims, everything. And in the end it turned out he was a Hamas officer. Good, let’s continue.

Pavel Macko: Exactly, there are also honest ones there, but by providing legitimacy or legend for that cover, it naturally irritates the other side.

Administrative Arrangement of Gaza

When we look further, the administrative arrangement of Gaza is unclear. The United States – we talked about Al-Shat here, who is supposed to be there, that former Palestinian Authority minister, could be the administrator, temporary head of that administration, some bureaucratic government. However, it’s not yet in the situation where it would really function.

Reconstruction is at a dead end, because as long as there’s no stable and secure environment, the donors don’t have confidence, don’t give money there and there are no mechanisms that would implement it.

Security Situation

As I indicated, there was a series of clashes and attacks. Hamas and its security components conducted operations against groups they designate as Israeli-supported gangs.

In other words, other Palestinians, who don’t identify with Hamas, who maybe have a different view on how things should function in Gaza, are already also targets, so Hamas is already attacking its own.

The Israelis consolidated somehow, adjusted that yellow line. Of course, this immediately caused Arab outcry that they want to reduce even more or reduce Gaza’s territory.

Creation of New Administration

Moderator: How is the creation of new administration in Gaza progressing? Because without that we won’t move forward.

Pavel Macko: Definitely. This is what I already indicated in that overview. The border crossing at Rafah opened. There’s a limited number of patients who can cross from one side to the other.

The US is pushing for that multi-phase plan– meaning a full transition to phase 2, including an international security mission and gradual reconstruction.

But since there’s no agreement on disarming Hamas, they haven’t moved anywhere, therefore territorial administration hasn’t moved either, because one is subordinated to or conditional on the other.

Therefore those players like the United Arab Emirates prepared a project of some Emirati complex in southern Gaza, where they want to actually house thousands of displaced Palestinians.

But the project is politically controversial, because again Palestinians reject relocation to zones controlled by Israel, because that’s in the part that’s behind that yellow line on the other side.

So nothing has been achieved there yet and these new institutions can’t establish themselves.

Fundamental Problem

Moderator: When I look at this as a layperson – because I am a layperson – it seems to me that without Hamas being dispersed, things won’t move forward there.

Pavel Macko: We’ve been saying this since the beginning, since October 7, 2023. Why don’t they disperse it? Because we’ve seen that it causes large collateral losses. Therefore everyone turned against Israel.

On the other hand, we see that President Trump already asked for a Nobel Peace Prize for this, but he didn’t get it. Good anyway, because that would be unfair. And now we see that even he can’t push this through.

This means that this conflict will continue as we’ve been saying for a long time. It can be stabilized only when there’s willingness from the Arab side, first directly from the ranks of Palestinians, whom Hamas has been indoctrinating for a quarter century, because it completely controlled there.

And precisely these clashes – this is exactly about the fact that as soon as there’s a slightly different opinion, people from Hamas immediately liquidate them there, murder and shoot their own.

Second: Arabs never gave up – and I mean Hamas and these radical components – they never gave up the goal of complete liquidation of Israel.

And as long as they don’t give this up and as long as international security forces don’t come there, who will run into the same thing Israel runs into – that they will have to do the so-called dirty work, that they will also have to militarily strike those unfortunates who won’t want to cooperate in that ceasefire – this will continue.

Situation in Syria

Moderator: What’s happening around Syria? We said that the biggest tension…

Pavel Macko: First, there are conflicts of interest between Lebanon and Syria, because there’s a part of those fled officers hiding in Lebanon.

There’s Hezbollah, which is no longer a political favorite in Syria after the replacement of Bashar al-Assad, because they fought against this al-Shar. So that’s one part.

It calmed down there, but recent weeks saw strong conflict between the new governmental power and SDF forces including Kurdish units.

Ceasefire and Integration

From January 20 a de facto ceasefire has been in place there. It looks like the situation is stabilizing.

Kurds are really in the weakest position in the last 10 years. They had to leave the western bank of the Euphrates river, had to move to the eastern side, but ended the fighting. They also ended in other areas.

What was originally promised when Bashar al-Assad fell is happening – that integration will occur. Only that integration is not now that the entire SDF would integrate at once, it’s integrating by individual regions, by individual cities and communities.

What is negative on one hand for those Kurds, because therefore they don’t create some compact whole.

From the governmental power’s perspective it’s advantageous in that no parallel command is created – because we see this in Bosnia and Herzegovina, how it looks: there’s that federation, but actually Republika Srpska does whatever it wants anyway.

This political-administrative arrangement of Syria still awaits its solution and the military one is such that the government is trying to integrate those armed components into a unified army.

Lebanon

In Lebanon the situation is still tense and there are some pockets of resistance, Israel had to react again.

And mainly it shows also there that similarly as in Syria, the political situation is very unstable. They had an interim government basically since that explosion – if listeners remember, since that huge explosion in the port in Beirut – there was such a provisional governmental regime.

And this continues. The only thing that changed is that Hezbollah’s role and position is weaker.

STRATEGIC BACKGROUND

Three-Party Negotiations on Ukraine

Moderator: Main attention focused on three-party negotiations on Ukraine. So can you somehow briefly evaluate them? But it seems to me that nothing is moving anywhere.

Pavel Macko: Basically you’re right. We’re already done with this conclusion. But I’ll still explain it a bit.

We had two rounds. The first round was January 23 and 24. We already partially discussed it. Then came the second round.

First Round of Negotiations

I’ll first recap that first round, because it’s important for understanding where we’ve moved.

In that first round there was actually direct contact between Ukrainians and Russians through – with the presence of the US as mediator after almost 4 years.

And it was the first round. No one had great expectations that peace would suddenly emerge there. It was at such a higher working level.

Ukrainian delegation:

▪️Rustam Umerov

▪️former defense minister, today head of security council

▪️Kirill Budanov

▪️former head of HUR and now head of presidential office

▪️Chief of General Staff

Here I need to explain – Syrsky is the main commander of Ukrainian forces. That means he is the commander. And what we have as chief of staff, they have as chief of general staff. And that general was also there.

Russian side had Dmitriev there – economic-political negotiator and had the head of Russian GRU there.

Results of First Round

That means, that format– first, what happened was that a framework and format for negotiations was established. Professional working groups were established in which details will be discussed.

Main topics were addressed:

▪️Territorial issues

▪️they didn’t agree on anything, there’s a key dispute

▪️Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

▪️also a problem

▪️Security guarantees for Ukraine

These are actually two such dealbreakers or showstoppers, as it’s said in English. These are the brakes, obstacles so far insurmountable. That means security guarantees and territory.

Because Russia still claims that Ukraine should give up territory that Russians haven’t been able to somehow encompass even after 4 years of war.

Atmosphere of Negotiations

Moderator: What’s the dynamic of those negotiations, what’s the atmosphere? That’s also important there.

Pavel Macko: Both sides claimed it was productive and substantive, meaning they had content. When I already hear the word „productive“…

Ukraine said that yes, these were substantial negotiations, that concrete steps and practical solutions were addressed, which set aside those two most important issues I mentioned.

The US also designated them as productive and appreciated what I also appreciated, that those technical military teams negotiated together, because the ceasefire also needs to be agreed upon military-technically, so that the first shot from one drunk soldier doesn’t restart the war. Because that can also happen.

Russians proved that they don’t have willingness for peace, but meanwhile intensively attacked and said that military operations will continue until Kyiv accepts their demands.

In other words, Russians probably both for domestic audience and for their audience in the third world, are playing such a game – this is called hardball in English, such a tough game.

Basically they want, even if they’ll have to concede from those demands of theirs, they want to sell it as their clear victory. Of course, everyone sees that’s not true.

And if Russians don’t catch the right moment that they won’t gain more, the exact opposite can happen, that they can also collapse. Ukraine can of course also collapse – it’s closer to it than Russia, but it’s a very complex situation.

Summary of First Round

So it was something new after 4 years. They didn’t insult each other after these negotiations, so it’s already important that the negotiation was substantive. I would summarize it that way.

Key conclusions:

▪️Created a framework but didn’t bring results

▪️Territories and security guarantees (this is simply the stumbling block)

▪️Russia uses parallel attacks as a pressure tool

▪️Therefore reducing trust from Ukraine and its supporters that those negotiations are sincere

▪️USA, to not lose face, is trying to keep these negotiations alive

It’s noteworthy that the State Department, foreign ministry, is not represented there, meaning those who are there are not classic diplomats.

Second Round of Negotiations

Moderator: How do you evaluate that second round?

Pavel Macko: That second round progressed, because quite logically, from what I explained in that first round, it was more about procedural issues, formats, who with whom, when, in which groups.

Now it was more about real negotiations, within individual groups they negotiated in more detail.

From what we have – of course, detailed record of these negotiations is not publicly available – so:

▪️That long-term dispute continues

▪️Security guarantees are still without concrete progress

▪️USA acts as mediator

▪️both sides remain relatively firm

Russian Provocations

Russians escalated energy attacks, and this even during the announced ceasefire, which of course Kyiv designated as violation of agreement. It was visible when they bombed a classic conventional power plant and then also a heating plant near Kyiv.

Russians thought that by this they would scare the rest, that if you don’t yield to us and won’t negotiate with us, or accept conditions, we’ll attack. They don’t want to negotiate, they just want Ukrainians to accept conditions – so somehow we’ll continue and you’ll be even worse off.

Of course, they’re abusing this time when there are extreme frosts there.

Positive Progress

But they moved forward in what Zelensky also expected and wanted. They moved forward in the expected prisoner exchange– 314 or 324, I’m not sure now what that number was. The first 150 were already exchanged.

It’s good that also on that Russian side, besides those nationalists, extremists and such clowns like Medvedev, who shouted that all those prisoners of war should be killed – for example from Mariupol, those who were now almost 4 years in captivity – so they returned from that captivity.

Because war also has its rules, we have Geneva Conventions for that and this is something that Russians should also observe.

Further Development

The rest is that they’ll continue, they’ll probably meet next in the United States.

But that Russian strong pressure rather causes greater support for Ukraine from its supporters.

NATO Reactions

Moderator: I noticed that when the NATO Secretary General was in Ukraine a few days ago, he got to taste how a massive Russian attack tastes. Can this somehow change NATO’s approach?

Pavel Macko:It’s already changing, because if I listened carefully to Rutte’s statements, for example his predecessor talked about Ukraine’s integration into NATO and so on, but that language was diplomatic.

Now Rutte had relatively harsh language toward these Russians, said unambiguously that this is proof that Moscow doesn’t want peace. And it’s not some pretext.

Russians thought that hard attacks would help– and otherwise they miscalculated strategically in this, just as they miscalculated on February 24, 2022, because they quickly jumped away from that negotiation. They were persuaded by Macron, by Joe Biden. Scholz called Putin several times, Macron called even a few hours before that invasion. Putin saying that invasion wouldn’t happen, but he wanted to play that tough game, attacked, knocked out his front teeth and still can’t get out of it.

And now it’s the same, that Rutte gave very sharp statements. I put it in a table because we prepared that scenario together.

He said – this is a quote: „This peace will be lasting not because papers are signed, but because it will be backed by hard power.“

Change in NATO Position

This means, if Russians now refused that no foreign soldiers would be there, no support for Ukraine, because Russia wanted a weakened Ukraine that would be a puppet in Russia’s hands, this is changing.

And when they decide in the future to take control of Ukraine, they can do it politically through their extensive agent network and install a new Yanukovych there, or they can do it again militarily, that they would complete what they haven’t managed so far.

After they gather strength – like now with those recent attacks – let’s imagine that we give Russians a year or two pause to re-arm, re-equip and then strike Ukraine again.

This is now changing, NATO’s position as a whole is also changing, where it says it will continue this support and interprets this Russian attack as an attempt at terror and pressure. And therefore arguments for those robust security guarantees are strengthened.

End of New START Treaty

Moderator: The last treaty on control of strategic nuclear weapons, New START, ended. So explain what that agreement was and why it ended?

Pavel Macko: I would probably also like us to make this today’s main topic, to get a broader perspective for our listeners.

What the New START Treaty Was

So first that New START– this was the last functioning agreement, signed by Barack Obama and the Russian president, which actually limited strategic nuclear weapons.

But I’ll say what the development was here.

Historical Development of Nuclear Agreements

During the Cold War, in the late 60s, these powers got into a situation where they achieved huge numbers of nuclear weapons, because that paranoia and mutual suspicion, where we found ourselves in arms races, ended in:

▪️Russians eventually had more than 40,000 nuclear warheads (today they have 5,400)

▪️United States at that peak had more than 32,000 nuclear warheads

A large part of this was also tactical. We had large-caliber artillery shells and such short-range missiles there.

This means that even for regular battlefield combat it was calculated that these nuclear weapons would be used in clashes between these states, while hydrogen bombs were rather mounted on those long-range means, whether intercontinental missiles.

First Negotiations

Those negotiations ran already 1968-1969, but somehow they didn’t manage to conclude. Of course, Nixon’s pressure and move also with China eventually convinced the Soviets.

I’ll just enumerate them. There was a whole series of agreements:

SALT– this was that first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, 1969-1979.

Very quickly then came SALT 1, where strategic carriers were also limited, meaning the number of missiles and those other means.

A second treaty SALT 2 was also negotiated in 1979, but it wasn’t ratified. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan then and they didn’t ratify it, but both sides more or less adhered to it.

ABM and INF Treaties

In 1972 the ABM treaty was also concluded – this was limitation of anti-missile defense, where the number was set at maximum 200, later adjusted to 100 anti-missile systems.

The problem is that when one side starts building too strong anti-missile defense, it forces the other to increase the number of those offensive means.

I forgot one important one – this was the INF treaty – it was called about banning medium and short-range missiles between Gorbachev and Reagan in 1987.

This was absolutely crucial for Europe. In Europe we were in the range of 3 to 8 minutes response time, meaning the risk of accidental nuclear conflict was enormous.

By completely eliminating these missiles, that space was cleared, and therefore only space for those intercontinental missiles was left. There’s at least half an hour for reaction there.

This means that even in case of some stupid escalation, the red phone could still be used, and those missiles could be sent to self-destruct and stop a potential attack. This couldn’t be done with these medium-range missiles.

START Treaties

Then after the end of the Cold War came the START agreement in 1991. From huge numbers, those numbers were reduced even more significantly and we actually got to today’s numbers.

There was START II, which also banned those multiple warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles, on those heavy ones. Because you can cheat there. You say you’ll have only 100 intercontinental missiles, but put ten of these warheads in each.

Russians have Avangard prepared this way. In the final flight stage it’s as if you again had ten missiles. Suddenly you have thousands instead of hundreds. So this treaty was important because of that.

New START

Then this agreement, when it ended, actually that new START was negotiated, where limits on warheads and carriers were set. And it was extended a few years ago for 5 years, but this extension expired, a new agreement wasn’t concluded.

New START parameters:

▪️1,500 deployed strategic warheads

▪️meaning those they can have in operational regime

▪️700 deployed carriers

▪️800 total carriers

▪️this includes strategic bombers

Control Mechanisms

So there were mainly detailed inspection mechanisms. Both sides announced where they have those forces, where the US has problems with those Russian mobile ones, but they always had to notify major movements.

And both sides could visit those places. Of course they didn’t go into the guts of these systems, but they could verify whether those measures are being observed, whether they secretly haven’t built additional forces, whether they secretly don’t have some additional missiles there. All this has now ended.

Why the Treaty Ended

When I say it formally, Russia suspended participation in 2023 and subsequently the United States also reacted, but formally the treaty was valid, no one violated it.

This happened mainly because when the war in Ukraine started, Russians supposedly for technical reasons started blocking these verifications, these on-site inspections.

The reason– on one hand I understand them, it was paranoid, because they were at war with Ukraine and feared that during those inspections Americans would learn something they could then pass to Ukrainians.

On the other hand Americans said– there’s no point going into such an agreement that can’t be verified, as we also said before with the Budapest Memorandum and so on…

So this was absolutely crucial. They considered the US as a hostile side. This was part of that Russian rhetoric, that Putin constantly says, because when he’s not succeeding, he says that first he wanted to denazify and demilitarize everything. And when he’s not succeeding, he says he’s actually fighting the entire West. And this is that propaganda that goes around.

Chinese Factor

Another thing was that there were also those negotiations and considerations that China announced a large nuclear program, even to triple the number of its warheads by the decade, it already has 600 warheads now.

China has such an ambition that by 2035 to have parity with the United States in some components and in its region or catch up with Russia and the United States.

And after 2040 China wants to already be an equal partner also in strategic nuclear weapons to the United States.

Chinese Triad

This means that China started building the so-called triad. The triad is that you have:

1 ) Those ground intercontinental ballistic missiles

2) You have them then on submarines

▪️these are well protected because they’re hard to detect, meaning it’s a second strike weapon or last judgment, that when everything fails, even if that country was destroyed, it has the ability either semi-automatically or even automatically to respond to that strike and destroy the other side

3) And there are then aviation means – strategic aviation.

Russians invested more in those aviation means in those cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, which they now use only with conventional warheads directly on Ukraine.

Why New START Finally Fell?

I said that it fell actually because:

▪️United States wanted a broader agreement

▪️Russia wanted a different agreement, because it conditioned it, wanted to balance and offset other things on it

▪️China didn’t want any agreement yet, said it’s not yet that player that should be regulated

Russian and Chinese Armament

Moderator: I notice that Russia demonstrated new weapons and of course we’ve seen it also with the Chinese. And those Russian conventional ones aren’t very trustworthy. But should we fear those Russian nuclear weapons? And what about the USA? Are they falling behind or not?

Pavel Macko: Several aspects. It’s true that Russia modernized and quite massively. I wouldn’t underestimate their nuclear arsenal.

Russian Nuclear Forces

First, insiders know that there are really elite troops there. These aren’t those bums called ground troops that they showed at the beginning of the war. It’s more professional there.

But we’ve seen accidents there too, but that was mostly during tests. This means we can’t say in what technical state those missiles that are in operational service are.

But we know that Russians demonstrated in 2018 a series of those displays – Avangard, Zircon, which can also have nuclear warheads.

Hypersonic Systems

Sub-warhead is a small missile inside that big missile. There are several of them. These are so-called hypersonic gliders, which can still maneuver.

They have their own engine, can change flight path and fly at that hypersonic speed, which by the way all ballistic missiles fly.

But the difference is that the glider can still maneuver and fundamentally change direction and can go hundreds of kilometers elsewhere than where the original missile would fall.

Russian Modernization

So Russians modernized. They have:

▪️New Yars and Sarmat missiles

▪️New submarine-launched ballistic missiles (which are launched Bulava)

▪️New submarines of Borei class

▪️New cruise missiles Kh-102 (Kh-101, which they used, this is some derivative)

▪️They have those Avangardes, Poseidon, Burevestnik

Principally Russians modernized, because the Soviet Union left them old junk. And they were aware that conventionally – and then they also introduced professional army – conventionally Russia didn’t have a chance not only against NATO, but also potentially against other rivals. And therefore invested asymmetrically in nuclear arsenal.

Chinese Expansion

What about China? China is expanding. But of course from that low base. China was that below-average student, below-average player, even lower than United Kingdom and France.

France has 290 and United Kingdom some roughly 250-245 of these warheads.

China started building its potential. Just as it builds its conventional army – visible that it has 5th generation fighters, stealth fighters already better than Russians, that it invests in other means.

It started investing in this too, but started from that low number:

▪️Had in 2010: 200 warheads

▪️Today has: 600

▪️Heading toward at least a thousand by the end of this decade

Chinese Triad

But it’s also building a triad. As it starts expanding in that Pacific and sees that the United States has dominance there, it’s building nuclear triad. That means new nuclear submarines and also hypersonic systems.

We’ve seen several of them now on parade and this is precisely because of that rivalry in Indo-Pacific and also fear of American anti-missile defense, which is strengthening. Now we’ve heard about Golden Dome.

American Nuclear Forces

Moderator: And are the USA falling behind or not?

This is interesting, because a lot in professional journals and so on was criticism when Russians introduced these hypersonic systems, then Chinese also conventional and potentially also nuclear systems, which are for example designed to destroy those aircraft carrier battle groups.

When you have a hypersonic missile, the opponent can’t stop it anymore, you put a nuclear payload there, so you can actually erase that American advantage – aircraft carriers, Americans are rulers of the seas with them. What the British Empire used to be.

They have 9 battle carrier groups– those are aircraft carrier battle groups, several fleets, they have large Pacific, Atlantic fleet.

Criticism of American Lag

When China developed this, many evil tongues say that the US fell asleep, don’t have hypersonic systems, didn’t pay much attention to it. But I’ll mention several aspects.

It’s really true that Minuteman III are missiles from the 70s, but technologically they were much more advanced than those Russian missiles that were in forces. But the US didn’t modernize them.

They have only one warhead, can’t even add others, while Russians meanwhile made an upgrade where they don’t have multiple warheads mounted, but can and know how to do it relatively quickly.

So in this segment the US seemed to lag behind.

New American Programs

Currently running is a program for Sentinel upgrade or replacement of Minuteman III. Otherwise Sentinel is also that invisible reconnaissance drone RQ-171, but these should be Sentinel missiles, which should be ready by 2030. That’s still 5 years, but it’s an extremely expensive project, so the question is whether it will be successful or not.

But the US has strategic aviation, where unlike Russian aircraft they have absolutely top-notch stealth bombers. B-2 were already excellent and now B-21 Raider are absolute world top.

China and Russia don’t have even a chance yet to catch up to them in this in the next decade.

American Strength in Submarines

Main US strength lies and there they modernized, or had highly advanced technologies – and those are missiles launched from submarines.

In this they are absolute top. Still their Trident 2 D5LE missiles are unmatched, so they don’t even need to modernize them.

Golden Dome

Currently, I won’t discuss this today, we’ll discuss it another time. Golden Dome is not only protection from space against missile attacks – those are just sensors, but Golden Dome is supposed to also ensure maintaining connection, that all those submarines and fleets in stealth mode, even after nuclear explosions, should function and should be able to communicate with each other.

Should We Fear Nuclear Arms Race?

Moderator: So tell me this one thing – should we fear that nuclear arms race or not?

Pavel Macko:There are several scenarios. It started when there were 30-40 thousand warheads on both sides. We’re far from that happening, it would cost enormous expenses and I believe it won’t go to this limit.

The truth is that absence of all agreements can cause distrust on both sides and we see that even Trump indicated they might resume nuclear tests. These by the way are also agreed to be banned, but that comprehensive ban treaty wasn’t ratified.

This means it’s not legally binding. Only so far it was quietly observed.

Possible Scenarios

So there are several scenarios:

1) Quiet voluntary continuity and waiting for a suitable time when they sit down for negotiations. This would probably capture what Trump said.

When Trump said that when New START expires, it expires, that we’re simply not under such pressure that we must accept any pressure from Russia and we want to have China in it too. So that’s the first scenario.

2) New arms race– that’s the worst, that new arms race comes, meaning Trump will invest money and launch it.

3) Trilateral negotiations– that all three nuclear players and basically also militarily biggest powers USA, Russia and China sit down and try to agree.

4) Fragmentation, regionalization of that nuclear deterrence – meaning Europe including France, United Kingdom and others. That it fragments and we already have 9 nuclear countries and more can be added.

5) Crisis escalation– absolutely worst scenario, unlikely but very dangerous, is crisis escalation, that simply at some moment these conventional conflicts get out of control and one side will demonstrate use of nuclear forces.

I think that currently we are in scenario A– meaning quiet voluntary continuity and attempt at negotiation.

Slovakia in Security Context

Moderator: And where do we find ourselves in this, Slovakia?

Pavel Macko: I’m looking for a decent word. We are disoriented, trampled in the ground. We buried ourselves there like moles, only we didn’t choose good terrain, because we buried ourselves in some swamp and it’s leaking into our mole hole from all sides.

Slovakia is being left out of all these security discussions. As I indicated those scenarios, we actually don’t know where security will move and how it will transform.

Problems of Fico’s Government

Into this comes hysteria of this Smer government, which does knee-jerk politics in four world directions and breaks its allied relations to the core.

We saw Epstein, that actually our top representatives get caught in traps… Even if it’s not confirmed that our prime minister met with Bannon or not, by the way Fico was at that same CPAC forum last year, where Bannon was hailing and after him Robert Fico… not right after him, but later Robert Fico spoke, while even such a leader of extremists from French National Front left after this hailing. Even for him it was too much. Our prime minister stayed there. And that’s a problem.

Lies About MiG-29

The last cherry on top is that the prime minister shouted at the previous government that they are traitors, that they disarmed Slovakia. Now the prosecutor, who was pro-Smer, and I dare say this, let them be angry at me or not, if needed, I would give dozens of arguments…

Moderator: Pro-Smer is not a good expression, she just helped Smer.

Pavel Macko: Yes, to be correct.

Even she found that the law regarding donation of MiGs and S-300 was not violated and prosecutor Remeta explained it in detail, how it really was. Fico lied yesterday at the press conference when he again said that S-300 was modernized.

And yet I know he has many generals, even loyal to him, who could have advised him and said it’s nonsense. But apparently he doesn’t ask anyone, because Fico doesn’t ask anyone about anything today.

From Fico’s foreign trips we have no outputs and conclusions. Not even the confidential ones. Simply there are no records from those negotiations, which is complete nonsense. This never was in Slovakia.

Tunneling of Slovak Army

Actually I’ll now remind you of one thing. And that’s something I probably also announce that I’ll likely file a criminal complaint, because if this government went to prosecute the previous one for that donation, then the prosecutor now confirmed what that government claimed, what I claim, that here enormous damage was arising during MiG maintenance.

When through the company of Fico’s friend Výboh subscription contract was made, where Russians committed that for that money they will maintain the number… I know that number, but I can’t say it because Minister Gajdoš refused to give it to me officially on my request, so I could publish it, how many of those 12 fighters we originally had should be permanently combat-ready, but it was roughly two thirds.

And we sometimes achieved only one tenth. And the prosecutor also said that at the end we had one fighter that was combat-capable and flight-capable, but we paid money for that full contract.

This means that not the previous government, but Fico’s governments tunneled Slovak armed forces and endangered the security of the Slovak Republic.

360°

Iran and Negotiations with USA

Moderator: Let’s look at developments around Iran. Will a new agreement be negotiated and the situation calmed, or will America have to strike there?

Pavel Macko: The question is whether America dares to strike there, because that’s actually why it didn’t strike during those protests.

They could actually provide an argument to that extreme Iranian government that it would unleash a kind of side conflict, that it would actually start some conflict in the Persian Gulf and therefore escalate the situation.

This would of course allow that government to make extreme measures at home, to suppress any opposition and could endanger American interests in that space, also American forces that are there.

American Military Preparation

Therefore Americans moved those aircraft carriers there, they have mighty force there now that could really strike.

I don’t think and Americans never indicate that they would want some ground invasion or landing, as we saw also in Venezuela, but they can very drastically strike those key targets in Iran.

But they also don’t want to do it, because it can be just a spark for a bigger conflict. Therefore there’s that offer for negotiation.

Today they should meet also with help of intermediary countries that try to give some negotiation format.

So that tension is very high, but it must be said that these negotiations today (February 6, 2026) are a real attempt at de-escalation.

Content of Negotiations

But chances for some fundamental breakthrough are small, we already have a long podcast, so I’ll just briefly say what those negotiations should be about.

First that dynamic or tension is illustrated by the fact that United States called on its citizens to immediately leave Iran.

Khamenei again said that if the US attacks, that conflict will change into regional war. That’s what I indicated.

Demands of Sides

When I return to those negotiations:

USA demands:

▪️Complete removal of enriched uranium stocks – Iran is willing to negotiate about this

▪️They want to also limit the ballistic program

▪️meaning those carriers

▪️And end support for regional militias like Hezbollah, Houthis and so on

Iran still insists that it’s prepared to negotiate only about that nuclear program, but ballistic missiles and those revolutionary guards and those various clones of revolutionary guards they bred throughout that region – those proxy groups – it doesn’t want to discuss this.

Qatar, Turkey and Egypt try to somehow act as intermediaries, but we’ll see.

Development Assessment

Simply, it will be first contact, that risk is high.

My assessment is that the US will balance between what I said, that risk of large escalation, but at some moment at least some limited strike may come.

I can even imagine they would strike directly at Khamenei.

Final Quote About Negotiation

Moderator: You spoke here today twice, or several times about negotiations and I know you prepared such a negotiation quote. So tell us and say who created that quote.

Pavel Macko: So: „If you approach negotiation with the assumption that the other person thinks the same way as you, you’re wrong. It’s not about empathy, but about projection.“

And it was said by Chris Voss– he’s a popular author of several books, former chief FBI negotiator.

The post Security Radar of General Pavel Macko – 150th Edition appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

#Beijing #China #coalition of willing #Gaza #Hamas #Israel #Lebanon #military parade #peace talks #Putin #Russia #security radar #Syria #Trump #Ukraine

Moderator: Welcome, Palo.

Pavel Macko: Thank you very much, pleasant listening to the audience.

Fog of War

Moderator: Let’s start with Ukraine. What’s the development on the battlefields?

Pavel Macko: I’ll begin by noting that August has ended, which means the main summer season is effectively over. Both the Ukrainian side and the Russian side have evaluated the spring-summer Russian offensive.

Let’s be realistic – the Russians haven’t achieved any miracles. They attempted several attacks, captured several dozen villages, took several hundred square kilometers of territory, but they couldn’t capture any major city. To make it look like they captured one, they placed a flag on a pole in Kupiansk using a drone, which the Ukrainians then took down.

Simply put, the fighting is intense. According to Ukrainian estimates, the Russians have suffered losses of over 200,000, up to 290,000 this year. But they’re preparing for some major offensive. However, they haven’t made progress yet.

When I evaluate the summer campaign, it wasn’t effective at all from the Russian perspective. They tried to bypass cities, but they failed to break them. And that’s likely why we’re now seeing movements and regrouping of Russian units.

The Russians applied pressure across the entire front and tried to find cracks. Where it starts to crack, like glass, or when you throw stones, they quickly deepen that hole. They almost succeeded in doing this near Dobropillia, but the Ukrainians managed to prevent it in time. They tried it in Sumy, they’re trying it at Kupiansk, they partially bypassed Pokrovsk from the southwest, and even penetrated into the Dnipropetrovsk region, but they didn’t achieve any operationally significant successes. That’s why they’re now regrouping.

Strategic Bombing

We see again that the Russians are „negotiating peace“ by intensifying attacks on civilian targets. They are now attacking more on the central and western parts of Ukraine.

The goal is clear:

▪️To destroy infrastructure facilities

▪️Railway transport hubs

▪️Factories

▪️To bring shock to villages and cities

At least half of the targets are explicitly residential buildings, hospitals, and schools. The reason is clear – the Russians are trying to indicate to Ukrainians that those who are further from the conflict zone have been living too comfortably, and they want to force Ukrainians to capitulate by undermining the morale and psyche of the people.

We saw massive attacks in Kharkiv. This is a paradox because it’s a Russian-speaking city that has always been Ukrainian and they felt Ukrainian, they just spoke Russian. Putin and his troops are punishing them for that – just from one attack there were at least 12 victims, dozens wounded, and 100,000 residents were left without electricity.

They attacked Dnipro with Shahed drones, and in Odesa they even used Kalibr missiles from the Black Sea. They hit port facilities and a humanitarian aid warehouse. Again, what a „highly strategic“ target – a humanitarian aid center! A Kalibr missile has an accuracy of up to 5 meters. That means they could hit the room we’re sitting in, at least its corner. And it’s something that doesn’t make sense, that they attack a humanitarian aid warehouse under the pretext that there must definitely be strategic ballistic missiles or atomic weapons there. Simply nonsense, just like the entire Russian aggression.

In Kyiv, attacks with Iskander ballistic missiles continued, and they also attacked command and military centers. The air defense reacted. In the south, whether in the city of Kherson or in the Zaporizhzhia region, there is permanent artillery shelling. They’re trying to make Kherson uninhabitable – when they were driven out of there, they punish the residents so they can’t live there. Unfortunately, the attacks continue and are escalating.

Ukrainian Attacks

Moderator: What about the Ukrainians, how are they doing?

Pavel Macko: They continue, they’re trying to counter, they’re also changing tactics. We saw the first real attack with Flamingo missiles on Crimea. Initially it was thought they were Neptune missiles, but they released footage of it.

Moderator: And what are those Flamingo missiles?

Pavel Macko: The Ukrainians introduced Flamingo recently. It was a „fast track“ development – rapid development over a year. It’s a cruise missile that has a range of up to 3000 kilometers, it has up to 1125 kilograms of combat payload. It’s right at the sound barrier, slightly subsonic, a large missile. It has an accuracy of about 20 meters.

I think they were testing them in Crimea. It’s one thing to produce and test on a training ground, and another to deploy in real conditions. There were skeptics who said it was too large and slow, so Russian systems might be able to intercept it. But they tested it over Crimea, which is relatively well protected. Belbek is one of the strategic airports in Crimea.

They tested them there and gave the Russians a psychological signal that not only is Crimea not untouchable, but they can try it elsewhere as well. Russia is huge. What is an advantage when you want to occupy it is a disadvantage when you want to defend it. No one can defend all facilities against air strikes. Not even Russia can do that.

Then we saw attacks on the Tula region, and those weren’t drones, but Ukrainian intelligence operating in Russia blew up an underground explosives warehouse in a chemical plant. They do this cyclically – Ukrainians have their people directly in Russia and can operate there. It wasn’t just those drones that were launched from trucks and remotely piloted in the „Spider“ operation. I think they’re spinning more of these „spider webs“ there and will continue to catch Russians in them.

Moderator: We saw attacks in Krasnodar region and on oil facilities. But what caught my interest, we were recording last Friday and just before that, on August 28, they struck with a drone near Vladimir Putin’s palace.

Pavel Macko: That was in Gelendzhik on the Black Sea coast. He has a huge dacha there. They hit it there, indicating to him that Vladimir isn’t safe even there.

Development of Fighting in Individual Areas

Let’s go through individual areas. In the Kursk and Sumy regions, the fighting was milder. We see a significant shift – in the Sumy region, the Russians seem to have come to terms with the fact that they won’t make a breakthrough there and won’t move towards Sumy. Sumy was a good target, it’s not so far from the borders, it’s a relatively large administrative center. The Russians had already occupied it once, the Ukrainians pushed them out at the beginning of the invasion. They tried to get there again, but they’re withdrawing troops from there.

Intense fighting is still ongoing in Kupiansk, Lyman, Serebriansk forest. Serebriansk forest – west of Kreminna – has become totally confusing. The Ukrainians can no longer establish a line defense there because the troops have intermixed. I saw videos where a Ukrainian soldier was walking, the Russians thought it was their soldier, and then he shot them.

This Lyman direction is one to remember. It could be a place where the Russians will try to get across the Zherebets River in larger numbers and continue further to Lyman, so they can get the entire rest of the Donetsk region into pincers – from the south from Pokrovsk and from the north from Lyman.

Of course, fighting continues in Pokrovsk, Toretsk, Kostiantynivka. In the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, we see a slight stabilization of operations.

Regrouping of Russian Troops

To summarize, we see regrouping of Russian troops. The Russians are withdrawing from the Kherson region – not all units, but important elements. They’re strengthening the Donetsk direction and also withdrawing units from the Sumy region.

From the Kherson area, they withdrew the 70th Motorized Rifle Division of the 18th Combined Arms Army. This was a newly created division after the invasion. They have three motorized rifle regiments, a tank regiment, a reconnaissance battalion, self-propelled artillery – a brigade. It’s about 10,000 men. They’re moving them to the Donetsk direction, down to Pokrovsk.

From the Sumy area, they’re withdrawing the 76th Airborne Division. This elite airborne division is a „firefighter“ – when there was a Ukrainian breakthrough, when the Ukrainians liberated Kupiansk and were advancing quickly, the Russians deployed this division there. When they had a problem, when the Ukrainians pushed in the south, they also deployed the division there and managed to stop the summer offensive of 2023 Ukrainians at Orikhiv.

What are they trying to do? The Perun portal (Czech drone operators who collect money for drones for Ukrainian forces) described it quite well as a „long ball“ – in sports terminology, it’s a pass where when the game is „grinding“ somewhere in the middle, a long pass is thrown down the wing and a player runs onto it. They’re trying to get the entire area into pincers.

Tactical Changes and Drone Warfare

Both sides are trying various tactics. Last time we mentioned that it wasn’t so advantageous for Ukrainians to thin out defensive lines with drone operators. They are highly effective, but they have only limited capacity and the targets are known. As soon as they make contact, the Russians also know about it and start bombing.

The Russians have gradually changed their tactics. At the beginning of the war, they tried for rapid movement, combined arms combat. We all expected the Battle of Donbas to come – major combined arms maneuvers, modern mechanized forces, air cover, armored vehicles on the ground. That didn’t happen. They were able to deploy and coordinate a maximum of two brigades together, because they couldn’t coordinate more.

Today they don’t have as many mechanized forces. We see attacks with small units on motorcycles, on all sorts of things. Now they do it by bypassing lines in small groups, catching hold in some village where there is no military presence. From there they can direct drones, do other things. It’s like seeping, when you stain wood.

Moderator: I read today that artificial intelligence is already functioning and the first swarms of drones have been deployed. The Ukrainians deployed it, did you notice that?

Pavel Macko: I noticed, I’m writing about it in the magazine as well. I talk there about how generations of drones are gradually evolving. They already tried it in the fall last year, they had the first attempts on a smaller scale in the Kherson region.

Moderator: And is it effective?

Pavel Macko: It has the hope of being effective, because swarms of drones with artificial intelligence are relatively autonomous. You don’t have to pull them on cables, you don’t need as many operators. The problem is that when you have an FPV drone, you need one person with goggles or a screen who navigates the drone until the end, but can’t navigate other drones.

When you have some master drone and a swarm of drones, you get them to the target area and they select their targets themselves. In that program, you can even program target priorities. When the system sees artillery or an air defense asset, it ranks them numerically highest and leaves the infantry for the end.

Summary of Development in Ukraine

To summarize, last year it was expected that there would be a waiting tactic, because neither side had enough forces for a major offensive. Not like in World War II, when there was Operation Bagration, where there was a major breakthrough. That operation brought the Soviets hundreds of kilometers behind German lines, broke through them through swamps, through difficult terrain in Belarus, and got into an area where they had a strategic advantage.

This didn’t happen. Last year, in order to show positive progress, the Russians sacrificed an estimated 450,000 soldiers (variously killed, wounded, some multiple times). These are huge losses and they actually achieved nothing visible.

This year I’m positively surprised that the Ukrainians held on, because many times it looked like it was about to fall. Some troll wrote to me that Kupiansk, they already have half of Kupiansk. No, they’ve been fighting for Kupiansk for 2.5 years. We mention it every other week. They still can’t capture it.

Now it looks as if the Russians feel they’re treading water. This isn’t the right thing. Basically, they decided to concentrate pressure even more on Donbas, because they’re also on a ticking clock and climatic conditions will be different in the fall.

The estimate of several observers is that the Russians will try to make a breakthrough, create Guderian-style wedges – arms from the north and from the south, to get behind the Ukrainian forces and interrupt supply routes. It can be assumed that from these troop movements, they will also try to generate more mobile mechanized formations.

This is their last chance in this immediate period. It’s risky for the Ukrainians – they need to be careful. But it’s also risky for the Russians, because it’s a moment when the sports rule „if you don’t score, you’ll concede“ applies. If they overdo it and fail, as at Dobropillia (a small tactical episode), and if they don’t succeed at the operational level either, they’ll break their teeth. It may happen that there will be a „reverse“ – the Ukrainians will find a weak spot and push.

The last thing – Ukraine must be asymmetrical. An attrition war in the Russian style can’t suit them. They don’t have as much personnel, as much equipment, which is why many recommend they continue with deep strikes.

I registered yesterday’s report this morning – Keir Starmer says that some European countries will give Ukraine the means for deep precision strikes, long-range missiles. We don’t know if it will be Taurus or something else, but they should receive them. This is retaliation or a reaction to the continuing Russian attacks on cities.

Middle East

Moderator: Let’s go to the Middle East, to the Gaza Strip. How are the Israeli army operations continuing there?

Pavel Macko: The airstrikes are intensifying. The Israeli Air Force carried out several precise attacks on Hamas positions in southern Gaza, especially in the Khan Yunis area. There were civilian casualties again.

These operations are important because the Palestinians are also giving arguments to Netanyahu – they fired rockets. This means the job isn’t finished. And that’s Netanyahu’s argument: „The job isn’t finished, and until they lay down their arms, we must finish it.“

Israel is mobilizing reserves. When we analyzed the operation, we said they need about 60,000 reservists, whom they’re calling up again. This process is underway. Not everyone is happy with it, some refused to report.

There’s internal political friction in Israel as well. Some are against scaling down the operation, others on the contrary say it needs to be intensified and accelerated.

Moderator: And what do you think?

Pavel Macko: I think it’s complicated. It needs to be done as quickly as possible, have a plan immediately for how to replace the Hamas administration with something else and withdraw. The view that they will also want longer-term military occupation may ultimately prevail. I think it’s difficult.

From my experiences in Afghanistan as well – it’s not a problem to conquer something, that’s what the Israelis are trying to do now. Clearing is complex, but maintaining and subsequently building is almost impossible in this environment. I would try to avoid it.

The Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant General Zamir, said that no one should be mistaken – even though there’s talk that the operation will be from October 7, he declares that it’s already running and they have 40% of Gaza City under control, that they’ve entered parts where they’ve never been before, and they’re trying to clear it. Meanwhile, civilians are also being evacuated to southern parts beyond the Netzarim corridor.

Syria, Lebanon and the Red Sea

Diplomatic negotiations are taking place between Lebanon and Syria. They’re creating joint committees or commissions to address sensitive topics:

▪️The fate of nearly 2000 Syrian prisoners in Lebanese prisons

▪️Locating missing Lebanese citizens in Syria

▪️Demarcation of the common border, which they don’t have precisely marked everywhere

They’re trying to normalize relations between the countries.

Regarding Lebanon, last time we discussed that the US, through its emissary Thomas Barack, proposed a plan for Hezbollah to be disarmed by the end of the year. Reciprocally, the Israelis would withdraw their troops from southern Lebanon. And moreover, next year the UNIFIL mission from the UN, which has been there for almost 50 years, would be ended, and thus Lebanon would take full control of its territory. Hezbollah, of course, resists this.

In Syria, the situation in the south has calmed down slightly. Negotiations are ongoing between Israel and Syrian representatives about easing tensions in border areas (conflict between Druze and Bedouins). The Syrian government is trying to normalize relations, starting to send its ambassadors to surrounding countries and negotiate with other partners. It is planning, for example, a visit by the ministers of foreign affairs and justice to Beirut.

They will also try to normalize relations with Lebanon, which was largely a victim of Syrian ambitions in past conflicts. There were Syrian so-called blue berets in Lebanon and so on.

Moderator: What about the Red Sea?

Pavel Macko: In the Red Sea, we saw that Israel decimated a significant part of the military and political leadership of the Houthis, who are threatening massive retaliation. They say they can destroy Israel in a few hours. Of course, this is just rhetoric – if they could do it, they would have done it already, they’ve tried. They can cause harm, but Israel has indicated to them that the more harm they cause, the harder the counter-strike may be.

Strategic Background

Moderator: It happened far away, but also close. What do you say about the Chinese military parade and the activities of Prime Minister Robert Fico among world dictators who clearly defined themselves against the West, despite the fact that Fico was there?

Pavel Macko: Let’s take it step by step and I’ll start right with Fico. We saw a series of events – the Shanghai Coordination Group meeting, then the parade. China took advantage of the fact that Indian Prime Minister Modi and other guests came, they discussed the Shanghai Group and immediately afterward showed a parade for the 80th anniversary of the end of the war.

Robert Fico found himself in such company – it’s as if I found myself somewhere among the Taliban or the Sátora gang. He’s a collaborator and it’s outrageous, because all those political messages were about forming an axis – I don’t want to call it an axis of evil, but it seems like that to me – an axis of dictatorial, corrupt and inhumane regimes that are frustrated with the West and are going explicitly sharply against the West.

And suddenly there is the Slovak Prime Minister – we are the West! Now it doesn’t matter where the political boundary of the Cold War was. We are the West in terms of civilization. In fact, since we „expelled“ Cyril and Methodius, we’ve clearly been the West. We’ve also been left with the Latin alphabet, we are part of Western civilization and we’ve never been part of the Orient, or God forbid, Asia.

What is our Prime Minister even doing there? I understand that he wanted to do business in China. But he was flirting with Putin there, flirting with dictators like Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping. Being in the same party with these people is like if I were seen among a gang of vagabonds, extortionists. How could I show my face again?

Robert Fico in his video, and this interested me, said that he is the Prime Minister of a sovereign republic, legitimately elected. Well, to that I’ll say that he was elected with a different program. That program wasn’t that the Slovak Republic is going to war – so far ideological and possibly later physical – against its closest neighbors and allies. What, will we soon be attacking the Czechs or the Austrians just because they’re Western and we want to be some kind of „Chinese“? That’s not normal!

Secondly, we are a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister, regardless of what percentage Smer got (some 18 or 20, he didn’t get 50, but even if he did), is not a private person, nor a dictator, nor the boss of an armed gang or mafia, that he can say he is sovereign and decide to go somewhere. Let him look at our competence laws, let him look at what the role and position of the Prime Minister is.

The Prime Minister is the moderator of the government. One of the ministers, the „prime minister,“ who moderates the government. For such a foreign trip and the subject of negotiations, he must have a mandate from the government as a collective body. The government must have the confidence of parliament.

What Robert Fico is doing is bizarre. He is now openly spreading hatred against the West. And at a time when the West is negotiating security guarantees for Ukraine, Fico is threatening to undermine Ukraine and consulting about it with Putin. And he’s even pretending that he can do it!

I appeal to his party members and his coalition partners. We are a parliamentary democracy. None of you won the elections by saying that Slovakia would leave the EU, leave NATO, or that it would be inside NATO and the EU but as a pest that will, together with countries that are threatening to harm us, harm us.

Who does our Prime Minister represent there? Himself. It’s a terrible state, which hasn’t passed silently in the world media either. Our partners notice it. Sooner or later we’ll get a response like from Radek Sikorski, who recently indicated that we’ll get as much solidarity as we put into it.

Chinese Military Parade

Of course, the 80th anniversary of the war – there was demagoguery from China as well. When we realistically look at it, World War II in China was such that Chiang Kai-shek’s forces fought with the Japanese, while the communists harmed them behind their backs. Mao Zedong tried to steal what was liberated through guerrilla warfare. But it was Chiang Kai-shek’s army that eventually had to evacuate and go to Taiwan.

That’s why China is divided – the communists took over mainland China and Chiang Kai-shek’s soldiers remained on Taiwan. The Chinese island of freedom remained there.

The second thing is that, similar to Europe, there was massive aid from the United States. The US helped the Chinese the most in the Pacific region against the Japanese. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they weren’t aiming to conquer the United States. They wanted to eliminate the US from the game so they wouldn’t interfere with their imperial goals. That’s what Russia is now trying to do with us – deter us, push us out. Why? So they can do what they want.

At the parade they showed:

▪️Hypersonic missiles

▪️Ballistic missiles with multiple warheads

▪️Laser defense systems

▪️Advanced drones including robotic fighters

I’m writing about it in the current issue completely by chance. In the continuation of the cycle about the development of military drones, we also write about a drone that China showed. It’s the „Loyal Wingman“ concept, where they presented this drone.

They also showed military robots, new fighters, tanks. It was a big parade – more than 10,000 soldiers in Tiananmen Square (4 km²). They showed a lot of equipment, a lot of soldiers.

What’s interesting and few people noticed – there wasn’t a single ordinary citizen there! Everything was cordoned off, isolated. Ordinary Chinese didn’t get there at all, everything was fenced off and cleared. Security measures. They had a lot of guests there. It’s atypical, because even in Red Square there are parades to build internal „awe“ among their own crowds. In this case, the Chinese relied only on big TV screens for their own people.

Moderator: You said they had a lot of weapons systems there. Are they really that good, or was it just a show? I remember how the Russians displayed their famous tank at Red Square, which they didn’t even manage to produce in the end.

Pavel Macko: China wanted to demonstrate, like every parade, power. It wanted to deliver several messages:

1) That it will resist the West

2) Xi Jinping’s speech was interesting (I don’t know Chinese, I rely on translations)

Xi Jinping always talked a lot about peace. It’s classic rhetoric, like our elected president – „president of peace“ in uniform with a submachine gun in hand. But they always emphasized it a lot. China has maintained a low profile line since the 70s. And now they seem to be baring their teeth – he talked less about peace, more about deterrence, intimidation. They also wanted to show technological superiority.

Are they really that good? Several aspects:

▪️Their weapons haven’t been demonstrated or tested in any combat operation yet (with the exception of a few older fighters that were in the Indo-Pakistani conflict and proved themselves)

▪️The Chinese don’t have direct military experience, so we don’t know if they can coordinate large formations and whether they would fall apart like the Russian ones that marched into Ukraine

But we must say that in some areas we see significant progress:

▪️Modern tanks – we don’t know how many they have, but they showed a lot of them. China is a large country and presumably can mass produce. We saw 4th generation tanks with reduced weight, increased survivability, they can network them – truly a modern tool.

▪️Hypersonic missiles – they’re a bit different from Russian ones. The Chinese have long concentrated on hypersonic missiles to destroy aircraft carriers. Why? Because the main competitor is the United States. The US is far away, but they have the ability to project power precisely on these platforms. Experts agree that they have this tested on mockups as well. We’ve seen various exercises in the South China Sea.

▪️Nuclear triad – its display wasn’t just a political effect. It’s a reality. China is intensively increasing its nuclear potential. It was a „younger brother“ like the United Kingdom or France. It’s starting to get into the triumvirate or trio of large nuclear superpowers.

▪️Drones powered by artificial intelligence – we definitely see that this has been tested.

The battle robots, the „wolves,“ were for show. We haven’t really seen them in action. Laser weapons too – they look good on the training ground when nothing is interfering, but in real combat we don’t know.

We don’t know about the coordination of troops, because rehearsing a show is something different. I practiced for Spartakiada – we rehearsed for a year and a half. We could turn an ordinary soldier into an athlete in gymnastics in a year and a half if you focus on it. But that still doesn’t mean we would really be such athletes or gymnasts in competitions.

And of course, those guests – it was clearly political theater and our Prime Minister played an undignified role for the Slovak Republic in it.

Convergence of China and Russia

Moderator: There’s a lot of talk about the convergence of China and Russia. It seems to me that Russia is already such a subordinate state of China, as if they were begging them. But another thing is that Trump is also trying to somehow win Russia over to his side. Does he even have a chance to attract them?

Pavel Macko: In my opinion, he doesn’t. It’s a misunderstanding of the dynamics and context. Trump wants to do something like a „reverse Nixon.“ Nixon with Kissinger at the beginning of the 70s drew China closer to the US, and that’s actually when China’s development began. Let’s be honest – we built up China from that backward country. It’s still at 71st place in GDP per capita, but it’s a large country, so 1.5 billion means something.

The Americans then attracted China, pulled it away from the Soviet bloc. But we need to state the context – the tension between the Soviets and China had been there since Mao Zedong came to power in the 40s, already during World War II. Mao accused the Soviets of not helping him enough against the internal enemy and in those external aspects as well. He wanted the Soviets to sacrifice even the western front just to help him.

There was rivalry, jealousy between them – what we see today in our government coalition. The coalition is failing, but they’re still competing with each other. This was also between the Soviet Union and China. The Americans took advantage of it and China got a „lollipop“ for it, which grew to gigantic dimensions and is today a comparable economy to the United States.

Can Trump achieve the same with Russia? He can’t, because Russia has removed that possibility that China had by its senseless annexation of Crimea and subsequently by its adventure in Ukraine. China grew on having a rich client – whether in the United States or in Europe. It wouldn’t have grown rich on African countries, nor on Latin American ones, which, even though they’re growing stronger, do so mostly for their domestic industry. And not to feed the Chinese.

We fed the Chinese. Just as we fed Arab countries in terms of oil. I mean the collective West. Slovakia didn’t, because we fed the Russians and we’re still feeding them.

The calculation is flawed, because Russia is already so economically dependent on China that a pivot to the US wouldn’t help it. It’s in subordination to China, despite the fact that it’s still a nuclear power with the most nuclear warheads, but that’s about all they have.

China showed at this parade that it’s no longer dependent on Russian technologies, that in aviation technology and stealth technologies it’s already far ahead of the Russians, and the Russians will have a hard time keeping up. China has a powerful economy, many times larger than Russia, and development potential.

The Chinese also function differently mentally. And Trump is trying to turn the chess pieces upside down and thinks they will stand. They won’t, because Russia is economically linked with Third World countries and China. Even if they ended the war immediately, they wouldn’t get back on such a scale that it would be strategically advantageous for them. They will continue in a close alliance with China and there’s no major conflict there.

Russians are always nationalists, chauvinists, they didn’t even like their own nationalities. Everyone who experienced Soviet troops knows this, how they treated officers from nationalities other than Russian. Russian nationalists look at the Chinese as monkeys, just as they do at Afghans, but that’s the Russian nationalistic mentality. The political system and state leadership, however, is aware that without China, Russia today cannot move anywhere.

NATO Responds to China’s Growth

Moderator: And is NATO responding somehow to this growth of China?

Pavel Macko: It’s responding. China is investing a lot of resources in capabilities like artificial intelligence, the development of artificial intelligence in the military. Their philosophy is that they won’t have such sophisticated weapons as the West. This was also seen with drones – they go for quantity and relatively good quality and try to connect it through artificial intelligence to achieve the strategic effect that they are equally effective even with cheaper devices.

Most recently, the North Atlantic Alliance – Mark Rutte after the parade said that China is beginning to be a global challenger and we need to look at it carefully, because it also conducts hybrid operations. It does them more cultivated than the Russians. NATO will have to very quickly add and develop cooperation with Pacific partners like Australia, South Korea, Japan, because China is becoming increasingly assertive.

Coalition of the Willing and Security Guarantees for Ukraine

Moderator: We’ll see if we can do that. But in Paris, the Coalition of the Willing negotiated security guarantees for Ukraine. While our Robert Fico was sitting somewhere in Beijing. What did they agree on in Paris?

Pavel Macko: In Paris, they claim they agreed on security guarantees for Ukraine. 26 countries offered their forces, which would even go to Ukraine at the moment when a ceasefire was concluded.

A controversy and discussion arose about whether Russia must agree. Mark Rutte said quite simply: Ukraine is still a sovereign country, and if peace is achieved, it can invite anyone to its territory.

Of course, we don’t know the details. As a soldier-expert, I can imagine that rules of engagement must be established, where the focus will be – whether they are to be monitoring, observation forces, or deterrent forces, or forces that would be able to stop the initial onslaught in case of a ceasefire violation.

They also communicated that it’s a coalition of the willing, because NATO as an institution won’t be involved in it. Since the United States, Slovakia, and Hungary will block Ukraine’s entry into NATO, they say it will be necessary to strengthen Ukraine’s military capabilities after achieving any peace solution.

For me, the statements of Yermak (I may not admire him in everything, but he’s the right hand of President Zelensky and deals with these issues systematically as the head of the presidential office) are important. He has repeatedly indicated that a good solution would be to move away from Russian megalomaniacal demands and freeze the conflict.

The Ukrainians can live with that – he gave a direct reference to Korea, where a peace agreement hasn’t been concluded to this day and the 38th parallel is still more or less a demarcation line. But the situation has stabilized enough that South Korea could grow economically, develop, and today is one of the very strong world economies, even in arms production it’s a relevant world player.

Moderator: And what should those guarantees be? We already gave guarantees to the Ukrainians in Budapest when they were giving up nuclear weapons, and we see how that turned out.

Pavel Macko: Let me look at both aspects. What should these guarantees be?

1) Military presence of guarantors – they would be on the territory of Ukraine. This is exactly why we also established military presence on NATO’s eastern flank – to be a clear political signal that if you violate the ceasefire, you’ll get into conflict with those guarantors as well.

2) Strengthening air defense – Germany proposed an annual improvement of 20% in the number and effectiveness of air defense systems. Start production in the West, help Ukraine produce some of it itself, and increase air defense capacity by 20% every year.

3) Support for ground forces – they would like to help build Ukraine four mechanized brigades or mechanized infantry brigades, which is about 480 combat vehicles per year.

In short, Ukraine is to receive such military potential that would be sufficiently deterrent – non-nuclear, but deterrent for the Russians. Weapons production in Ukraine would be strengthened. There would also be training support.

They also indicated that if Russia is not willing to sit at the negotiating table, countries are willing, if necessary, in cooperation with the United States, to impose new sanctions.

An important question, which is not finished and is to be completed, is American participation. What does „indirect American air support“ mean? I explained this on Czech television – that support must not only be for the situation when monitoring compliance with the ceasefire, but especially there must be a clear scheme of support in case there is a violation of the ceasefire and an escalation from the Russian side. Then there must be a clear and strong retaliation.

Moderator: I know you followed the Prague defense summit, which was also attended by the NATO Secretary General. It continues today. And we’ll return to that topic.

Pavel Macko: Next week in Piešťany, on September 12, we’ll have a live broadcast during the film festival. We look forward to all of you – to come see us, listen to us, but especially to give us tough questions that the two of us can’t think of ourselves.

Moderator: Well, I can think of tough questions, but I’m afraid to give them to you, whether you’ll be able to answer. But come to Piešťany, because even though we won’t be there as film stars, there will be a star sitting with me, Palo Macko, who knows what you’ll be interested in.

360 Degrees

Moderator: So, Pali, what’s on the radar?

Pavel Macko: We discussed the Shanghai Cooperation Group, we discussed the parade, so to finish it off, I would look more at that coordination group and at Taiwan, although we discussed Taiwan last week.

Moderator: And what would you take as the main point from that Shanghai Group meeting?

Pavel Macko: What comes out to me are those images of Indian Prime Minister Modi, Putin and Xi Jinping holding hands, talking amicably without interpreters and indirectly sending a message to Trump.

Of course, it was arranged for the cameras, because they don’t know each other’s languages, they can’t communicate without interpreters. The important thing is that Trump then looked (albeit in a later context, when he already saw Kim Jong-un at the parade as well), that they’re plotting against the United States.

But the reality is that when I focus on India, it needs to be seen as an epic failure of President Trump. I’ve analyzed this several times – India is, firstly, a democracy. Peculiar, but a democracy. It’s still a member of the British Commonwealth and the largest democracy in the world.

For the last 20 years, the United States has been building a strategic partnership with India to have a partner in the region, so that the world wouldn’t be hostile to them. And Trump has managed to completely disrupt this.

Joe Biden was building those relationships – he invited Modi during his previous term for a state visit directly to the White House. Trump has broken all of this like an elephant in a china shop, because the result is that Modi is now fraternizing with these „troublemakers.“

Modi is signaling by this that he will have a more sovereign foreign policy. This doesn’t mean he would fall into China’s arms. Neither does Putin really want to fall into China’s arms, but he can’t manage without it.

In the case of India and China, there are even more conflicts between them – five years ago they were shooting at each other. It won’t be such a warm friendship, just as the Shanghai Cooperation Group isn’t a warm alliance. It’s not a new NATO or some „East Asian“ grouping. It wants to appear that way, but we see that there are India and Pakistan, some countries are there just to control each other.

The important thing is that India is indicating by this that it will be opportunistic. Trump, for instance, made a mistake and wanted to impose sanctions against everyone. He assessed, similar to Europe, that India is a weaker opponent. He pushed only on India and China and left everyone else alone. So Modi said to himself: „If you treat me as a stranger, I’ll be a stranger, and you’ll still come yourselves and beg me for cooperation.“

It’s a pity. It doesn’t mean an immediate change in the world order, but we will really be in a regime of competing powers. India will potentially be economically stronger than China, because China is somewhere at the limits of its development. It’s said that India could, in 20-30 years, if it fulfills all the prerequisites, economically surpass China.

In the military field, I see it, I indicate it in the latest article coming out this week, that for example in the area of drones and unmanned fighters, India has progressed a lot and is trying to be independent, so it doesn’t have to buy either Russian, Chinese, or American ones.

Moderator: You often return to Taiwan. Why?

Pavel Macko: It’s an absolutely key neuralgic point. I indicated how Taiwan originated – by separation from China. China is trying to get it back, holds the so-called one-China policy. It’s very aggressive towards Czech politicians as well – if they negotiate with the Taiwanese, it immediately attacks them. Just as it’s sensitive about the Dalai Lama, it’s sensitive about Taiwan.

Now in Taiwan there’s of course an independent government, but I would like to return to how it would look if China attacked Taiwan. I was intrigued by publicist J.P. Linsley, a journalist who was, by the way, in Ukraine and survived the initial invasion there. He looked in more detail at how it would be if China attacked Taiwan.

Last week we saw an exercise where the Chinese again practiced landing on Taiwan and blockade. Many were afraid that when Putin attacked Ukraine, China would immediately attack Taiwan as well. They’re not ready for that yet, but they’re trying to build amphibious landing capabilities.

Many evaluated it that China „shifted from fifth to second gear“ when they saw how the Russians hit a wall in Ukraine, and slowed down their ambitions and pressure on Taiwan. That’s not entirely the case.

The problem is that if China attacked Taiwan, they wouldn’t be as unprepared as Russia was in Ukraine. Every month we see evidence that Chinese-Russian cooperation is very intensive. Behind the scenes, China supports the Russians. The Geran drones they produce, the Russians couldn’t produce without 80% Chinese components critical for these drones.

China is also taking military knowledge. There is a very intensive exchange of experiences in drone operations and all activities going on quietly. Everything negative that the Russians experienced in Ukraine, China is thoroughly analyzing. It’s getting direct data from the Russians.

There is intensive communication in the technological area. Intensive correspondence was detected between Rosoboronexport (Russian arms monopoly), a Russian research institute for control communication systems and Chinese components.

So in Russia there may be „chaos,“ but the Chinese are learning from it and trying to be prepared so they don’t surprise Taiwan (as Russia was surprised in Ukraine).

Moderator: And we’re at the end. Pali, a quote?

Pavel Macko: We may have already given it, I’m not sure, because 129 parts is a long time to remember each and every quote. Moderator: But you should remember them.

Moderator: It’s not about remembering the quote, but whether I’ve already used it. I have them archived, because I archive those numbers. Maybe we’ll publish them in a book now. Well, I have to react to how Robert Fico is acting uncollegially and against his „herd.“ So I’ll take the liberty of a quote from Benjamin Franklin.

Pavel Macko: But say it in English first, I’ll like that.

Pavel Macko: Yes, because there’s a good play on words in English – the same word is used in both the first part and the second part of that quote. Benjamin Franklin was supposed to say it when signing the Declaration of Independence of the USA. The quote goes in the original language: „We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.“ And in translation: „We must all hold together, or certainly we will all hang individually.“

Moderator. Thank you.

The post General Pavel Macko’s Security Radar 129 appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.