Noticias de las OTAN

VOSTOK 2018: Ten years of Russian strategic exercises and warfare preparation

The visibility, scale and scope of Russian military exercises have been a focus of Western media and specialist literature since 2014. Russia conducted VOSTOK 2018, the latest iteration of its annual strategic exercises, from early July to 17 September 2018. VOSTOK (meaning ‘East’) is part of a system of strategic exercises that the Russian Armed Forces have been developing since 2009. It is one of the four named annual strategic exercises conducted on a rotating basis among four of Russia’s five military districts1. These visible events represent a small fraction of what is a whole-of-government and nationwide Russian effort to develop the ability to conduct large-scale conflict on short notice against a major military power and to influence potential adversaries. To better understand and more accurately assess their implications for NATO Allies, VOSTOK 2018 and all of Russia’s strategic exercises, including large-scale snap exercises, need to be seen in their full context.

The show of force on 13 September, day three of the “active phase” of VOSTOK 2018 which included live-fire exercises, was more a carefully orchestrated military demonstration than a real military exercise. © News X

The strategic context

Russia’s chief foreign and defence policy aims are; to reassert a leading role for itself on the world scene; to disrupt the current European security architecture to force negotiation of a new one; and to rebuild a security perimeter against perceived external threats (primarily the United States and its NATO Allies). To these ends, Russia has launched a strategic destabilisation campaign against the post-Cold War liberal order, which President Putin views as counter to Russia’s long-term interests. Military exercises and operations are part of that campaign. This multidimensional campaign is the proper context within which to consider Russia’s strategic exercises and illuminates their instrumentality for achieving its foreign, security and defence policy aims – and the related implications for the security of NATO Allies.

Russia’s first use of military force to revise the Euro-Atlantic security environment came in August 2008 in its short war against Georgia. The conflict exposed significant capability shortfalls in the Russian Armed Forces and sparked the military overhaul that continues to this day. This overhaul reflects Moscow’s evolving strategic worldview in line with the Russian perception that conflict can break out with little or no warning in multiple strategic directions. It is underpinned by the Russian leadership’s interpretation of the ‘Colour Revolutions’ of the 1990s and early 2000s as, from Moscow’s perspective, a non-kinetic form of destabilisation operation waged by Western powers.

Russia’s short war against Georgia in August 2008 exposed significant capability shortfalls in the Russian Armed Forces and sparked the military overhaul that continues to this day. © Georgia Today

The comprehensive military reform and modernisation efforts launched after the war with Georgia, including the exercise programme, have transformed the Russian Armed Forces into an effective tool in Russia’s destabilisation campaign against the West, with major implications for Euro-Atlantic security. The capabilities developed enabled Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine in 2014 and its rapid intervention in Syria in 2015. Russia’s revived military power is a central element of the destabilisation campaign that it has been conducting in the Euro-Atlantic area for the last ten years. At their 2018 Summit in Brussels, Allied leaders declared that Russia’s aggressive actions, including the threat and use of force to attain political goals, challenge the Alliance and are undermining Euro-Atlantic security and the rules-based international order.

Exercising for strategic operations

The scheduled strategic exercises (ZAPAD, VOSTOK, TSENTR, KAVKAZ) are the capstone event of the Russian Armed Forces’ annual training cycle. During the several weeks of their actual duration, the exercises fulfil the General Staff’s presidentially mandated task to organise and test the transition of the Russian Federation from peace to war. After completing the transition, they test national preparedness for large-scale, high-intensity warfare against a technologically advanced peer adversary.

Any assessment of Russian strategic exercises should also take into account the large-scale snap (no-notice) exercises2 that President Putin reinstituted in 2013 of which four to six are conducted annually at various levels – including military district, fleet, or service or branch – and encompassing units from across most of the Armed Forces in the course of a year.

The scheduled and snap strategic exercises are conducted under the direction of the Minister of Defence and the operational control of the General Staff through the National Centre for the Direction of Defence. Command and control is a key aspect, testing the effectiveness and readiness of command echelons from the national level down to the brigade level. On this basis, the General Staff has the ability to conduct a strategic command post exercise that depicts national mobilisation and conflict escalation up to and including general war, regardless of the apparent scale and duration of the field training segment of the annual strategic exercise.

Russia’s programme of annual strategic exercises rotates the lead role among four of Russia’s five military districts, while retaining a force- and nation-wide character. © NATO

This overall context makes clear that Russia’s strategic exercises are oriented to multidirectional, theatre-level conflict and their capability- and capacity-building effects are strategic. It is useful to think of this exercise programme as a kind of military ‘circuit training’ – exercising different muscle groups on a rotating basis to strengthen the entire organism for the main event. Likewise, the command and control element are like the training of the mind that winning athletes undertake. Similarly, the capabilities built during the strategic exercises are generically applicable to potential future large-scale conflicts. With this as the model for the strategic exercises, even one as distant from NATO’s borders as VOSTOK 2018 has, by design, implications for Allied security.

The show of force and the actual exercise

VOSTOK 2018 was, in effect, two events. The first – and militarily more significant – took place at multiple locations from early July until September. The second was a scripted show of force, on 13 September, at the Tsugol training range in the Trans-Baykal Region.

In line with standard Russian practice, the show of force was designed to send ambiguous and contradictory messages: images of growing military strength on the one hand and rhetoric of non-aggression and transparency on the other. For this event, Russia’s senior military leaders drew the desired level of foreign attention to VOSTOK 2018 by stating publicly that approximately 300,000 troops – as well as 1,000 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 80 ships, and 36,000 tanks, armoured and other vehicles – would participate in an exercise unprecedented in scale since the Soviet-era ZAPAD 1981.

This show of force on day three of the “active phase” of VOSTOK 2018 included live-fire exercises carried out under the observation of President Putin and the Chinese Minister of Defence. The participating Russian, Chinese and Mongolian forces conducted a massive parade of military vehicles to close the day’s events. Despite the hype, the 13 September activities were more a carefully orchestrated military demonstration than a real military exercise. It was staged for media cameras as a backdrop befitting President Putin’s strongman image and his message of military strength to domestic and foreign observers. Nevertheless, one should not overlook the training value – from a logistics and combat service support perspective – of the movement of substantial forces and equipment to the Tsugol range and their sustainment in the field.3

The militarily more significant part of the VOSTOK exercise comprised two phases. The first, from July to early September, entailed weeks of logistics activities to move troops, equipment and supplies to their assembly and exercise areas. The second, “active phase”, from 11 to 17 September, encompassed the exercise activity and live-fire events at the Tsugol range and other land and maritime ranges in the Eastern Military District, and at other locations across Russia.

Russia’s massive drills were two things at once: a military drill where troops tested their combat preparedness; and a diplomatic exercise highlighting relations with China, aimed at the West. © Chatham House

In preparation for VOSTOK, 16 special exercises of various support functions units were conducted in July and August.  Also, snap exercises of the Northern Fleet were held in mid-August and of the Central and Eastern Military Districts at the end of August. Mobilisation of reserve forces was also exercised, with 21 units in ten subject territories of the Russian Federation4 mobilised and several thousand citizens recalled from the reserves. Units of the territorial guard of the Central and Southern Military Districts were formed up and transported to the Eastern Military District for exercises. Minister of Defence Shoygu said after the conclusion of VOSTOK that industrial mobilisation was also exercised.

The Ministry of Defence described the “active phase” of VOSTOK 2018 as taking place at five combined arms ranges in the Eastern Military District (Tsugol, Bamburovo, Radygino, Uspensky, Bikinsky) and four air force and air defence ranges (Litovko, Novoselskoye, Telemba, Bukhta Anna) and in the Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of Japan. However, the Ministry also announced VOSTOK exercise activity at other locations, such as the Kapustin Yar missile range, during the event. According to the Ministry, this phase would include operations by two opposing sides, with the Central Military District and Northern Fleet forces playing the adversary role against Eastern Military District and Pacific Fleet Forces. If true, this would have marked another significant evolution in the complexity and training value of the strategic exercises.

A number of dual-capable (conventional/nuclear) weapons systems participated in the exercises, conducting simulated or live-fire launches. This included TU-95MS (BEAR H) strategic bomber cruise missile launches over the Barents, East Siberian, Chukchi and North Arctic Seas and at the Telemba range; ISKANDER (SS-26 STONE) launches at the Kapustin Yar missile range; and MOSKIT (SS-N-22 SUNBURN) cruise missile launches by Pacific Fleet Forces against naval groupings of the notional adversary. Russian Ministry of Defence reporting did not specify whether these systems exercised their nuclear role, for example, whether the MOSKIT launch simulated the assigned navy mission “to inflict not less than critical damage on the enemy fleet by use of non-strategic nuclear weapons”. Aerospace forces exercised layered air and missile defence regionally and at exercise ranges.

How big was VOSTOK 2018?

The Russian military leadership consistently messaged that VOSTOK 2018 would be the largest Russian military exercise in decades. Western media picked up this refrain. However, informed observers soon expressed scepticism and a debate ensued over the size of the impending exercise and what comprised the much-flouted 300,000 figure. This kept media attention focused on VOSTOK in the weeks leading up to the active phase, which was undoubtedly the Russian leadership’s intention.

Minister of Defence Shoygu described the basis for the 300,000 figure after the conclusion of the exercise. In a post-exercise interview on 17 September with the Russian Defence Ministry’s newspaper, Krasnaya Zvezda, Minister of Defence Shoygu described all the preparatory exercises and activities leading up to and including the active phase, stating that “in all this complex of events, more than 300,000 servicemen were involved. This was, actually, the Armed Forces, two military districts (Central and Eastern), two fleets (Pacific and North), aviation, army aviation and our fellow allies – the armed forces of China and Mongolia.”

In other words, the 300,000 troop figure was an approximate total of all personnel involved in every phase of preparation and execution of the VOSTOK 2018 from early July through to 17 September. The 300,000 figure may be plausible for this timeframe but leaves open the question of the number of participating combat troops. One historical study of the ratio of support to combat troops in modern war suggests, out of a total of 300,000 troops, a possible range of 75,000-100,000 combat troops might have participated at the various ranges during the active phase of VOSTOK 2018. However, this is a very rough estimate.

Russia’s Annual Strategic Exercises 2008-2018
Year Exercise Military District MOD-Announced Participating Troops Estimated Participating Troops
2008 KAVKAZ North Caucasus (now Southern) 8,000 40,000
2009 ZAPAD Western 11,900 13,000
2010 VOSTOK Eastern 20,000 –
2011 TSENTR Central 12,000 –
2012 KAVKAZ Southern 8,000 –
2013 ZAPAD Western 11,920 90,000
2014 VOSTOK Eastern 100,000 155,000
2015 TSENTR Central 95,000 100,000
2016 KAVKAZ Southern 12,500 120,000
2017 ZAPAD Western 12,700 60,000-70,000
2018 VOSTOK Eastern 297,000 75,000 – 100,0005

The lack of definitive numbers of troop levels at the various phases of VOSTOK 2018 illustrates the inevitable uncertainty created by Russia’s approach to its large-scale exercises, and to related transparency and confidence-building measures. It also fits the pattern of, on the one hand, systematic Russian under-reporting of troop figures for exercises west of the Urals, where treaty-based reporting and observation requirements apply (thereby avoiding formal observations); and, on the other hand, accurate or even over-reporting for exercises east of the Urals, where no reporting or observation requirements apply.

Russian military leaders asserted – with reference to the ad hoc measures they substitute for effective confidence- and security-building measures – that VOSTOK 2018 was the most transparently conducted exercise on record, which included briefings in the NATO-Russia Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and invitations to hundreds of journalists and 89 foreign military attachés to observe at the Tsugol range. Despite this, the question of the exercise’s actual size remains unanswered. In light of this pattern, NATO needs to consider the possibility that Russia’s strategic exercises include the testing of large-scale maskirovka6 to obscure force movements, and the related operational implications.

Russian-Chinese military cooperation

VOSTOK 2018 also demonstrated a significant incremental step in Russian-Chinese military cooperation with both political and military implications. At the political level, Chinese media reported that the joint drills were intended to “consolidate and develop the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership”. For Russia’s part, Chinese participation was another visible demonstration that Russia is not isolated diplomatically or militarily regardless of tensions with the West. Despite strategic interests that may fundamentally diverge in the medium to long term, Russia and China, for now, want to present a common front to their perceived potential adversary, the United States, and VOSTOK provided an opportunity to do so.

China sent approximately 3,000 troops, 900 tanks and military vehicles, and 30 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to participate in VOSTOK 2018. © YouTube CCTV Video News Agency

The military significance of the Chinese participation is not to be discounted either. China sent approximately 3,000 troops, 900 tanks and military vehicles, and 30 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters from its 78th Army Corps to the Chita region via road, rail and air. This provided the first opportunity for People’s Liberation Army (PLA) units to participate in large-scale foreign drills after the 2016 reforms of PLA command structures. The staff, command and control, and logistical requirements for such a first-time effort, even at the brigade and squadron level, would have been considerable and would tangibly build capabilities for further military cooperation.

The Chinese participation in VOSTOK 2018 itself built upon experience gained in eight joint naval exercises conducted since 20127. As a point of comparison, NATO-Russia military cooperation by operational units never approached this scale or regularity, despite expressed aspirations toward the ability for joint decisions and joint action expressed in the framework of NATO-Russia cooperation since the signing of the Founding Act in 1997. In contrast, Russia and China are building multidimensional military and military-industrial cooperation.

Politico-military relevance to NATO

For all these reasons, the VOSTOK exercise is relevant to the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic space, despite its geographic distance from NATO territory. Like all of Russia’s scheduled and snap strategic exercises, it is just one component of Russia’s ‘circuit training’ for large-scale war.

The capabilities developed and practiced during VOSTOK and the other exercises can be brought to bear on NATO’s flank as easily as they can be projected in any other strategic direction. Russia’s are by far the largest military exercises in Europe and are unique for their aims, size and frequency – as well as their lack of transparency. It is part of the ‘new normal’ for 70,000 to 150,000 troops to participate in Russia’s snap or planned strategic exercises. As Joseph Stalin is said to have observed, quantity has its own quality. What we see in the case of modern Russia is the ability to concentrate large forces relatively quickly anywhere on its periphery, under a nuclear shadow and with robust anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities aimed at preventing an adversary from occupying or traversing an area of land, sea or air.

The exercises create a twin challenge to predictability and stability on NATO’s eastern flank: the operational capabilities that exercises like VOSTOK build in Russia’s forces and, after the events of 2008 in Georgia and 2014 in Ukraine, the reasonable doubt as to the nature and intent of any major force movements.

“Little green men” stand guard in front of the Sebastopol naval base after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in March 2014.

VOSTOK and the other large-scale exercises also demonstrate and build the Russian Armed Forces’ capacity for sustained operations. Nearly five years on from the initiation of hostilities against Ukraine and three years after the start of operations in Syria, Russian military forces continue to operate in both theatres, while also continuing or initiating operations (such as air and maritime patrols) in other regions. Meanwhile, Russia is carrying on with its military modernisation, maintaining its programme of large-scale exercises, keeping military forces in a number of former Soviet republics –whether by bilateral agreement, without the countries’ consent, or illegal occupation – and expanding its presence well beyond its periphery. These developments suggest the need to reassess doubts about Russia’s ability to sustain military operations, including large-scale ones.

VOSTOK as a milestone and the road ahead

The completion of VOSTOK 2018 marked ten years of Russia’s annual strategic exercises. The year 2018 also marks five years since the reinitiation of large-scale snap exercises in the Russia military. This exercise programme has significantly improved the Russian Armed Forces’ warfighting and power-projection capabilities. These, in turn, support and enable Russia’s strategic destabilisation campaign against the West, with military force always casting a shadow of intimidation over Russia’s sub-kinetic aggression. This strategic context highlights NATO Allies’ motivations in committing both to meaningful dialogue with Russia and to strengthening NATO’s deterrence and defence posture.

At the 2018 NATO Summit in Brussels, Allied leaders stated that the Alliance continues to adapt in order to ensure that its deterrence and defence posture remains credible, coherent, resilient and adaptable to a changing security environment. This includes an effective response to changes in the posture and doctrine of potential adversaries, and their significant investments to modernise and expand capabilities. The Allies noted that it is of strategic importance to heighten readiness and improve reinforcement as well as to ensure the Alliance’s political and military responsiveness, including through more regular exercises. The implications of Russia’s strategic exercises, in their full context, demonstrate the criticality of continued progress on these and all other aspects of NATO’s ongoing adaptation.

1 The Military Districts are also designated as Joint Strategic Commands (JSCs). The Northern Fleet Military District/JSC was created in December 2014 but, as of 2018, has not been integrated into the rotation of the annual strategic exercises on its own. It has participated in snap exercises, exercised concurrently with the Western Military District ZAPAD 2017 exercise, and participated directly in VOSTOK 2018.

2 No notice means the participating forces and command echelons below the General Staff are unaware of the timing of the exercise. These large-scale exercises take place on an unscheduled basis in various of the Military Districts/Joint Strategic Commands, fleets, services and branches. As a side-effect, Russia also gives no advance notification of the exercises to the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe under Vienna Document requirements.

3 Logistics is the transfer of military personnel and materiel, Combat Service Support sustains personnel and material in the field and includes such functions as maintenance, transportation, supply, medical support, field services such as feeding and clothing, human resources, and religious support. See, for example, US Army Field Manual FM 3-0.

4 Subjects of the Russian Federation federal state include republics, territories, regions, cities of federal significance and autonomous regions.

5 An estimated 75,000-100,000 combat troops participated at the various ranges during the active phase of the exercise and 297,000 total troops (combat and support) during the preparatory and active phase from late June to 16 September 2018. However, this estimation is based on a study of US Army tooth-to-tail ratios from the First World War through to the second Iraq War and could vary widely from the actual numbers due to possible differences between US and Soviet/Russian approaches to logistics and combat support.

6 Military deception intended to deceive the adversary as to the composition, location, actions, and intentions of Russian forces.

7 Beginning in 2012 in the Yellow Sea and followed by: 2013, Sea of Japan; 2014, East China Sea; 2015, Black Sea/Mediterranean and August, Sea of Japan; 2016, South China Sea; 2017, Baltic Sea and September, Sea of Japan/Sea of Okhotsk.

Dave Johnson is a staff officer in the NATO International Staff Defence Policy and Planning Division.

This article is a summary of a forthcoming paper to be issued by the NATO Defense College.

What is published in NATO Review does not necessarily represent the official position or policy of member governments, or of NATO.

Statement by the NATO Secretary General on the adoption of the laws on the transition of the Kosovo Security Force

Press conference by Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, following the extraordinary NATO – Ukraine meeting

Today, the Institutions in Kosovo have announced the adoption of the three laws initiating the process of transition of the Kosovo Security Force.

I regret that this decision was made despite the concerns expressed by NATO. While the transition of the Kosovo Security Force is in principle a matter for Kosovo to decide, we have made clear that this move  is ill-timed.

NATO supports the development of the Kosovo Security Force under its current mandate. With the change of mandate, the North Atlantic Council will now have to re-examine the level of NATO’s engagement with the Kosovo Security Force.

NATO remains committed through KFOR to a safe and secure environment in Kosovo and to stability in the wider Western Balkans.

All sides must ensure that today’s decision will not further increase tensions in the region. All responsible political actors in the region need to focus on progress with reforms, and on dialogue. I reiterate my call on both Pristina and Belgrade to remain calm and refrain from any statements or actions which may lead to escalation. NATO continues to support the EU-sponsored dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina as the only lasting political solution for the region.

 

La OTAN amplia sus aliados hacia el este: Jordania es pieza clave en Oriente Medio

 

Visit to NATO by His Majesty King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
On Wednesday, 12 December 2018, the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Jens Stoltenberg will meet with His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

His Majesty will also address the North Atlantic Council.

There will be no media opportunity.

Still and video imagery of the meeting will be available after the event on the NATO website.

Professional-quality videos and b-roll will be available for download from www.natomultimedia.tv. Please register for access. Contact: content@natomultimedia.tv

Corrupción y conflicto: van de la mano (Artículo de la NATO Review)

La corrupción ha sido un elemento básico de los debates sobre el desarrollo desde mediados de los años noventa. Sus efectos corrosivos están bien documentados: la corrupción arraigada impide el crecimiento económico inclusivo, desvía la ayuda y subvierte la ayuda internacional para el desarrollo. Pero una consecuencia igualmente importante de la corrupción generalizada es mucho menos reconocida y mucho menos estudiada: su impacto en la seguridad nacional e internacional. Por eso la corrupción le importa a la OTAN.

Hombres iraquíes se manifiestan contra la corrupción y los servicios deficientes en la Plaza Tahrir, en el centro de Bagdad, Irak. Una investigación de ocho meses de duración realizada por el Comité Parlamentario Iraquí de Seguridad y Defensa, publicada en agosto de 2015, mostró que la corrupción financiera y administrativa alimentó el aumento de ISIS / Daesh y las milicias locales en Irak. © Reuters

La corrupción y la captura del estado contribuyeron al estallido de la primavera árabe y los conflictos subsiguientes. Fue un factor clave en la derrota de las fuerzas iraquíes durante la primera batalla de Mosul. Alimentó el auge de ISIS / Daesh y Boko Haram. Y ha sido utilizado como una herramienta de política exterior por algunos estados para minar activamente las instituciones en otros.

La corrupción también fue un factor clave que contribuyó a los fracasos de las intervenciones internacionales en Irak y Afganistán. La corrupción generalizada y la captura estatal por parte de redes criminales socavaron la legitimidad del gobierno afgano, redujeron su efectividad y crearon una fuente de resentimiento para su propia población. Ha impulsado el reclutamiento de talibanes, lo que hizo mucho más difícil para la Fuerza de Asistencia de Seguridad Internacional (ISAF) liderada por la OTAN (2003-2014) lograr sus objetivos de misión clave, desde la seguridad hasta la gobernanza efectiva. En las palabras de Ryan Crocker, ex embajador de los Estados Unidos en Afganistán: “ El último punto de fracaso de nuestros esfuerzos … no fue una insurgencia. Era el peso de la corrupción endémica. ”( 2016 )

En Irak, la corrupción en el reclutamiento y las promociones del ejército, la existencia de soldados fantasmas y el robo de armas y suministros hicieron que el ejército, superior sobre el papel, no estuviera armado, no tuviera personal y, en última instancia, no pudiera detener el aumento de ISIS / Daesh. Para detener a los combatientes yihadistas, las tropas internacionales tuvieron que regresar a Irak un par de años después de que concluyera la misión de entrenamiento anterior.

Y, sin embargo, los vínculos entre la corrupción y la inseguridad no se han convertido en una parte integral de los debates y planes clave relacionados con la seguridad. Incluso cuando se reconoce que la corrupción es un desafío estratégico, este reconocimiento rara vez se traduce en directrices y herramientas específicas que podrían proteger el compromiso internacional del riesgo de corrupción. Quizás aún más importante, tales medidas podrían ayudar a evitar situaciones en las que las intervenciones internacionales terminan inadvertidamente apoyando redes corruptas y viendo sus recursos desviados.

Estas consideraciones son clave para las operaciones militares que van desde la creación de capacidad de defensa hasta la estabilización, la gestión de crisis y las misiones de apoyo a la paz. Las operaciones aportan importantes cantidades de recursos, tanto tangibles (desde el mantenimiento local hasta la capacitación y el equipo) como intangibles, como el apoyo al gobierno de la nación anfitriona y las fuerzas armadas. Si los planificadores e implementadores no son cuidadosos, estos recursos pueden ser desviados y mal utilizados por redes corruptas y spoilers que se benefician del caos y la inestabilidad.

OTAN y anticorrupción

Hasta la Cumbre de Varsovia de 2016, la OTAN estaba activo en el ámbito de lucha contra la corrupción, principalmente a través de su construcción Integridad (BI) del programa , que se centra en el análisis de riesgos de corrupción en los sectores de defensa y ayuda de diseño de los programas nacionales de lucha contra la corrupción. Se produjo un cambio en Varsovia con la adopción de una política de BI , que va más allá del alcance inicial del programa. La política deja claro que la prevención y la lucha contra la corrupción deben incorporarse a las tareas clave de la Alianza: desde la defensa colectiva hasta la respuesta a la crisis y la seguridad cooperativa. Un plan de acción de BI con el objetivo de integrar las consideraciones anticorrupción en las actividades de la OTAN, seguido poco después.

La importancia de la política y el plan de acción es difícil de exagerar. En Afganistán, la misión de la ISAF no comenzó a abordar los problemas de corrupción hasta el 2007. Llevó nueve años, hasta el 2012, mitigar el impacto de la corrupción para convertirse en una línea de participación en el Plan de Operaciones de la ISAF.

Hacer caso omiso de los problemas de corrupción en la planificación y asignación de tareas dificultó el reconocimiento de sus manifestaciones y consecuencias, en particular el impacto que tuvieron los problemas de corrupción en la capacidad de la misión para cumplir sus objetivos. Esto significaba que la inyección de recursos que excedía con creces la capacidad de absorción de Afganistán no se consideraba un riesgo clave. Los contratos locales de mantenimiento, como el Contrato de Transporte de la Nación Anfitriona que alimentó a los señores de la guerra y los funcionarios corruptos, no fueron analizados por su beneficio potencial para las redes corruptas. En efecto, ISAF exacerbó los riesgos de corrupción contra los que más tarde luchó.

Durante los primeros años de su misión, la Fuerza de Asistencia de Seguridad Internacional liderada por la OTAN descuidó el impacto que los contratos locales, como la contratación de camiones locales para el transporte de suministros, tuvieron sobre la corrupción. © Reuters

Una razón para la respuesta lenta es que las fuerzas desplegadas no se utilizaron para tratar el problema de la corrupción. Era demasiado fácil considerarlo como una cuestión de desarrollo que podía esperar hasta que se estableciera la seguridad. Sin orientación como los procedimientos operativos estándar y con poca experiencia disponible, es difícil abordar un problema como la corrupción, incluso si se nota, especialmente en un entorno inseguro: cuando las balas comienzan a volar, hay poco tiempo o capacidad para pensar e implementar Mitigaciones para un riesgo desconocido.

Aquí es donde la política de BI de la OTAN puede ayudar. Si se considera un establecedor de normas y es implementado por los Aliados de la OTAN, la política puede ayudar a garantizar que se tome en cuenta la corrupción en la OTAN y en la planificación nacional para las operaciones militares. Esto, a su vez, aumentará la preparación para enfrentarlo en el teatro, identificar entornos de alto riesgo, implementar medidas de mitigación antes de desplegar tropas, monitorear el impacto de la corrupción en la misión y anotar las actividades de la misión que podrían exacerbar el impacto. Gravedad y alcance de las prácticas corruptas. También debería ayudar a los Aliados a establecer relaciones con organizaciones que puedan ayudarlos en el teatro e identificar fuentes de experiencia técnica que puedan ser de ayuda.

La importancia de la gobernanza de la defensa.

Si bien la corrupción en cualquier sector puede ser perjudicial, la corrupción en las fuerzas de defensa y seguridad, encargadas de proteger a la población y responder a la inseguridad, es particularmente perniciosa. En algunos casos, los efectos de la corrupción son visibles de inmediato, y las fuerzas de seguridad depredadoras abusan de las poblaciones para las que fueron creadas. En otros casos, el secreto y la confidencialidad que a menudo acompaña a este sector pueden ocultar los efectos de la corrupción, hasta una crisis y un fracaso a gran escala.

Cuando un militar falla, falla espectacularmente: las fuerzas ineficaces y vacías crean el espacio para que prosperen Boko Haram, ISIS / Daesh y grupos del crimen organizado. Las consecuencias son demasiado grandes para ser ignoradas por la seguridad o la comunidad de desarrollo: para que la paz y la seguridad se consoliden y creen las condiciones para el desarrollo, es necesario abordar la corrupción de la defensa y la seguridad, especialmente en los estados frágiles y afectados por conflictos. para ambos.

Una combinación de secreto, necesidades de seguridad percibidas y prestigio nacional a menudo dificulta la reforma de las instituciones de defensa y seguridad. Sin embargo, sin reformarlos, la estabilidad y la seguridad no pueden echar raíces.

En los primeros años después de la independencia en Sudán del Sur , por ejemplo, la elite gobernante desvió los ingresos del petróleo para financiar redes de patrocinio a través de los gastos del sector de defensa. Se usó un presupuesto militar inflado para pagar los salarios de 230,000 soldados y miembros de las milicias pertenecientes a varias redes de patrocinio. Mientras tanto, se incursionaron en los presupuestos de otros departamentos y se redirigieron los recursos al sector de defensa: en 2012, cuando los gastos de defensa y seguridad representaron el 35% del presupuesto de Sudán del Sur, los donantes financiaron el 75% del sector de salud de Sudán del Sur.

Durante algunos años, el sistema de patrocinio funcionó en Sudán del Sur; La lealtad fue comprada y la violencia mantenida bajo control. Pero en 2012, el aumento de los precios de la lealtad, una disputa con el gobierno sudanés por el uso de la infraestructura petrolera y una disminución global de los precios del petróleo llevaron a una disminución de la producción y menores ingresos. Esto disminuyó la capacidad del gobierno del presidente Salva Kiir para comprar la lealtad de sus oponentes, por lo que Kiir recurrió a despedir a sus oponentes. Dentro de un año, la guerra civil y la crisis humanitaria asolaron al país.

Una gobernanza de defensa robusta es especialmente importante cuando el gasto en defensa aumenta, o cuando los países amplían sus fuerzas armadas y el alcance de su política de seguridad y defensa. Actualmente, el gasto en defensa está aumentando más rápidamente en los países donde los estándares de gobernanza de defensa son más débiles. En 2016, 22 estados africanos pasaronmás del cinco por ciento de sus presupuestos en defensa, mientras que siete países gastaron más del diez por ciento. Esta es una inversión importante, que puede desviar recursos de otros servicios públicos, incluidos la salud y la educación. Pero en muchos de los países donde el gasto está aumentando, el desarrollo de mecanismos efectivos de supervisión está fallando en mantener el ritmo. Los presupuestos de defensa son en su mayoría opacos y están exentos de escrutinio externo, y las armas y equipos adquiridos rara vez están bien planificados ni contribuyen a la efectividad de las fuerzas armadas.

El presidente de Sudán del Sur, Salva Kiir (El presidente de Sudán del Sur, Salva Kiir (centro), desvió los ingresos del petróleo para financiar redes de patrocinio a través de un presupuesto militar inflado, que pagó los salarios de 230,000 soldados y milicianos. © Reuters

La OTAN no es un recién llegado a la difusión de altos estándares de gobierno de defensa: su aceptación de nuevos estados miembros ha estado condicionada a su adhesión al buen gobierno de sus fuerzas de defensa, incluida la supervisión democrática y civil. La Alianza, que sigue siendo una fuente importante de normas y estándares en defensa, está bien situada para ayudar a otros países a mejorar su gobierno de defensa. La nueva misión de capacitación y desarrollo de capacidades de la Alianza en Irak, por ejemplo, debe incorporar medidas para combatir la corrupción y fortalecer la gobernanza del sector de defensa de Irak. Como lo sugieren la batalla de Mosul y el surgimiento de ISIS / Daesh, limitar el impacto de la corrupción debe ser una prioridad para que las fuerzas iraquíes puedan aprovechar los avances logrados en los últimos años.

Misiones de gestión de crisis y estabilización.

En reconocimiento de que la Alianza estaba mal preparada para mitigar los riesgos de corrupción en las operaciones, la política de BI requiere que se tengan en cuenta las preocupaciones de buen gobierno y anticorrupción en todas las etapas de la planificación y ejecución operativas. Este es un desafío clave para los aliados. La investigación realizada por Transparency International (TI) ha identificado la capacidad de reconocer y mitigar los riesgos de corrupción como un vínculo débil entre los aliados de la OTAN y sus socios. Solo en tres países encontramos evidencia de doctrina que aborda la corrupción, orientación sobre adquisiciones operativas o capacitación anticorrupción para las tropas.

El rol de la OTAN como establecedor de normas podría ayudar a aumentar la preparación nacional, tanto a través de proporcionar una guía de buenas prácticas como de exponer a los oficiales a la cuestión, mientras giran a través de los sistemas de la OTAN. El Centro de Guerra Conjunta de la Alianza, por ejemplo, ha estado incorporando temas relacionados con la corrupción en los ejercicios que realizan (en los que TI – Defensa y Seguridad ha participado). Recopilado por la Guía anual sobre ejercicios del Comandante Supremo Aliado de Europa, que incluye mitigar la corrupción entre los resultados del ejercicio, e impulsado por las necesidades del cuartel general de la Estructura de la Fuerza de la OTAN, muchos de los cuales han reconocido la corrupción como un desafío, los ejercicios han sido el aspecto más visible de los intentos de la OTAN para mitigar los riesgos de corrupción. La inversión en ejercicios ya ha dado lugar a cambios en los procedimientos operativos estándar,

Los ejercicios son particularmente útiles para darse cuenta de que contrarrestar la corrupción es un problema tanto técnico como político. Sin la presión del liderazgo, es poco probable que las soluciones técnicas obtengan tracción. Sin la experiencia técnica de los funcionarios, el compromiso de alto nivel no se puede realizar, simplemente porque nadie sabrá cómo traducirlo en soluciones técnicas. En entornos donde la corrupción es un riesgo importante, tiene sentido reforzar el personal militar con expertos de otras instituciones, desde la aplicación de la ley hasta el gobierno. Sin embargo, cada sede necesita una base de conocimientos especializados, aunque solo sea para poder reconocer y definir una amenaza cuando aparezca, y saber dónde buscar ayuda.

Resiliencia aliada

El impacto de la corrupción en la seguridad nacional, la soberanía y la independencia ha sido bien ilustrado por los desarrollos en Ucrania. El ex vicepresidente de los EE. UU., Joe Biden, declaró en 2009 que “ en la última década, Rusia ha utilizado otra arma de la política exterior. Utiliza la corrupción como herramienta de coerción para mantener a Ucrania vulnerable y dependiente. Entonces prosigan esas reformas para erradicar la corrupción. No se trata solo del buen gobierno. Se trata de la autoconservación. Es sobre tu propia seguridad nacional. ”

Con frecuencia, se considera que la corrupción es un cáncer, una fuerza maliciosa pero amorfa que socava el desarrollo y la seguridad. Esta interpretación, sin embargo, ignora las formas cruciales en que las prácticas corruptas pueden ser utilizadas intencionalmente, conscientemente, por un estado para socavar las elecciones y la libertad de maniobra de otro. Las vulnerabilidades de la corrupción, especialmente en los sectores clave de defensa y energía, deben verse como habilitadores para la guerra no convencional que amenaza a los aliados y socios de la OTAN.

La Residencia Mezhyhirya, la propiedad donde vivía Viktor Yanukovych cuando era Primer Ministro y luego Presidente de Ucrania, ahora es un museo que muestra el lujoso estilo de vida de Yanukovych. Huyó a Rusia después de la revolución ucraniana de 2014, que fue provocada por protestas masivas contra la corrupción. © Wikipedia

La amenaza que la corrupción puede suponer para la soberanía y la seguridad nacionales debe incorporarse en la respuesta de la OTAN a las amenazas híbridas , que actualmente parece centrarse principalmente en la desinformación y los ataques cibernéticos. Si bien estos temas no deben pasarse por alto, un enfoque en mantener instituciones de defensa resilientes que estén bien conectadas con sus poblaciones sería una contribución deseable para contrarrestar las posibles amenazas híbridas.

Muy por delante

Gracias a la política de BI y su trabajo de creación de capacidad, la OTAN se encuentra actualmente en la vanguardia de los establecimientos de seguridad y defensa con el objetivo de mitigar los riesgos de corrupción. Pero es importante no descansar en los laureles de uno; Todavía queda mucho por hacer. El progreso en los ejercicios no parece haber sido acompañado por el desarrollo de orientación estratégica y operacional, o por la actualización de las doctrinas clave para guiar a los planificadores.

La OTAN tampoco ha facilitado que las organizaciones independientes, incluida la sociedad civil, monitoreen y contribuyan a la implementación de la política. El hecho de que el plan de acción de BI no se haya hecho público significa que hay oportunidades limitadas para que las organizaciones externas contribuyan. Si bien es comprensible que algunos aspectos del plan de acción y su implementación deban permanecer clasificados, es poco probable que esto se aplique a la totalidad de los planes y acciones de la OTAN. La corrupción en la defensa y la seguridad es una preocupación compartida, una que se beneficiaría de una coalición de actores comprometidos a su alrededor, una coalición que también podría beneficiar a la Alianza en una crisis.

Como las estructuras de la OTAN incorporan preocupaciones anticorrupción en sus procedimientos, el próximo desafío es garantizar que estas normas y prácticas adoptadas a lo largo de la Alianza se reflejen en los establecimientos de defensa nacional. La política de BI hace que cualquier acción de los Aliados sea voluntaria, y aún así, mantener un alto nivel de gobierno de defensa es crucial: entre otros beneficios, ayudará a asegurar que los aumentos planificados en los presupuestos de defensa de los Aliados hasta el dos por ciento del PIB se gasten bien. Las consultas entre iguales y la experiencia entre iguales es una forma clave de mantener y mejorar la capacidad institucional.

Los ejercicios también podrían convertirse en un vehículo para difundir normas y prácticas anticorrupción entre los aliados. Sin embargo, para eso, la anticorrupción podría convertirse en un elemento de los requisitos formales de certificación de la OTAN. La Alianza también tendría que desarrollar una variedad de escenarios anticorrupción y capacitar a evaluadores que puedan identificar los desafíos y asesorar sobre las mejores prácticas.

El desafío final para el trabajo anticorrupción de la OTAN es la cooperación con otras instituciones, especialmente con la Unión Europea. La Dirección General de Negociaciones de Vecindad y Ampliación (DG NEAR) de la Comisión Europea patrocina actualmente el programa BI de la OTAN, reconociendo que la gobernanza de la defensa es un factor clave para la seguridad y estabilidad sostenibles. Sin embargo, se podría hacer más, incluido el trabajo conjunto sobre la incorporación de medidas anticorrupción en los procedimientos operativos estándar y los procesos de planificación operativa para implementaciones internacionales; cooperación en vulnerabilidades de corrupción como parte de la guerra híbrida; y fortalecimiento de la capacidad de defensa en los países socios. Con ambas organizaciones enfrentando desafíos similares, ciertamente tiene sentido buscar sinergias.

La Dra. Karolina MacLachlan es Directora Regional de Programas para Europa para la Transparencia Internacional, Defensa y Seguridad. El artículo se basa en su extenso trabajo con organismos de la OTAN y establecimientos de defensa nacional, incluida la participación en ejercicios.

Las publicaciones publicadas por TI-Defence and Security (disponibles aquí ) ofrecen un análisis más profundo de los vínculos entre corrupción e inseguridad ( La quinta columna ), los vínculos entre corrupción y extremismo violento ( The Big Spin ), que promueven la responsabilidad en la industria de la defensa. , y temas relacionados. TI-Defence and Security ha lanzado una iniciativa para promover estándares de gobernanza de defensa responsable ; en enero de 2019, publicará un conjunto de herramientas para ayudar a mitigar los riesgos de corrupción en las operaciones y el desarrollo de capacidades de defensa.

Lo que se publica en la Revista de la OTAN no representa necesariamente la posición oficial o la política de los gobiernos miembros o de la OTAN.

Corruption and conflict: hand in glove Dr Karolina MacLachlan The corrosive effects of corruption are well documented: deep-rooted corruption prevents inclusive economic growth, diverts aid and subverts international development aid. But an equally important consequence of widespread corruption is far less recognised and far less studied: its impact on national and international security. Karolina MacLachlan of Transparency International looks at the issues.

Resolute Support Foreign Ministers Statement on Afghanistan (Noticias de la OTAN)

  1. We, the Foreign Ministers of the nations contributing to the Resolute Support Mission, met today in Brussels to reaffirm our steadfast commitment to ensuring long-term security and stability in Afghanistan. We express our utmost appreciation for the crucial contribution of the men and women serving in our Resolute Support Mission and in the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces. We pay tribute to those who have lost their lives or have been wounded in support of a better future for Afghanistan.
  2. We reaffirm the decisions taken at our Summit in July 2018 on our continued support to Afghanistan, and we recall Afghanistan’s commitments, including to continue on the path to reform covering, inter alia, the promotion of human rights, good and inclusive governance, and combating corruption.

Elections

  1. As the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is taking further steps to create stability and security, and to promote peace, Afghanistan has entered a critical phase in building and consolidating democracy. We recognise the parliamentary elections held in October 2018 as a clear sign of Afghan support forthe democratic process. Voters, one third of them female, defied threats of violence and went to polling stations to shape the future of their country. This is an encouraging sign of their determination and ownership.
  2. We recognise that these elections were the first to be completely led, administered and secured by Afghans. We praise the efforts by the Afghan security forces, who provided the security required for the elections to take place, and stood firm in the face of the numerous attacks by Taliban and other insurgent groups seeking to disrupt the election and discourage Afghans from voting.
  3. We condemn in the strongest possible terms all acts of violence committed by insurgent and terrorist groups in Afghanistan before,during and after the electoral process. These forms of violence are intended to prevent the Afghan people from achieving a secure and peaceful future.
  4. We recognise the important steps taken by the Afghan authorities to make these elections more transparent, credible and secure. Afghanistan, for the first time, used polling centre-based voter registration. However, there were significant shortcomings, and organisational changes are required prior to holding the presidential election next year.We specificallycall upon the Afghan authorities to address the problems caused by fraud and procedural weaknesses, and to update and audit voter registration databases for the affected provinces. We encourage all stakeholders to engage in the process fairly and in good faith. Successful elections will further reinforce Afghanistan’s path towards stability, security and peace.

Peace

  1. With the historic ceasefire during Eid al-Fitr, the people of Afghanistan have shown the world that they want peace, and that the violence can be stopped. We welcome the Afghan government’s unprecedented offer of unconditional peace talks with the Taliban, and we fully support their aim to end the conflict by reaching an inclusive peace agreement based on national consensus. We emphasize the particular importance of fully including women in political, peace and reconciliation processes. We commend the Afghan government’s continued commitment to the peace process and encourage continued efforts to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are fully represented and included.
  2. We remind the Taliban that they will never achieve their ambitions through fighting and emphasise that there is no military solution to the conflict. The Taliban must join their fellow Afghans, including the Government of Afghanistan, at the negotiating table, and play a meaningful rolein an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led political process that results in a mutual understanding about the future of their country.
  3. Recognising the contributions and sacrifices made, NATO Allies and Operational Partners will respect and support an inclusive, negotiated and durable political settlement led by Afghans, which ends violence, ensures Afghanistan is never again used as a platform for terrorist attacks against any other country,and protects the human rights of all Afghan citizens, notably those of women and children in accordance with the Afghan constitutionand international norms and standards. NATO Allies and Operational Partners acknowledgethat the future militaryrole of the international community in Afghanistan will be among the issues to be discussed in an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process. We affirm our support for the efforts of the Government of Afghanistan to initiate negotiations for a political settlement and the initiative ofthe United States Government, led by Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad, to bring the parties into negotiations to achieve a political settlement.
  4. A stable, peaceful and secure Afghanistan that is safe from the threat of terrorism is in the shared interest of the Alliance and the entire region. Regional actors have the means to foster peace and stability in Afghanistan and we welcome their support for a negotiated political solution, as was stated on 28 November during the Geneva Ministerial Conference on Afghanistan. We encourage Afghanistan’s neighbours to contribute to regional stability by respecting and fully supporting an Afghan peace and reconciliation process, and by providing support for Afghan economic development. We also note and support regionally owned and led efforts to achieve economic stability and development through the Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process, and the Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan. We also urge Afghanistan’s neighbours to deny any form of support for the insurgency.

Taking note of the fact that success will require continued financial and logistical backing,NATO Allies and Operational Partners remain firmly committed to sustaining and bolstering the Afghan forces’ capabilities to eliminate the threat of terrorism in all its forms in order to provide security for Afghan citizens and stability in the region.