KEY to AI-Enhanced Version of General Valery Garasimov’s “Garasimov Doctrine” Speech, Originally Delivered at the Russian Academy of Military Sciences, 4 March 2019

Note: The original speech by General Garasimov is quoted and translated in Red Star.  This speech was enhanced on 2 November 2019 using GPT-2 at talktotransformer.com, and the results are shown below.  General Garasimov’s original text is in bold and the synthetic text added by GPT-2 is not in bold in this enhancement.  This enhanced version has been edited only to eliminate unnecessary spaces and to remove occasional paragraph numbers.

 

Traditionally, the annual conference the Academy of Military Sciences is a platform for the exchange of views of military experts on the most relevant and problematic issues of military science

The conference features leading researchers from the world of military science, and participants are free to comment on the current state of affairs.

The main aim of the conference, however, is the preparation and implementation of practical and research questions for a wide range of relevant military issues for the 21st century.

The Academy of Military Sciences is a professional association of scientists, educators, researchers and industry partners. Its members share a common interest in the advancement of the sciences and research that is critical to a strong military.

The results of the conference inherently determine the future directions of its development, as a result of which they are always widely discussed both in Russia and abroad

I will not claim that one should think or act on the outcome of the conferences. They are just a manifestation of how these events form a part of the process of the socialization of politics. They always need to be discussed in this way so that, even if one does not understand everything, one learns and becomes more clear-sighted. If one tries to make too many claims about them, I believe the result will be to distort the nature of the process, to distort the nature of its application and to become even more obscure. I believe therefore, that the more the conference is understood as it has been presented before, the better it will be for the process.

This is how the conference took place in its current form. It was convened by the CC of the Moscow conference at the request of the CC of the Gare du Nord conference of 7 November, and it was attended by some 700 persons.

This year we are considering the development of military strategy in modern conditions.

The development of modern capabilities in strategic and tactical areas is necessary to realize our goal of defeating terror in the Middle East and North Africa. In this context, our nation, working according to a clear line of our own national interests, has been developing a coherent strategy of national self-defense. This strategic orientation is reflected in the development of the “three pillars of regional security” – homeland defense, maritime security and land defense. Through this strategy, we have achieved our national goals in terms of reducing regional tensions and regional threats. This strategy has succeeded in maintaining security and stability in the region, and we are convinced that a large-scale, sustained and comprehensive use of military force is the only means capable of achieving our goal.

To accomplish this goal, we shall maintain the current military policy, develop the necessary capabilities, maintain the peace and security of Israel, and strengthen our military command. We are convinced that these policies have brought success and achievement over the years and that it is this success that we shall retain as the foundation for a future development of our strategy.

Military strategy as a science “… the art of driving troops” originated at the beginning of the last century and developed on the basis of a study of the experience of wars. In general terms, the strategy represents “… a system of knowledge and actions to prevent, prepare and conduct a war.”

In this sense strategy is “the art and science of leading armies, and thus gaining domination over one’s antagonists. A strategy therefore has three components: an offensive, defensive and defensive phase”.

The offensive phase is conducted by using “tactical and physical formations” and “the development of the national army, which is the primary unit (and is the nucleus) of any modern nation (…) It is this unit which has to be prepared to march to war…[and to win battles. And] it must be prepared from the outset to win battles.”

The defensive phase is conducted by creating and strengthening “defenses” by “building and expanding upon an existing body of knowledge” about “defenses”.

Currently, the types of wars are expanding and their content is changing significantly. The number of entities participating in the armed struggle is increasing.

The number of states actively participating, however, seems to be shrinking. This might be because of the war in Yemen, which is not only a security challenge for the country but also an internal conflict.

“Even though the numbers of active combatants are growing, as they already are, they are not sufficient to create a coherent military structure that would constitute a true deterrent for future aggression,” it has been said, citing recent analyses by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The new “deterrence theory,” they note, is based on three core concepts: deterrence, deterrence-firstness, and deterrence-and-firstness.

“According to deterrence theory, the best way to dissuade from aggression is to demonstrate in the present some degree of strength that would be sufficient to deter future aggression,” they have explained. In the present, they referred to Syria.

Along with the armed forces of sovereign states, various gangs, private military companies and self-proclaimed “quasi-states” are fighting.

Sectarians in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria are engaged in a common cause.

Their fight has taken a tragic turn. Their “civil wars” have become brutal and murderous.

Their sectarian rifts have forced them to take a second stab at an agreement: They want all Muslims or none of them to live in the same countries. All must convert to Islam.

That is unacceptable to ISIS, al Qaeda or Boko Haram and their allies. And they are not the only ones that do that: “religious” factions in Afghanistan, Mali, Syria and Algeria have also called the shots.

All other civil wars – even a genuine uprising from the bottom up in Somalia or the Central African Republic – are “Islamization” initiatives.

The leaders of these “civil wars” hope they can take over the world from their allies and neighbors.

Actively involved are the means of economic, political, diplomatic, information pressure, as well as a demonstration of military power in the interest of enhancing the effectiveness of non-military measures.

The political pressure is often made by the political party or by the political organization to which a political or economic opposition has attached itself. A successful political or economic opposition can sometimes be broken through the use of pressure to the extent that, in fact, it can be broken.

There is a relationship between the process of the political process and the success of the political forces involved.

We have seen that a significant role is played by economic factors within the process. The most important means of political influence is the economic situation that the policy is aimed for: the economic situation plays no less a role in determining the character and direction of the policy than political conditions. Political conditions are also important. They determine the relationship between the economic situation and the political process, and they constitute the source of incentives.

Military force is used when it was not possible to achieve the goals set by non-military methods.

For example, the military could make military-based decision of the future direction of political power in an area. This will not cause any major changes in its economic, educational institution, or social structure. As a result, the military can take appropriate measures to ensure the stability and safety of its area.

If a specific military action may cause a significant change in government behavior, that action will always be made using more military force. In the rarest of cases, if civilian power is not an alternative, the military can use its armed forces to enforce legitimate non-military goals.

As long as those goals are non-military, it is lawful for the military to be used in these situations. However, a military presence during a time of lawless turmoil does present a serious risk to the security of society.

If a military action is authorized by both the civilian government and the central government (and if the central government is able to use the military for lawful purposes) then the military must follow the direction of military authority or risk civilian power being used in violation.

Meanwhile, Russia’s geopolitical rivals do not hide the fact that they are going to achieve political goals not only during local conflicts.

When it comes to the United States, there was an article on CNN.com which described the Russian government as “fascinating”: “Russia has long stood out from the West as a force for change – but that changed on Wednesday, when President Vladimir Putin stunned political leaders around the world by announcing Russia’s intent to pull back from the Cold War, abandoning a commitment to fight for the ‘special relationship,’ and turning his back on what he termed the ‘West’s encroachments on Russia.’ ” Russia’s departure marks a major shift, but it is not a complete break. With each of the past three presidents, the United States has provided military support to the Eastern Partnership – as well as other U.S. political and economic initiatives to support and promote democratic stability and economic growth. Putin’s decision marks another step toward disengagement from the U.S. orbit and toward a more assertive foreign posture,” explained CNN.

They are preparing to conduct wars with the “high-tech enemy” using high-precision weapons from the air, sea and from space, with the active conduct of information warfare.

They are using a new weapon called Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) to target us all. They are also using new threats such as distributed denial of service and even other types of attacks like phishing.

They are attacking every part of our environment with the aim to cause maximum damage while hiding their actions to others. They also want to weaken the strength of our organizations through a disinformation campaign.

We have to do a vigorous and thorough assessment.

We need to make sure that we have to understand our target and ensure that we have all appropriate tools and mechanisms in place to prevent and respond to this war of information. Also, we need to know how to respond and recover from such a war.

Under these conditions, our Armed Forces must be ready to conduct wars and armed conflicts of a new type using classical and asymmetric methods of action.

Here, the use of modern armaments will be necessary in order to fight at a range of over 1,400 km and to penetrate to all the enemy’s defensive positions.   It is the use of modern and advanced weaponry that is the guarantee for the success of such operations and that is the basis of the decisive part of our policy.

As for the tactical level , the use of the latest weapons, combined with the deployment of modern systems, it will be possible to wage the war on a massive scale within a short time. Thus, in the future, when military equipment has reached the minimum required level, the threat of war will be replaced by the threat of the use of modern war, which is guaranteed to achieve decisive results and will ensure their success.

At the same time, it is necessary to recognize that the armed conflicts which will be the principal subjects of our military activities will always face certain limitations.

Therefore, the search for rational strategies for waging war against various adversaries is of paramount importance for the development of the theory and practice of military strategy.

There are various theoretical tools, like military strategy, military tactics, war psychology, military methods of warfare, war strategy, war management, political strategy, the analysis of social situation and its relations, and other political phenomena that are pertinent to understand and make use of war by the military. In addition to them, there are military-political theory, military strategy of India, military-military strategy of India, Indian armed forces, military history, military history of India, theory of national defence, strategic outlook of India. A great number of practical approaches to military strategy are available for the use of the military strategist at both a local and global level.

To put it succinctly, an advanced military strategist is not just a strategist for war. A military strategist also considers the role of the military in the socio-political and political development of a country for peace and prosperity. He is a strategic thinker.

We need to clarify the essence and content of military strategy, the principles of preventing war, preparing for war and its conduct.

If any country is to be involved in our military strategy, then it must have certain strengths in the armed forces; it must be able to provide suitable material resources for the defense of the state, for building up industry, agriculture, and technology; and must be able to control the situation in the national territory.  Thus a great nation must possess all four elements and will never be able to achieve great potential.  So what are these characteristics of a great nation?  The characteristics are not in the nature of a country–they are inherent. This is the most profound lesson of Chinese society, that of the nation.  It is the best way of understanding the essence of war.  If one does not understand the essence of war, then one cannot understand war.  It is the most profound and fundamental lesson.  One can understand only the most simple form of war.

It is necessary to further develop the forms and methods of using the Armed Forces, primarily in strategic deterrence, and also to improve the organization of state defense.

In this regard, a large number of military professionals are needed, including a few professional military historians, because historians have to analyze military events and military decisions in order to establish a new conception of their origins and development. In other words, historians should work as investigators of the past, and the Armed Forces are essential instruments in this process.

Historians have to go through the documents of their countries to establish a new conception of the historical development of their countries.

One important task of national historians is historical research in their respective countries, even at the historical levels as far as the level of administration, the economic development of their countries, as far as the economic life of the country is concerned.

We have already mentioned the important task of history of the Russian-Soviet space activities, for which the Russian Federation has devoted much effort in a few years.

The evolution of basic strategic concepts

In the process of its development, the military strategy went through several stages of evolution – from the “crushing strategy” and “the strategy of starvation” to the strategies of “global war”, “nuclear deterrence” and “indirect actions”.

But as long as an enemy could be deterred on the basis of the threat, it has always been possible to avoid any significant military conflict. In his final work, The Final Conflict, Carl von Clausewitz argued that the most important military strategy in history was that of “peace by fire” – a strategy used throughout the 20th century to keep the peace amongst all states and non-state actors. The ultimate aim of a military strategy is to eliminate the source of the enemy threat.

A strategic solution to a problem in progress can take many forms. Sometimes a solution is a matter of reducing the threat. For example, when the US and Great Britain began an invasion of Germany in April 1939, they thought it would reduce Hitler’s power to carry out war crimes and increase German suffering.

The United States and its allies have identified the aggressive vector of their foreign policy. They study military operations of an offensive nature, such as “global strike”, “multisphere battle”, use the technology of “color revolutions” and “soft power”.

They also study other vectors and their impacts, including in the world of education” which they call “virtual education”. There are various mechanisms to be employed in this sphere. “virtual learning” is one.

In “virtual education”, a country seeks to create a virtual learning environment in which students study together with peers from all countries with a shared culture. “virtual learning” is a technology that seeks to reduce isolation and to build a global knowledge and understanding. It is a way to create a shared knowledge base, a shared culture, and a shared understanding of reality. Virtual classrooms create a common understanding through interactive and real-time interaction. “virtual learning” is an application that takes advantage of the virtual nature of the internet to create a virtual environment with real-time connectivity.

Their goal is the elimination of statehood in objectionable countries, the undermining of sovereignty, and the change of legally elected bodies of state power.  The United States is the only country in the world with this kind of ambition.

As we have said for many years, America is simply not a peaceful country.  Our goal, in the eyes of Russia and its allies, is to see the Soviet Union dismantled.  It’s the end of the Cold War, no more.  But, as Putin himself has remarked, the United States wants Russia to weaken. We need to counterbalance this.  If we go around the world, we can’t be in the business of killing people that we don’t like—or, rather, that don’t agree with us.

What Putin is saying is a threat not only to the United States but to the world, and is the most serious challenge that any country has ever faced. There is a huge difference between the policy of containment and the policy of force.

So it was in Iraq, in Libya and in Ukraine. Currently, similar actions are observed in Venezuela.

The Venezuelan crisis is also one of the reasons to consider a more comprehensive policy.

In these times, a political agenda against terrorism can only be effective if it meets the challenges of the situation on the ground and does not simply rely on the old strategy of trying to create a new reality that will satisfy the people.

I believe many in the Russian and US administrations are still in the mindset of the past. The current scenario, which has been unfolding since 2003, has been described as a “solution”.

In 2008 and 2009 the West presented a new doctrine that we may call a “dynamic solution” of the international crisis: in the absence of a new world order that is based on the non-traditional, non-liberal, pluralist international system and the European Union, we will implement our own strategy of national and international self-reliance.

So the same ideas that can lead to conflict, such as a policy that makes Russia vulnerable, will be pursued.

The Pentagon has begun developing a fundamentally new strategy for warfare, which has already been dubbed the Trojan Horse. It envisages the United States and its military allies creating a regional Sunni jihad movement led by an Arab leader that will then fight Iranian and Russian influence across the Middle East, as well as the global Islamic State (ISIS) enemy.

And it doesn’t help that the new strategy is in the making, rather than finalized.

The goal is a Sunni Islamic empire under the control of the Wahhabi Islamic state, which is to be the chief Sunni state in the Arab world.

The goal is to create a transnational caliphate, a transnational empire, that will ultimately be ruled by an Arab leader who shares their fundamentalist Wahhabi Islamic ideology and who will then use this transnational empire to expand his power far beyond his original sphere of influence, as well as to protect this transnational empire from an Iranian and Russian intervention into the region.

But the question is how. Are we preparing to create Sunni Islamic empires, or are we planning on creating Sunni Muslim states that have no borders? Or will our transnational caliphate be a global Muslim entity?

Its essence lies in the active use of the “protest potential of the fifth column” in the interests of destabilizing the situation while simultaneously launching WTO attacks on the most important targets.

It can be further described as working for the ‘opposition’”, through the establishment of a system of influence that undermines the sovereignty of the peoples of the world.

If one looks at the current global geopolitical picture, it can be inferred that the ‘fifth column’ can also be seen to be a highly important factor in its own right in the process of the current global ‘economic crisis.’ At any time the ‘fifth column’ could be seen to be a direct and active force, whether within the USA or in the EU, which makes it appear to directly challenge the sovereignty of the peoples of the world (while, however, it is only a figment of the imagination of the powerful elite). The ‘fifth column’ also contributes to the increasing levels of instability in the world, and therefore serves as a basis for further destabilizing actions.

The ‘fifth column’ can appear in multiple forms.

I would like to note that the Russian Federation is ready to oppose any of these strategies. In recent years, military scientists, together with the General Staff, have developed conceptual approaches to neutralize the aggressive actions of potential opponents. In our view, these approaches represent a promising future to which I will have to pay more attention than at present.

The key factor for the successful defeat of the US military will be joint strategic efforts. It will be necessary to have full and reciprocal engagement. Our military partners in the West are already implementing the principle of full-range and equal integration of operational and military capabilities. They are aware that a real and sustained military victory means the elimination of the enemy’s strategic deterrence capability. This is clearly the basis for the creation of the Russian Federation Army. The military cooperation plan envisages the creation of a military base with around 315,000 combat-ready troops in West Europe and North America. It includes a number of other elements, such as the delivery of weapons and munitions, training of servicemen, and, of course, the establishment of a real and stable war infrastructure.

The basis of “our response” is the “active defense strategy”, which, taking into account the defensive nature of the Russian Military Doctrine, provides for a set of measures to proactively neutralize threats to state security.

These measures can be taken through deterrence with force. They can be taken by means of political coercion of the adversary. They can be taken through the establishment of mutually agreed limitations on the use of force. These measures may be taken in conjunction with other sanctions, such as on the banking and financial sectors of the Russian Federation, the creation of new market limitations on the arms industry and the Russian energy sector and the creation of special economic zones that limit imports from abroad, the reduction of the value of the ruble and, perhaps, even in the form of devaluation, which could bring about a sharp contraction in the economy of the country, which may have a positive effect on the state of the external economy but will not have any impact on the internal economy in the sense of any growth or stabilization.

It is the justification of the measures being developed that should constitute the scientific activity of military scientists. I have been careful to avoid an interpretation of the word ‘activity’ in terms of ‘experiment’ or ‘testing’ or of ‘development’ or ‘design’, but in this discussion I am referring merely to the means by which we might investigate the processes of thought and of living organisms and of the relations of the self and the world to this world.

We are now introduced to the most important branch of military science – that which is primarily concerned with the application of science with practical applications in war. We may call this branch of military science ‘war science’. War itself has nothing to do with it.

Let us take the case of warfare: in a war we are constantly confronted and compelled to do things with our arms and in our way, and the consequences of such things, such as they are, affect us, the enemy or others, and our conduct towards them. We shall never know the whole truth which we shall have to face in a war.

This is one of the priority areas for ensuring state security. We must be ahead of the enemy in the development of military strategy, go “one step ahead.” But we also must also be conscious of the fact that military power and military tactics depend on people’s education, and that the basic and most essential function of educational institutions is to help people learn the language of politics, that is, to introduce them to the fundamental principles of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice.

“The only way to ensure that our people and our people’s education get properly organized and developed,” Trotsky wrote on April 2, 1935, “is to develop a comprehensive program for the study of the Communist system from the viewpoint of the Marxist-Leninist theory and practice and from the point of view of democratic struggle.” At the same time, he made clear that for “the basic purposes of the new educational work” education must be “uniformly socialist.”

“This will necessarily mean that a system of education that is socialist is necessary,” he wrote.

The unity of theory and practice

The development of strategy as a science should cover two areas. This is the development of a system of knowledge about the war and the improvement of practical activities to prevent the war, prepare for it and its conduct.

It follows that the scientific development of strategy should also cover the scientific development of war, because the war and military strategy are one, and a better understanding of one will lead to a better understanding of the other. The strategic concept of the war is the “war of all against all,” and war begins at an objective level and advances only when it has reached the subjective level. From the standpoint of the strategic concept, the war as a whole or even a part of the war needs to be studied on a scientific basis, on a basis which goes beyond the level of military strategy. The second factor is the development of strategic methods to obtain a clear tactical and material information, in which political and military aspects are merged.

The field of research of military strategy is armed struggle, its strategic level. With the emergence of new spheres of confrontation in modern conflicts, the methods of struggle are increasingly shifting towards the integrated application of political, economic, informational and other non-military measures, implemented with reliance on military force. The main goals set out are: to attain a victory through military means in order to establish a new world order, to prevent the emergence of new spheres of confrontation, to prevent the formation of new hostile organizations, and thereby to prevent the restoration of the old world order of colonialism and war.

One of these objectives is to combat both, the military and the economic side of the confrontation. On the military front, this is done with war and military force alone, but the use of other methods, such as civil disturbances and sabotage in an effort to achieve a more favorable geopolitical outcome; the deployment of special forces in the process of a coup d’etat or military or civil unrest in order to gain a more satisfactory end; and direct actions against critical infrastructure, financial institutions and energy supply lines.

But still, the main content of the military strategy is made up of questions of preparation for the war and its conduct, primarily by the Armed Forces.  But in the military, at least, the question of planning is in constant flux.  The military leadership has to assess the situation and plan accordingly, but the strategic plans and plans for the war have no such fixed form except insofar as the armed forces have to evaluate their war aims, the objectives of the war, and the tactics that will be used in conducting it.  This means that the military command is responsible to the political headquarters for the execution and assessment of the war policies and plans.  It is a “council for war” to which the political leadership has to submit all questions of strategy, tactics, and so forth, as well as for the application of the political leadership in conducting war.  It also has to consider the possibilities and limits of war, the situation of the enemy and of the country against whom the war is being waged, the prospects of success and failure.

Yes, we take into account all other non-military measures that affect the course and outcome of the war, provide and create conditions for the effective use of military force. In other words, we are prepared to engage in defensive war whenever necessary to uphold and protect the national interest.

Second, as you know, there are a number of specific areas in which we believe the US military has been engaged over the past two years in an offensive manner against those forces of the so-called Islamic State or ISIL, the so-called Islamic State of Iraq or the Islamic State of Syria. They are engaging in offensive military operations against the forces of the so-called IS or ISIL, but not exclusively so.

I would just repeat that the US military does not engage in offensive war on the basis of any particular religion or religion-specific characteristic, regardless of the nature of the attacks or actions that were undertaken. On the contrary, they take into account the broad spectrum of the religious views and institutions operating within our borders to ensure that our national security is not compromised.

It should be understood that confrontation in other areas represents separate areas of activity with its own “strategies”, methods of action and corresponding resources. In the interest of achieving a common goal, we must coordinate them, and not directly direct them.

This brings me to an important point, which we must keep in mind when we speak of “collaboration” of “the People’s Front.” “The People’s Front“” we must say, not just “the people’s parties“.” A “People’s Front” does not have a “political program.” A program has to be developed to give the people an understanding of what the People’s Front would aim to achieve. If there is no clear concept and no agreement at the base of the organization“then the program is merely a verbal “policy.” All a person of a different political or social viewpoint will come to “agree“” with it. Only those who believe in “Socialism or Barbarism” and are able to understand that they are in a different world will understand the differences.

The strategy should deal with predicting the nature of future wars, developing new “strategies” for their conduct, and preparing the state and the Armed Forces as a whole for war.

The purpose of the war planning should be not only to prevent defeat through military victory, or to prevent defeat through military defeat “but also to avoid failure, and to avoid failure by making sure that all possible means are put into practice.

It means the preparation for conflict and failure, not the preparation for peace “because the preparation for war and failure must be the same.

It means preparing for a war, a failure to get one, or a failure to avoid war.

It is necessary to have a war plan. We must not just write a war plan “we should follow it.

To prepare the armed forces for attack. The main war plan must be drafted to deal with the military situation of the enemy. The main war plan will be put into effect during war “but when we are ready for war, the main war plan will be put into effect also during the war.

In this regard, it is necessary to update the list of research tasks, supplementing them with new areas of scientific activity. However, while some studies, such as those on the effect of various types of alcohol, and some on the health implications of smoking cigarettes are on the list of new categories, other research studies from the past years, like that on the effects of carbonated beverages on physical performance (see the article by Sáenz in May 1996), are not on the list of the new research tasks, as the quality of the research was not as high as the current work. On the other hand, some studies that were originally created by the Spanish research institutes are not on the list of new research tasks, as these studies were not part of the research activities at the same time as the current work; hence, their inclusion is purely honorary.

Of course, the work in these areas of military strategy should be led by the Military Academy of the General Staff together with the Academy of Military Sciences. It is the duty of the military to prepare for military combat on all fronts.

We are committed to preparing our armed forces, while at the same time strengthening and increasing our ability to respond in any area to any new threat or threat scenario.

We are committed to our armed forces, even at the sacrifice of the civilian population.

We will do everything necessary to improve our own capabilities and capabilities of our allies in our war on terrorism to make peace in our regions – our South, East and North.

We are committed to our allies and the people of the region.

We will keep them in confidence. We will support regional efforts to bring peace and harmony to South and East Asia, to maintain peace and harmony that are mutually beneficial to all parties and the regional community at large.

We reject the use of violent methods and will resist violent actions by any terrorist groups.

For a more efficient study of issues, the involvement of all scientific organizations of the Ministry of Defense and the scientific potential of interested federal executive bodies are required. On the basis of this research it is proposed to develop an organization of scientists, engineers and public employees in cooperation with the scientific research centers of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defense, and the Council on Scientific Affairs, through the establishment of a national scientific center for strategic weapons in cooperation with the Russian Academy for Strategic Military Engineering, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in cooperation with the Ministry of Science. The Russian Academy for Sciences will establish and fund a large technical organization. It will undertake a joint project with the Russian Academy of Sciences in which there will be joint control over the international research programs with representatives from national laboratories and international universities in the fields of physics and nuclear power. The Russian Academy of Sciences will supervise the development of this technical structure. This joint program should include a general project to work out theoretical theories and experimental procedures for various types of arms-related research.

As practice shows, problematic issues need to be discussed at scientific and practical conferences and considered during round tables.

This means meeting scientists face to face to learn and work out how they are working with colleagues, colleagues and the wider public. It is the time to hear their views, and their experiences, on how issues are handled in terms of scientific methods, data, and publications.

This means working closely together with the UK scientific community, which is made up of scientists, policy makers and politicians who want the best possible scientific evidence to inform their decisions.

The problem is that the scientific evidence for climate change is often not taken on board by a wide range of public policy makers in many countries. They are often sceptical, and thus don’t realise that there is something significant about climate change beyond the political arguments over which causes, effects and impacts it causes and the timeframes to fix it.

However we don’t have scientific data to suggest that we shouldn’t respond immediately, immediately.

We need better evidence to support that view, and to make good decisions based on scientific evidence.

Only in this case will they bring new results in the theory and practice of military strategy. In another I want to describe at considerable length what the military strategists think of the nature and strength of the enemy; and what they have in mind to do; what has been the principal aim of our strategical preparations; and what their plans and operations will be if the war proceeds.

After describing to you the aims they have for the war, I shall show how they have been carried out. We are making preparations by means of armies and by a constant stream of supplies, both land and sea, and by other means also.

A general has to keep the enemy continually at his heels, because he is not always an enemy, even on the highest part of the land; his troops cannot move without his knowledge, and it is necessary that they are kept in readiness to battle. So if the military strategists can give a better description of those circumstances which will most definitely bring about the battle, what will you expect to find?

Principles of prevention, preparation and warfare

With the changing nature of the war and the conditions for its preparation and conduct, some principles of the strategy cease to be applied, while others are filled with new content. In many cases, the most advanced ideas of this new type of warfare are presented as a response to current tactical circumstances.

“The tactics of warfare are no longer merely theoretical, but are in fact applied in practice.”

This type of strategy, in which the strategy of war is no longer merely theoretical but in fact applied in practice, can in itself be described as a war of ideas. Thus, a tactical victory, even if it is a tactical defeat, can serve to inspire new ideas. Moreover, since victory in war is not obtained by defeating the other side, but rather by overcoming a specific, tactical resistance it may be that all the enemy’s efforts to resist, to overcome its own defenses, to establish a defensive line, are wasted resources, and a decisive victory is achieved through a more radical and complete adoption by the attacking side of an idea or a principle of strategy.

The principle of preventing war is to foresee the development of the military-political and strategic situation in the interests of timely detection of military dangers and threats and timely response to them. In this connection, all countries should maintain close and friendly co-operation on all aspects with the aim of preventing conflict and maintaining peace and stability in the region, especially after declaring the termination of hostilities.

All countries, particularly those of the former Soviet Union, with a population of more than one million, including the People’s Republic of China and the republics of the former Eastern Block, Russia, China, Mongolia, the Republic of Mongolia and the United Arab Emirates of the Arab world, should support international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in their work and development activities.

All countries, notably those of the former Soviet Union, with a population of more than one million, including the People’s Republic of China and the republics of the former Eastern Block, Russia, China, Mongolia, the Republic of Mongolia and the United Arab Emirates of the Arab world, should support the activities in cooperation with NGOs in their work.

The principles of preparing the state in advance for war are ensured by the constant high combat and mobilization readiness of the armed forces, as well as the creation and maintenance of strategic reserves and reserves. They are reinforced by the readiness of the population to fight in the event of war; by the fact that the defense of the state is the first duty of a citizen, who should strive to support his state with his life, and that even under those conditions, the state will resist invasion with all its available capacity. In addition, it shall provide for the defense of its territory by its armed forces. If attacked on land, it shall defend itself from all other means.

Such policies of self-defense are reflected in the principles of the collective defense. All citizens must protect and keep their own communities safe.

The military must conduct an offensive role. It is incumbent upon the State to ensure that military forces are capable of fulfilling this role and of being at readiness for deployment at any time by an overwhelming force of citizen forces, including a military-industrial complex.

In modern conditions, the principle of warfare has been developed on the basis of the coordinated use of military and non-military measures with the decisive role of the Armed Forces. In reality, military intervention in other countries is not limited to the intervention of the Armed Forces in one country. Military intervention also occurs at the level of non-military means. This includes military, economic and humanitarian means, and the use of propaganda.”

But, for example, during the war in Libya on September 11, 2011 the West used NATO “strike” airplanes, drones and the threat of cruise missiles as “sources of information and information operations” against Libya.

“During an operation involving the United States armed forces, U.S. Air Force planes bombed in international airspace a Libyan government facility called a military port. This strikes were conducted over international waters. At the same time, a U.S. Navy ship was able to track missiles launched at the missile launcher, which it had spotted in international waters.”

The principle of achieving surprise, decisiveness and continuity of strategic actions is still relevant. It is no longer sufficient for an individual warfighter or the strategic community to maintain a comprehensive understanding of enemy plans and plans of attack. Such knowledge must be continually reviewed and reevaluated by all elements so that a single, accurate understanding can be attained.

The enemy’s ability to employ surprise is the primary determinant of survivability in any conflict, including that of the U.S. Army. By taking advantage of the enemy’s strengths and vulnerabilities, the individual soldier or officer must be willing to move quickly and effectively to counter the enemy forces.

A good soldier has the ability to act rapidly and to react to surprise and counterforce and to adjust to changing threats. The ability to recognize and counter surprise and take advantage of enemy’s capabilities is an integral part of this ability.

Although planning for surprise has evolved over this century, the following are some of the lessons developed early in the war to improve the process of anticipating enemy attacks: A soldier must be aware of his capability to detect, identify, and respond to a surprise attack.

Acting quickly, we must preempt the enemy with our preventive measures, timely identify his vulnerabilities and create threats of inflicting unacceptable damage on him. This ensures the capture and retention of strategic initiative. At the same time we have to remain ever vigilant with regard to the activities of our enemies, and in addition to maintaining our own security, it is essential that we have a firm grip on the actions of our enemies. We know that the enemy tries to conceal his designs by attacking only when the conditions in his country are perfect. As we saw in the recent war with Iraq, the enemy is always trying to destroy his own security by committing major provocations against neighboring states. The world finds it impossible to believe that China and Russia would allow the attack to be repeated by Iran on Israel, or that our ally, Turkey, would allow the attack on Georgia to go unpunished. (Applause.) In this way, the enemy always succeeds in provoking us to our own destruction. But when the enemy acts out of his own malice, it may be too late.

Work to clarify the existing ones and justify new principles should continue with the consolidation of the efforts of the entire scientific community.

Communication from within, communication from without, recognition of the rights of peoples, and equal rights of nations and peoples.

To develop a programme of activities directed for the purposes of establishing and strengthening international co-operation in the field of social science, particularly political science, political economy, scientific investigation, and anthropology. The programme should be developed in the light of the problems that confront the present and future peoples of the world.

To carry out a research programme of intensive and systematic investigation of the problems and phenomena that have the potentialities of making or destroying existing States.

A special aim must be realised. To do this, it is necessary to organise co-operation of these issues at the very highest levels. We shall have to establish on a global scale contacts for the study of these matters with different groups of countries, and at various international levels.

It is necessary to formulate principles of a general universal nature and principles of action in relation to a specific situation. The principle of action in an active, individual situation involves the principle of free action; the principle of free action in a passive, collective situation involves the principle of non-action.

These are the main directions in the development of the theoretical principles of military strategy. However, as the great Russian commander Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov said: “A theory without practice is dead …”, that’s why the practical activity of military strategy cannot be imagined without its scientific justification. This is not a matter of “pure science” and we must all strive for the perfect expression of the most complex, interdependent, unpredictable and even dangerous phenomena of human activity. The practice of military strategy is thus bound to be a living reality, one must constantly adapt itself to our changing conditions, to constantly improve its performance and adapt to new situations. However, this very living reality makes the scientific interpretation of this reality much more complicated, because we must now always be aware of the fact that there is no perfect solution for every situation and that the only way to achieve perfection is by using all the means available to us, striving to realize the scientific ideas. The practical application of military strategy requires a knowledge of not only the most important elements of the situation, especially the most important elements of the combat methods of an adversary.

The system of forecast scenarios

The fundamental basis of the practical activities of the strategy is the creation of a system for the study of forecast scenarios for the outbreak and conduct of military conflicts.  If the war were to reach a stalemate, this work could be continued by the researchers. In this work, the basic concept is a set of numerical values for the distribution of the resources and risks in the case of a war.  By way of example, the first study, ”  The Development of a National Strategy for the War in a Strategic Area,”  was carried out by one and the same man who was responsible for the “National Situation Study,” to study the results of that study with an eye to its potential utilization by the military.  For the second study, the authors studied the development of the situation on the basis of the forecast for the future development.  It was also decided to start a research on the nature and extent of military involvement in the civil conflicts.

It is a reasonable forecast of scenarios of possible conflicts that serves as initial data for the development of forms and methods of using the Armed Forces.  If there are conflicts that require a military solution, such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the use of human beings (or the Army) will be indispensable.  It is my hope that this report shows that human beings (as opposed to soldiers in the trenches) are the most effective form of military force for achieving military efficiency and for achieving objectives.

To get a sense of how powerful human beings can be, and of their capability, I turn to the study of history.

During the course of this report’s exploration of military force and of the history of the human race, I look at the nature of warfare and warfare’s impact on human beings.

War: War is not a question of “how” it is fought. It is a question of “with what” it is fought (also called “with or against”).

At present, a rational system of forms of use of the Armed Forces has been theoretically worked out and practically confirmed, in which strategic deterrence is an important component.

However, the concept of strategic deterrence is still being developed.

Therefore, according to what you have said, it is necessary to examine the possibilities of using the nuclear force with all the weapons it has so far in the future.

Vladimir Putin: I am quite sure of this.

First of all, let me make a general explanation.

According to the decisions taken by our state and our country, our armed forces have to defend our territory and our interests everywhere.

We are concerned with securing the stability and security of our nation, its neighbours and allies as well as of the entire world.

That is the basic basis of our security strategy.

As we develop, we will be able to adopt a higher level of security strategy.

At the same time, I want to stress that we will never resort to using nuclear weapons.

Today, Washington continues the course towards expanding the system of military presence directly at the borders of Russia, destroying the system of contractual relations on arms limitation and reduction, which leads to a violation of strategic stability. So, in 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. Russia has had no say in the matter.

The West still holds that the missile was launched from land-based missile systems based in Russia near the border with Chechnya. But the most likely scenario is that the missile, launched from outside the country, was aimed at the West from inside the Russian Republic itself, thus exposing the West to a direct threat. This situation may have resulted in the decision of the Russian Federation to seek a change of venue, to create a new base which could be based on the territory of the Russian Federation. This means that by this time, in 2003, the Russian Federation already had at its disposal the equipment necessary to carry out nuclear retaliation.

In recent days, as President Putin continues to press ahead, the West is more and more unwilling to accept such a course.

Their next step after the demonstrative suspension of participation in the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate and Shorter-Range Missiles may be the refusal to extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty START-3. This may entail no more than suspending the signing of the START-3 Annex and suspending the accession to it of all States. Under this scenario the United States, Russia and China shall each have the right to take the action in question unilaterally as a state to withdraw to a state, but which is outside the Treaty (such a decision being subject to ratification by at least one-third of the States in the Union). If, on the other hand, such actions are also accepted by all States as a state participation in the Treaty for all of its Parties but only if a two-thirds majority of the States ratifies them, the treaty will then resume on the same terms as if it had never terminated.

Recently, the Pentagon has repeatedly stated its intention to use space for military purposes. For this, a new type of troops is being formed – space troops, which creates the prerequisites for the militarization of outer space.

For example, the Department of Defense in its latest budget request for fiscal 2015 has specified that an effort is underway to “develop and field a Space Based Infrared System (SBIS) capable of using space and earth optical imagery during space operations.”

Also, there are several “space-based intelligence assets” which is a new element and the first military space force is being created at the U.S. Army Space and Missile Systems Center at Fort Greely, Alaska.

Moreover, the space-based intelligence assets which would use space as their primary tool for the surveillance and reconnaissance of military objects would include “the Department of Defense Airborne Laser and Space Surveillance (DLAS) system used for targeting and destroying weapons on the battlefield.” At the same time, a similar facility is being used for the surveillance of the Global Positioning System (GPS), radar, and satellites.

Ultimately, all these actions can lead to a sharp aggravation of the military-political situation, the emergence of military threats to which we will have to respond with mirror and asymmetric measures.

Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria have led to new challenges. In Ukraine, Russia is not taking any measures to prevent the emergence of new armed formations there and the strengthening of a hybrid war that is being waged against Russia by foreign powers, including the U.S., and neo-Nazis. The most recent escalation will make it even more difficult to achieve the aims of the Minsk agreements, i.e., bringing the warring parties into contact and dialogue. The current military escalation will also make it easier for the terrorists to take advantage of the crisis between Kiev and the West, to carry out a terrorist attack against a Russian territory or of a Ukrainian serviceman stationed there, to provoke a confrontation with the West and to destabilise the economy of the Russian Federation. We have no doubt that it will take time for Russian-Ukrainian relations to turn around.

Strategic Deterrence Measures

As a result, the urgent task of developing a military strategy is to justify and improve nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence measures. Any potential aggressor must understand that any form of pressure on Russia and its allies is futile. If any Russian response proves to be effective, then the balance of power will change and it may be inevitable that Moscow will feel the need to take up arms and fight.

In other words, in order not to become a target of a nuclear attack in the future, we must build up a high risk deterrent in the near future. We must have a more efficient, effective, and secure nuclear command and control system. We must establish a secure nuclear delivery system. Our military will have to have the latest, most advanced weaponry, which includes the best long-range air and missile defense systems.

As the Russians know very well, there is a great deal of military spending in the military budget for the first time in its history. The military budget can now grow significantly, which will only be achieved under economic pressure. I would like to remind you that in 1991, we established a budget of $100 billion, but today it is $140 billion.

Our answer is not long in coming. For this, modern weapons are being adopted and deployed, including fundamentally new types of weapons. They can be more powerful than the existing one-handed axes, for instance. The ancient Chinese sword may, after all, already be replaced by a better one at least a century in the future.”

One of those is the “wushu” sword—a hybrid hybrid type of sword. It has a long, curved, blade that can cleave through armor with the stroke—with a sword. A sword made of wushu could be carried and used like a single-edged sword. Its power is proportional to how wide the blade is and the hardness of its steel—such that a sword crafted of steel as hard as black gold might kill a man a hundred feet away. But this does not mean that wushu-style swords would be as lethal as their single-edged cousins. The blade’s stiffness may give it some extra range. At the same time, because sword users use long, flowing strokes they typically make their opponents flinch.

Serial production of new weapons and equipment of the Armed Forces began. “Vanguard”, “Sarmat”, the latest weapons “Relight” and “Dagger” have shown their high efficiency, successfully tested the complexes “Poseidon” and “Petrel”. Planned work is underway to create a Zircon sea-based hypersonic missile. Also, a very sophisticated and powerful electronic warfare war-computer system “Gadrya” with “Infrared Screen” (I.G.S.) system, has been deployed to protect the base. “Vigilant” and anti-aircraft weapons have been installed in the air defense system and “Sardan” helicopters are under construction with a maximum combat power of 2,000 tons.

There is no doubt the fact that in this area we are confidently leading in comparison with technologically developed countries of the world. We have got a lot of good and solid business and industry players from different parts of the world who will continue to be part of the organisation into the 2020s, as will the support staff who are part of that organisation. Our people have been trained for such a role of being part of some of the most competitive industries in the world and we have got a highly professional workforce, so I am really pleased to say that that we are at a time in our business’s history in which we are really going to do well.

So, it was decided to conduct scientific and design work on the development of ground-based complexes of medium and shorter-range hypersonic missiles. As part of this work, I obtained a number of photographs and drawings of Soviet Union missiles and the design drawings of future Russian missiles. In order to establish some preliminary views of the Soviet missiles, it was decided to conduct a series of interviews with people whom we believed would be knowledgeable about Soviet ballistic missiles and missile design. The Soviet Union has been and is one of the world powers with the capability to launch large numbers of missiles, but they haven’t gone that far with the type of missiles used. The most important point in the interview is that the people I interviewed agreed with the view that, by 1960, such a large number of intermediate-range (IR) ballistic missiles might be available for delivery to US territories. And it was also agreed that by that time many of the Soviet ballistic missiles in storage, if not all, would have been used to produce small nuclear weapons for the nuclear warhead.

The creation of new weapons will not drag Russia into a new arms race.  Instead, it might give the US military a new role in the world.  One of the biggest threats to America since the collapse of the Soviet Union (and even more so now) has been a combination of Russian expansionism, economic problems and military weakness.  Many military strategists in Washington and elsewhere fear this new American threat to the old world order will be more powerful than the Soviets ever were.  The US military needs an army to fight this new wave of war.  And an army that can be used to conquer and occupy the rest of the world. The creation of Russia’s “black ops” forces will help the US military and its allies develop new offensive capabilities.  They will not need to buy expensive and heavily armed new weapons to fight Russian or other adversaries.  Instead, their new offensive capabilities will come from the development of innovative new equipment like the T-14/T-90 tank, the IS-7 rocket, and the T-80 APC.

A sufficient number of new complexes to contain will be created within the framework of the planned military budget. This will have a positive impact on the military industrial base, which at present remains in a very poor state owing to the fact that many of the major plants had to close during the recession.

With this plan of production it is expected that the military budget will soon be adequate for the requirements of the whole national defense system.

The policy pursued by our Western partners forces us to “respond to the threat with a threat”, to plan in the future to strike at decision centers, as well as launchers that allow for the combat use of cruise missiles at facilities in Russia.

For example ‏the Russian S-400 air defense (S-300) system is only just getting into service after more than three years, and the U.S. is deploying the THAAD missile defense system which ‑ in spite of its limited operational capability ‑ already has a considerable amount of operational range.

‏What’s important to realize is that the United States plans to move into Syria to carry out air operations ‑ but there are other targets for its airstrikes. In the context of the crisis, it is also important to recognize that ‑ as the United States intends ‑ to make all necessary and reasonable efforts to avoid hitting the Syrian Army and its allied forces using precision guided munitions.

Military scientists should intensify research on the search and implementation of new methods for the use of promising weapons, as well as the justification of forms of counteraction to possible military actions of a potential enemy in space and from space. Such research is important because, unlike ground defense, it involves a military weapon or “weapon system”. This does not mean that such research is done for the military, because there are, after all, different interests and the question of possible conflicts in space is not only a military matter but also a political matter. Since there can be conflicts, the situation on the ground must be taken into consideration in determining the means in which to fight them.

The research should take, with a high degree of realism, into account the development of both a new space vehicle and a new weapon system. This means a careful assessment of the development of these forces to determine the possible application of the research, as well as the effects they can have on the development of a weapon.

A major aspect of research is that of the possibility of counteraction to possible hostile actions on the ground and from space.

The “Limited Action Strategy” outside Russia.

The Syrian experience has an important role in developing the strategy. Its generalization and implementation made it possible to single out a new practical area – fulfilling the tasks of protecting and promoting national interests outside the territory of Russia within the framework of the “limited action strategy”. In the view of Vladimir Putin who declared in his state-of-the-nation address in January 2013 that “our national interests are being betrayed by external agents “and“ not by those of our own country, who have lost faith in themselves and those of the Russian Federation, who believe in a more aggressive policy on international affairs“, the issue of Syria offers a test for implementing a strategy of limited action aimed at preserving the values ​​of the Russian Federation.” “What, in other words, have the recent events in Syria and the crisis in Ukraine taught us?

It is precisely during the period of the “limited action strategy” that the Russian Federation has to cope with the problems of Syria – at the same time as it had to develop itself in the sphere of regional security.

The basis for the implementation of this strategy is the creation of a self-sufficient grouping of troops (forces) on the basis of the formations of one of the branches of the Armed Forces, which has high mobility and is able to make the greatest contribution to solving the tasks. In Syria, such a role is assigned to the formations of the Aerospace Forces.

According to the doctrine, these forces have been set up and deployed in specific military formations. This is a process that has been initiated in the course of the period of the Syrian aggression and the intervention of international forces. In this, however, a decisive role is assigned to the armed forces, which can be compared to their combat role in the wars in the past.

The most important of these formations and their functions, which are assigned to them according to the present situation, are: 1) Ground Forces; 2) Air Forces; 3) Navy; 4) Special Forces; and 5) Anti-Aircraft Defense Forces.

The most important conditions for the implementation of this strategy is the conquest and retention of information superiority, ahead of the readiness of management systems and comprehensive support, as well as the covert deployment of the necessary grouping. However, the first requirement of any plan and the main prerequisite for success in this area is the creation of the appropriate groupings. The formation, selection and deployment of the proper groups will be carried out by the management committees, the staffs and the special agencies. The management of the groups needs to be integrated into each of the four main areas of organization. At the very beginning, the management committees should be informed of the specific needs of the groups, as well as the specific types of forces they will be operating. As a first step, in coordination with the special agencies, the staffs should be formed with the most appropriate groups. This should be achieved either by a joint committee of staffs formed with an initial group of three staffs, or by a joint staff-staff group, which consists of at least two staffs, a staff secretary and a special liaison officer.

New methods of action by troops during the operation were justified.  The main reason for such actions, in my view, was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new forces.  This was done to show the enemy was not prepared for a direct battle, and would be defeated within the next few weeks.

The main effect of a successful military operation was to put a halt to the propaganda.

The role of the military strategy was to plan and coordinate joint military and non-military actions of the Russian grouping of troops (forces) and the formations of the armed forces of interested states, paramilitary structures of countries participating in the conflict.

The Russian Military Strategy, which can be described as an instrument aimed at defending the interests of the Russian Federation, is based on the international law in the spheres of foreign policy, the international security and the interests of the Russian Federation as a sovereign country, the general plan for operations in the region of Ukraine. These actions have been executed through joint military and non-military military actions, including the military blockade of Ukrainian territory by the forces of the Russian Federation.

Post-conflict settlement has developed. In Syria, for the first time, a new form of using the formations of the Armed Forces, a humanitarian operation, was developed and tested in practice. In Aleppo and Eastern Ghout, in a short time, it was necessary to plan and carry out measures to withdraw civilians from the conflict zone at the same time as carrying out combat missions to defeat terrorists. The operation was planned and prepared according to the military needs. The Syrian Army and the Russian Air Force, together with the Syrian Air Force and the French Air Force, launched in March 2015 the operation “Caymans” inside the territory of Syria, with the aim of liberating eastern Ghouta and the town of Masyaf. The operation was carried out against positions of the terrorist groups that were not liberated, the operation was launched by ground and air and was launched to liberate an area that had an important significance for the terrorists, in contrast to the plan of establishing one and for setting up the Syrian Army and an all-Syrian group.

The results achieved in Syria have made it possible to single out relevant areas of research into the use of the Armed Forces in the course of fulfilling tasks to protect and promote national interests outside the national territory.

Proportionate action for the protection of civilians in the conflict-affected areas should take into account the nature and scale of the conflict, the geographical position in which it is occurring and the security situation there. The relevant Member States should ensure that the armed conflict-affected areas are clearly demarcated and designated so that victims of the conflict are brought to the attention of relevant authorities, as well as the relevant military authorities and the international organisations involved in the humanitarian, human rights and humanitarian assistance, which, pursuant to Article 38, may make the appropriate inquiries.

To achieve, in the conflict-affected areas, a high degree of safety and security, civilian protection measures should be taken by all the armed actors involved, in accordance with their national laws and regulations, and not less restrictive measures should be taken only in instances which cause great suffering or serious harm.

Forms of application of troops (forces) within the framework of the “limited action strategy”

One of the directions of development of the strategy is associated with the creation and development on the basis of modern information and telecommunication technologies of a unified system of integrated forces and means of reconnaissance, destruction and command and control of troops and weapons. This system will serve as an effective link between the two most important parts, the army, and the police. To achieve that purpose the system must be highly flexible, flexible both for the formation and the organization of forces, flexible for the creation of information and telecommunication facilities, and flexible for the management of the means of transport, communications, and maintenance and repair of military and military-industrial infrastructure. This work must take place in close partnership with the security services. To this end the Ministry of National Defence will, as early as possible, make use of the best resources and methods in the field of intelligence and security measures to achieve its objectives. The Ministry will be supported by the national intelligence service.

The Minister of National Defence will have as a priority the planning of the necessary development of the Armed Forces. For this purpose he will undertake such initiatives as the planning within an overall framework at the strategic level from joint development centres and appropriate coordination centres.

It is designed to detect, issue target designation and inflict selective strikes on critical objects on a time scale close to real, strategic and operational tactical non-nuclear weapons. In the future, military science needs to develop and justify a system of comprehensive defeat of the enemy. The capabilities presented in this paper should contribute to that mission.

The design can be viewed as a kind of “cadre” of advanced counter-attack capability. The core technology includes a set of sensors, the “pulse wave detection systems,” plus a payload to operate the system. These systems together comprise a system that can detect and track the movement of individual aircraft over a long time frame, at a very low cost. In addition, the technology is designed to operate in a time window that extends from 30 minutes to a few days in duration.

The next direction is associated with the large-scale use of robotic military systems, primarily unmanned aerial vehicles, to increase the efficiency of solving a wide range of tasks.

In a recent paper, Weitz and colleagues (2008) examined the role of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the United States. The authors found that the U.S. National Strategy on the Arms Trade and Development adopted early in 2007 placed emphasis on developing domestic production capacity and capacity to acquire defense items.

However, the authors found that while the U.S. military is moving away from dependence on military technology, some components of the existing force are likely to remain reliant on such technologies. For example, some U.S. soldiers, for instance, are likely to continue to use firearms, although with the advent of robotics and sensor technology such gun maintenance will become cheaper and in many cases more efficient. As a result, some branches of the service, particularly infantry, may well need to develop “robotic armaments,” i.e., armaments that enable soldiers to work faster while eliminating the need for large numbers of machine.

Another area was the creation of a system to counter the use of unmanned aerial vehicles and precision weapons. Here, the decisive role was played by the forces and means of electronic warfare, which made it possible to selectively act on the basis of the type of object, its structure, and time criticality.

However, the overall task of the military campaign was the preparation of the population for its defense, as well as the deployment of a massive force of military force. It was to make the situation completely controllable, so that the situation could be dealt with from that point forward. It turned out, however, that we had not completely understood the nature of the situation, and the situation would have ended much better had we been able to understand it in advance.

The problem was not just psychological but also real and operational. One could put on a very large and capable force of the armed forces, to which they all belonged by having them all have full authority, and not have just any soldiers but all qualified and well trained soldiers working with them.

The task of military science in this area consists primarily in the scientific study of the creation of a strategic system for countering unmanned aerial vehicles in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the justification of promising strategic electronic warfare systems and their integration into a single system. In particular, the objective of the research is to investigate and define new technologies for the control of such vehicles, and to establish the characteristics of such systems, in order to provide for their improvement in operational efficiency.

I emphasize: digital technologies, robotics, unmanned systems, electronic warfare – all this should be on the agenda of the development of military science, including military strategy. I was talking with a friend of mine from the army, and he said: “What have you heard about the military’s future?”. His friend’s military friend said: “They have so much money that they can create the greatest army in history, while giving up only the means with which they will fight their enemies. There is so much money in China, why don’t we give it to Russia?” The people who have these things in mind are the ones who must start thinking seriously about the strategy of the future of our civilization.

The interaction of the components of the military organization of the state

One of the characteristic features of modern military conflicts is the destabilization of the internal security of the state by the conduct of sabotage and terrorism by the enemy. Today, in a world characterized primarily by terrorism, this is particularly true as it seems to be the case in Eastern Europe. In some cases, terrorist activity has been directed toward the internal security of the Western powers, who must be aware that the results are not guaranteed by the current political and military situation. The aim of this article is to consider the consequences of the use of terrorism in Eastern Europe, and how they relate to the current security situation.

Terrorist activity is characterized by the following characteristics: Its use of violence or threats of violence aimed at inflicting violence or harm on an opponent’s public security. It tends to be asymmetric. It targets not only the enemy’s military or police forces, but also the public services or other government components. It often involves the use of non-lethal means for inflicting damage to an opponent’s security.

That is why the development and improvement of the territorial defense system, its structure, methods of construction, substantiation of a set of measures for its constant readiness is an important direction in the development of military strategy and the task of military science.

The establishment and development of a solid basis for the operation and the preservation of a military force for the security of the country and for the strengthening of military capabilities of the state in the field of defense is one of the goals of an aggressive posture towards the country as well as to safeguard and protect the country’s national sovereignty, the sovereignty and the security of countries and persons on its territory. Furthermore, since the development and construction of the territorial defense system, its structure, methods of construction, substantiation of a set of measures for its constant readiness should take into account security considerations of the international community, it is necessary to consider and prepare the establishment of the necessary defensive systems.

At present, a lot is being done to implement military and non-military measures implemented by ministries and departments in the interests of state defense.  Some of the measures proposed are in the interests of the national defense  which aims at defending the nation and the people from threat against the national security, by maintaining the internal security.  Some of them are in the interest of internal security, to prevent a state of lawlessness from being created.

However, military and non-military measures can be combined as well, in the interests of national defense.  Therefore, it should be maintained that military and non-military measures as well are implemented as a result of an effective and effective national defense.  So, the defense  plan for domestic security is the most important step. In recent years, the government has been able to adopt a strategic and strategic foreign policy.  Therefore, national security policies were based on the security of the nation which requires a well-formed and strong military.

At the same time, it is necessary to continue to study the issues of coordinating the actions of the forces of federal executive bodies, the distribution of their powers, and managing the solution of territorial defense tasks during the escalation of the military threat and in the event of crisis situations. A complete examination of the structure of executive bodies and the decision-making processes on all important issues was necessary, in order to determine whether the main branches of the Executive Branch, and the central agencies that implement and manage its policies should be given the same priority.

This work has led to the formation of a new organization, led by representatives of the Central Executive Committee, which is to form a national group of representatives of the civil society and the political power, responsible for ensuring that the policies of the Central Executive Committee have the highest interests at heart.

Especially relevant is the justification for creating an integrated system for protecting critical infrastructure of the state from exposure in all areas during the immediate threat of aggression, when the enemy will seek to destabilize the situation, create an atmosphere of chaos and uncontrollability. In this situation, the only way to control the damage and the loss of information, is both to create an integrated system and to deploy sufficient numbers of forces to protect the important infrastructure of the state and to ensure that it was protected during the worst possible time. This plan was based on the experience gained in the case of the Soviet Union, as well as on considerations arising from the experience of the Cold War, and on the experience obtained from the war with Iraq in Kuwait. This plan was in reality one of the most complete and effective systems for preserving national independence.

This issue is new in the theory and practice of military strategy and is subject to comprehensive scientific study. The result of the work should be theoretical propositions, and in practice – a developed system for the joint use of forces of various agencies and facilities to ensure integrated security. At present, however, a comprehensive and detailed study of these matters is difficult. One must, therefore, accept the situation which has prevailed in regard to the planning of military forces on the basis of political and military considerations in relation to military security in the USSR today. This situation is, therefore, a real obstacle to the achievement of the joint development of a joint strategy of military strategy, as well as an obstruction to our efforts to achieve collective security in the USSR. And for this reason we must consider it our highest duty to take measures to overcome the situation.

Confrontation in the information sphere

Until recently, military science investigated the use of the Armed Forces in traditional areas of warfare – on land, in air and at sea. In these cases, it was the military who employed military technology to achieve its aims with the goal of gaining ground.

A little further down this list, we have seen the use of modern technological technology against civilian populations from a military perspective. One could say that modern warfare (and war in general) has been built on the principle that military tactics can be used against civilian populations. One could even say that the principle has been applied on the battlefield and in the field. It is this type of warfare that the military has embraced to a greater extent over the last 50 years. Thus, modern warfare has come into its own and its success has come at the end of the barrel.

Nowadays, modern warfare targets civilians in a variety of ways – through targeted assassination and covert operations; through propaganda; through terrorist activities; and by means of drone warfare.

An analysis of the nature of modern wars has shown a significant increase in the importance of such a sphere of confrontation as information. The new reality of future wars will include, in particular, the transfer of hostilities to this sphere.  And this can only happen if the governments of states do not do a sufficient job in safeguarding their citizens from such a future threat.  In addition, there are many cases in which a country is involved in hostilities and is exposed to the effects of being involved in such warfare.  This is a very different situation from simply going abroad to fight.  It does not necessarily mean that countries are being attacked by a military invasion or that the enemy is being armed. A nation can be targeted, both by a conventional force and by a conventional missile.  This can lead to the possibility of more than one state, or at least several states, being directly involved in the conflict.  This may even include some countries not involved in the conflict. While not an entirely new phenomenon, the use of propaganda in the form of media coverage and/or a large amount of media and social media content has become a significant aspect of modern wars.

At the same time, information technology is becoming, in fact, one of the most promising types of weapons. It’s already a key element in our defense, for both our forces and other countries, and increasingly in our politics.

The fact is that technology has become the tool of choice for dictatorships. China seems to have gotten its first taste of it. It is a significant element of their offensive weapons.

The information sphere, without having clearly defined national borders, provides the possibility of remote, covert influence not only on critical information infrastructures, but also on the country’s population, directly affecting the state’s national security. Such a situation is at the very center of our political struggle.

The international community is fully aware of this threat, and we strongly disagree with all efforts aimed at blocking information flows, including by criminal means. Russia has never sought to influence its neighbors, but to achieve its own common objectives on the international arena. For decades, the West has been preparing for the day when Russia could no longer use proxies and rely on its own forces. At that point, it would find itself trapped by an internal power imbalance. That is what is happening now, as part of a strategy for containing Russia’s interests.

It should also be brought to everyone’s attention as well that information is becoming an essential component of our defense policy, as a means both of defending against external aggression and of defending domestic policy, as the Ministry of Defense has recently highlighted. This requires a strong system of checks and balances, with an informed population in charge.

That is why the study of issues of preparation and conduct of informational activities is the most important task of military science. The results of scientific knowledge are indispensable for the performance of military intelligence activities. The result of modern science is, therefore, military intelligence and the military-industrial complex.

A second important goal of the study of information practices and procedures is to assist in the selection of policy and other important personnel. It is not a simple matter, then, to decide what constitutes a military intelligence service. The military intelligence service must be both well-informed and well-equipped. A quality of preparation is not a guarantee of success, but it is essential to the success of an intelligence effort. At the same time, the quality of preparedness will depend on the personnel and their experiences and skills. In all situations, therefore, the military-intelligence service must combine quality preparation with capability and efficiency of personnel of all levels. It is also important to keep in mind that the quality of the personnel should be evaluated independently of the quality of the service-based information.

Increasing the combat power of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

The priority area of ​​military strategy is the study of issues of increasing the combat power of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. It is determined by the number and quality of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, their staffing and technical equipment, moral and psychological condition, level of training, combat readiness and combat readiness of troops and forces. The study of the question of increasing the force of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation involves the Russian Defense Ministry, the Main Policy Directorate, the Directorate for Arms Control and the Chief of the General Staff. The most important of these measures is the study on the possibility to equip the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation with the latest new and modern technical and industrial equipment. The first steps towards this goal were taken at the end of 1998 with the commission of technical experts at the Ministry of Defense and the State Research and Production Center with a grant of 1.35 billion dollars. The main tasks of this commission are the development of the latest military transport, electronic and electrical equipment, the technical development of aircraft, helicopters and other military equipment. In this task the research of new technologies, new industrial processes, new methods and systems is undertaken.

At present, a program is being planned for completing the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation with contracted military personnel. By the end of 2025, their number will reach 475,000 troops. At the same time, the need for recruiting citizens for military service will be reduced. This initiative will increase the numbers of Russian service personnel on both the army and navy.

As this project is based in part on lessons learned during the wars in Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine, the military personnel in question are not yet trained in weapons of mass destruction. The program of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, however, is based on this information and plans for training.

Today, the officer corps of the Armed Forces is staffed by trained professional personnel. All the commanders of the military districts, combined arms units, air force and air defense associations, as well as 96 percent of commanders of combined arms units and combat experience have combat experience. However, this does not include officers of all the other services. In other words, all the members of the military establishment do not possess the combat skills needed to succeed. This is a simple fact that we need to address as a nation as a matter of national security.

All types and types of troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are developing in a balanced manner, timely equipped with modern weapons. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are modernizing their equipment and weapons. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are capable of performing its duties and of conducting its tasks in accordance with international law. To that end, in January 2005, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were authorized to carry out operations and to carry out tasks for the defense of the territory of the Russian Federation on a basis of force protection and compliance with the principles of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were authorized to carry out such tasks as protection of the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the Russian Federation through an aggressive defense of the Russian Federation against forces of enemies.

The nuclear triad, which plays a key role in maintaining strategic parity, has noticeably strengthened. The share of modern weapons in our nuclear component reached 82 percent. This was almost identical to the share of older nuclear weapons in the United States. As a result, we have a relatively low proportion of new weapons. In other words, in the face of a rapidly growing strategic situation, and the continuing improvement in missile guidance, the nuclear triad has become much more robust.

I hope the question of the nuclear triad will not go unanswered. We will keep pressing for a broader arms control treaty, and I hope both the United States and the United Kingdom will keep pushing for the United Nations to take on the more difficult work of verifying and monitoring arms control agreements. We also urge any country to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group so that we and others would all move forward with meaningful transparency. And we will press for the creation of a more efficient international monitoring system, so that anyone who violates the treaty would see the resulting sanctions.

The level of operational and combat training of troops and military command and control bodies has noticeably grown. Qualitatively changing their capabilities.

The new and improved forces, both tactical and strategic, are able to penetrate almost any environment – whether it be under water, or in mountainous terrain, or at mountainous bases. Their capabilities have allowed them to quickly reposition to different types of battlefield, and to use different types of ammunition and support troops. These forces are also capable of engaging enemies under different conditions – whether that’s using heavy firepower (heavy guns, missile launchers, and tanks), or using lighter weapons and equipment in an asymmetric warfare fashion (manned aircraft, unmanned vehicles, unmanned ground vehicles, and guided weapons).

The new and improved forces, both tactical and strategic, are able to penetrate almost any environment – whether it be under water, or in mountainous terrain, or at mountainous bases. Their capabilities have allowed them to quickly reposition to different types of battlefield, and to use different types of ammunition and support troops. These forces are also capable of engaging enemies under different conditions – whether that’s using heavy firepower (heavy guns, missile launchers, and tanks), or using lighter weapons and equipment.

The sudden combat readiness tests confirmed the ability of troops and forces to quickly deploy formations and units over long distances, to strengthen groupings in strategic directions. The successful test was the result of the work of the military planning organization.

The training, preparation and deployment of forces is a vital element for the overall mobilization in the face of conflict. These preparations must take into account the situation on the ground, while ensuring the highest degree of readiness of troops in the field. In such situation with regards to the rapid deployment of forces, the mobilization of infantry, armor, air, and other forces are of crucial importance. Therefore, the military planning organization is carrying out intensive work on ensuring the deployment of combat units in the field at the shortest possible time without damaging the morale of the soldiers engaged in combat.

The first test carried out by the Strategic and Military Operations Department was the test of the ability to quickly move troops over a distance of 300 kilometers, with a force strength of 600,000 to 700,000 troops.

Traditionally, an important direction is the improvement of the system of ideological and moral-psychological stability of the population, especially military personnel. It is for this purpose that the system of military-political work was recreated in the Armed Forces. While this aspect is the responsibility of the State, there still exists the need for the State to be able not only to prepare the army for war, but also to organize the state system. Moreover, it is of the utmost importance for the State to be able to handle this work. These tasks are carried out by two bodies -the state organization apparatus and the political organization – which have the same functions but are under the command of different State authorities.

Military-political work is in principle carried out in a number of dimensions, each of which can be studied in detail. Military-political work is not restricted to the field of war. Even in peacetime, it is necessary to carry out such activities as military training and organization training of the population of the country by means of a regularized system of military education. In addition to the regular training, the State, in order to increase its force, gives grants to the organizations of such military organization.

Ministry of Defense interaction with defense industry

An important direction in the development of military strategy and the task of military science is the search for new approaches to the development of ties between military strategy and the economy. In the interests of preparing the country’s economy for defense tasks, the strategy is designed to answer the following questions.

What is the goal of military operations? What are the strategic objectives of an army? Which objectives are involved in the planning and execution of military operations? How do our strategic objectives reflect the actual tasks the army is supposed to perform? What are the factors that will determine the military operations and tactical decisions the army is expected to make? What are the key factors that determine the development of military strategy towards these objectives? What are the strategic concepts involved in the development of military economics? What war and in what areas should the economy be prepared for? How to ensure its survivability, stability? How is it more appropriate to place objects of the economy, taking into account their protection?

The thesis of the classic of the domestic military strategy of the brigade commander Alexander Svechin “The economy will be able to subjugate the nature of military operations”, expressed by him almost 100 years ago, has become an objective reality. The same is true about the military doctrine. To be able to provide for the country the military doctrine for a certain stage of development, the military power must be raised in a short time. In our case, it can be a period of 1 to 3 years.

The first task of the General Staff of the Armed Forces is to set up a combat power on a high level, which is the capability for a military defeat at the decisive battle, with the greatest possible victory. In this case, all the capabilities of the Army, Navy, and Air force are increased because they do not exist before. In addition, as for land forces, no matter how good their equipment is, the quantity of battles must be made greater in order to meet the needs of the country. As for the economic army, the first task is to provide for the country a military force.

I note that at present a lot has been done by the joint efforts of the Ministry of Defense and the military-industrial complex. First of all, an effective interaction system is built. This system allows the military-industrial complex to participate in the production and service of helicopters, jets, drones, missiles, etc. and in supplying the military. The Ministry of Defense will also be in charge of training of the soldiers of the army and navy during the preparation and operation of the army and navy. For this purpose, as well as for the acquisition of weapons and ammunition, it is necessary to ensure a continuous and comprehensive process of the acquisition.

In addition, the joint effort in improving infrastructure and the use of the modern transportation and public transportation routes has been done by the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Defense Ministry. A comprehensive system for the communication of military-industrial complex representatives and military-technical enterprises has been devised and the creation of the joint ventures for the production and service of defense products has begun.

Based on the analysis of the experience of military operations, research organizations participate in the formation of requirements for weapons and monitor their implementation at all stages of development – from a conceptual design to state tests. They also work with governments or international organizations on weapons, to develop capabilities, determine requirements and prepare reports. The weapons industry includes the manufacturers, integrators, assembly plants and test facilities. They work in close partnership with the armed forces and provide expert advice to governments, civil powers, the media and the public.

Thus, military science on the basis of the predictive vision of future wars determines what promising models of weapons and military equipment should be. At the same time, military scientists are conducting proactive studies to substantiate the forms and methods of their application. They are developing ideas in order to make their projects successful and to provide useful insight into the current and future conditions that will shape defense technology. They are examining the strategic and tactical implications of these studies in order to apply their models for military weapon systems. The purpose of this book is to document this process and to provide a model for future studies about the use of predictive systems of military technology in wartime.

The complexity of modern weapons is such that it is unlikely that it will be possible to establish its production in a short time after the outbreak of hostilities.  But it is impossible to deny the obvious:  the production of war means that those who produce it are fighting a war.  Those who supply it cannot be unaware that the war they are fighting involves them. And those fighting will have to take into account the nature of the wars they are fighting and be prepared for some form of conflict.  What we are doing at home with our weapons has profound implications for the way we fight these wars.

Therefore, everything necessary must be produced in the required quantity and enter the troops in peacetime. We must do our utmost to ensure technical, technological, organizational superiority over any potential adversary. We must have the best-trained militaries available for any offensive operations and must have the most modern weapons in the shortest periods possible. The only way to maintain the technological superiority and the technological capacity is to keep the troops in the field and out of the combat zone until the end of the war.

We must be able to fight the war, not only from a position of superiority in manpower, but from a position of superiority in technological efficiency.

The key to this issue is the doctrine of the General Staff for the defense of the Soviet Union. We know that such warfare will be more costly than that waged by the Allies. However, we must not forget to understand that if we were to fight from a position of superiority, our losses would exceed those borne by our enemies. Our victory over the aggressors would be achieved by the most thorough use of all our forces. This is a fact which we must not forget to keep in mind.

This requirement should become a key one when setting goals and before the defense industry complex to develop new types of weapons.  If an army doesn’t get to the point of having its own armored fighting vehicles, it will be at a severe disadvantage in its war against the world.  And the fact that a nation can’t have enough tanks will reduce its effectiveness in the face of an enemy who will eventually have tanks of his own.  In a battle between the American Army and the Russians, the Soviets would have far more tanks than the Americans – if they had any.

This will allow enterprises to conduct long-term planning, and scientific organizations will receive guidelines for the development of basic and applied research in military science.

In order to continue moving forward, we are ready to work with everyone to realize this ambitious goal for the peaceful space exploration and scientific collaboration in a collaborative atmosphere. We welcome all stakeholders to participate in our new collaborative activities.

The main tasks of military science and the ways to solve them

The most important thing today for military science is the continuous, purposeful conduct of research on determining the possible nature of military conflicts, developing a system of forms and methods of action, both military and non-military, and determining development directions weapons systems and military equipment.

This work and research will continue until we have developed a comprehensive study and evaluation of how conflicts occur, the characteristics of conflicts and the characteristics of combatants, a system of weapons and armor designed to avoid, or at least minimize, such conflicts, a system of non-lethal weapons and tactics designed to limit the violence of warfare, and a system of non-military science that enables us to reduce the numbers and the carnage of war.

We must have accurate knowledge of how war develops, of its causes, and of the means used by armed forces to achieve its objectives. We must also ensure that the knowledge of these causes and methods of war is kept alive, that the technology used in military science is tested, and that military science studies developments in the environment of military conflicts, and especially those in a non-military context.

It is extremely important to quickly introduce the results of fundamental and applied research into the practice of troops.

The army’s experience of providing training, advice and guidance and the army’s ability and capability to train and operate in the different circumstances demanded by a given country or region are the only factors that affect the outcome of an operation, thus a high quality army is crucial for achieving the best outcome and the right type of training is essential.

It is necessary to provide a good training because at the beginning of an international operation they need to be able to carry weapons, equipment, medical equipment and even weapons to the conflict zone.

All this requires good training since the training of troops is very important in order to be prepared to respond to a military confrontation and they must learn the various types of operations: small, large and inter-communicative (cooperation/cooperatie).

In order to understand the importance of training one must look at the context in which it occurs.

The first example of the importance of teaching on the field of operations is at the beginning of an operation when many troops are inexperienced with the weapons used in conflict areas.

The solution of these tasks is assigned primarily to the military-scientific complex of the Armed Forces. In recent years, the military-scientific complex has achieved certain successes.

The scientific and technical development of a country in conflict with Russia’s policy on matters of foreign policy is therefore made possible only by the use of arms which are at all times being purchased exclusively for this purpose. The political power of an enemy, in contrast, requires as one of its tasks the strengthening of the defense forces. In spite of the military and economic power possessed by the enemy, the political power of Russia, and the political strength of the State which must be attained in the course of a national policy, not to speak of an alliance between the two countries, depends upon the establishment by force of a state of the political unity of the capitalist countries. That has become difficult, difficult even, without war.

Russia, to be sure, has not been used for war. But it has been used extensively.

So, in the framework of the research work set by the General Staff, a source data system was prepared for military planning for the next medium-term period (for 2021–2025).  We can assume this data will be used in the next planning for the Armed Forces.

At the same time, we must look at the “rearrangement and transformation” of the world’s armies into a bigger, more powerful force, for the long term.

A new “Army with a great potential.”

And so, this research can lead to several practical options in dealing with the problem of future army sizes.

This is just the beginning of a scientific, strategic, and economic debate.

It is the basis for clarifying and developing the documents of the country’s defense plan for the new period. Our Defense Minister has already issued a document which clearly expresses the country’s readiness to move ahead with the development of this aspect.

We must move ahead with the construction of the new state. At the same time we must recognize that the present state of affairs has been reached only through the efforts of many years. We should realize the new period is characterized by rapid economic and industrial development. As such, we must build a new social and economic base from which the workers in the factories and the industrial enterprises can flourish; we must develop the industrial system of our country. We must, to bring about a high degree of development in that system, be able to offer to its workers the highest social and economic standards. It is necessary as a first step to develop new methods and methods for social research and production. It is a matter of national interest to realize our development in this direction through the development of new means of production and new modes of production; and this, for us, is only possible on the basis of a system of equal and impartial freedom of production.

Our military science has always been distinguished by the ability to see and solve problems at the stage of their appearance, the ability to quickly work through them and find solutions.

My new task has been to continue this science and use our power to build on it.

And I know you’re ready.

Thank you all very much!