GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

Brigadier-general Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D^

(Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov Street, 050044, Bucharest,

Romania, email: secretariat@aosr.ro)

Colonel (ret.) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D^

(Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov Street, 050044, Bucharest,

Romania, email: secretariat@aosr.ro)

Abstract: Looking at the global rules for maintaining world peace, everyone

believed that the years after 1989 would be characterized by peace and

diversification of trade relations between sovereign countries, since the Cold War,

justified by ideological commands, was already considered history. These hopes

were also justified by the fact that the USA promised: "NATO will not expand

eastward by even an inch", which strengthened the undeniable faith of the peoples

in a new era of peace. After the USSR imploded, the Russian Federation and the

other countries that were part of the former socialist camp tried to cultivate

friendship with Western countries, especially with the USA, considered the future

bearer of the banner of peace and development worldwide. However, around 1994,

the USA and other Western countries began to reevaluate their relations with the

new sovereign states that emerged from the former socialist space, and the Russian

Federation began to be considered a second-rate country, whose economic and

military power became comparable to that of Italy or Spain. As such, in the new

context of power relations, the Russian Federation found itself excluded from

discussing global issues of humanity and became aware, shockingly, of the decisions

supported in some Western chancelleries, to launch the process of NATO's eastward

expansion, in response to the express request of some states that had broken away

from Soviet influence and were interested in finding new forms of implementing

security guarantees. Shortly after, the new political leadership of the Russian

Federation analyzed the new realities of the power poles and accepted the process

of NATO's eastward expansion, but as an expansion conditioned by its tacit

agreement. The Russian Federation became interested in its own security, since it

was obvious that any military defense system could immediately turn into an

offensive and conquest one. When in 2008 NATO was considering extending

membership invitations to Ukraine and Georgia, the Russian president publicly

declared that he considered this move to be unfriendly and to endanger the

existential security of the Russian Federation. From that moment on, the two great

powers, although they talked about peace, both sides conceived it in different ways:



Entitled

member

of

the

Academy

of

Romanian

Scientists,

email:

udrescumircea@yahoo.com.



Corresponding member of the Academy of Romanian Scientists, entitled member of the

Romanian Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (CRIFST)

of the Romanian Academy, email: esiteanu@yahoo.com.

49

GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

the USA supported the consolidation of peace by expanding NATO to the east, and

the Russian Federation believed that peace was possible only by stopping the

process of NATO enlargement. Given that the Security Council and the UN had

become bodies ignored by the great powers of the world, states began to consider

that dark clouds were gathering over the sky of peace. In 2008, American advisors

suggested that Georgia forcibly extend its state authority over some secessionist

regions, but the energetic intervention of Russia prevented the plan from being

realized, which brought obvious criticism from the USA. Between 2008 and 2022,

the US and the Russian Federation faced each other by proxy, on Ukrainian soil,

with the US supporting pro-Western movements and the Russian Federation

mobilizing Russophile populations to its side. As Ukrainian political forces became

more attached to Western values, the Russian Federation managed to detach from

Ukraine, first Crimea, then, in 2022, the regions of eastern Ukraine, which requested

to be placed under Russian military protection, triggering what Putin called a

"special military operation" while the Western world considered that this could only

be a worrying "war of aggression". Beyond these labels, world public opinion found

that world peace could only be seriously disturbed by irresponsible actions taken by

the great powers. After almost four years of terrible war, the great powers, namely

the USA and the Russian Federation, initiated peace talks, established a general

framework for it, without consulting with the countries that supported the military

war efforts, namely the EU countries.

Keywords: war, peace, security, expansion, defense, logistics, financial,

military, diplomatic, equity, trust, law.

DOI

10.56082/annalsarscimilit.2026.1.49

Introduction

After almost four years of war in Ukraine, the world is able to see that

the hopes for peace since the early 1990s have been violated precisely by the

states that spoke the most about this global hope. The proxy war in Ukraine,

waged by the USA, NATO and other Western states, on the one hand, and the

Russian Federation, supported by the BRICS states, on the other, has reached

a point where the parties already seem convinced that the objectives

envisaged when it was launched can no longer be achieved, but it seems that

the prospects for peace no longer satisfy everyone. The USA and the Russian

Federation are on the verge of agreeing on a framework peace plan, in which

the losers of the service – the EU and, especially, Ukraine, find that they have

to pay the costs of the war. The war machine of the Russian Federation has

adapted more quickly to the logistical requirements of the theater of battle,

while NATO and the EU have relied too much on achieving an easy victory.

And while the major powers involved in the conflict, through the peace

framework plan agreed upon by both sides, project their sources and resources

through which they will cover their costs, the EU finds itself removed from

dividing the spoils. The possibility of drawing conclusions from the so-called

"lessons learned" remains open to everyone.

50

Brigadier-general Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret.) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

1. NATO's expansion eastward and the increasing suspicions of

the Russian Federation.

The first years of the last decade of the second millennium came with

the promise of a miracle: the world became aware of the end of the Cold War,

of the reduction of fears about a global nuclear conflagration, of the respect

for the principles of international law, of the cultivation of peace and

collaboration in relations between all countries, especially between the great

powers. In order to demonstrate its good faith towards the desire for peace of

mankind, the Warsaw Pact ceased its activity, simultaneously with the

friendly promises according to which "NATO will not expand eastward by

even an inch". From the moment the USSR imploded, the United States of

America found that it had become a unique power, without counterweight in

the world context. They, together with other Western states, declared in the

media, quite loudly, that they were the winners of the Cold War. And while

Western states welcomed and supported the establishment of the USA as the

sole international power, the Russian Federation, as the spokesperson for the

former USSR states, tried to demonstrate that the image of a victor in the

ideological war that had ended was not productive, since everything was the

result of internal political actions, both in terms of the USSR and in terms of

the path chosen by the other countries that were part of the socialist bloc. As

the Russian Federation and the other countries of Eastern Europe sought the

friendship of Western countries, to the same extent the USA and other

Western countries began to reevaluate relations with the new emerging states.

And as the Russian Federation began to be declared a second-rate country,

whose economic and military power became comparable to that of Italy or

Spain, the Russian Federation saw itself excluded from discussing the global

problems of humanity. Moreover, in Western chancelleries, especially at the

level of substantiating the global decisions of the USA, the idea of NATO's

eastward expansion took shape, at the express request of some states that had

broken away from Soviet influence. At these moments, it is said that the

former president of the Russian Federation declared, in a restricted

environment: "we were fooled". Shortly after, the leadership of the Russian

Federation was taken by Vladimir Putin who, analyzing the new balance of

power, accepted the process of NATO's eastward expansion, but an expansion

conditional on the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. At the same

time, at the level of the Russian Federation, obvious processes of

centralization of economic and political power and of restoring its own

military capacity began. Nationalist tendencies within the Russian Federation

were ruthlessly defeated. The nuclear weapons located in the other former

socialist republics were redeployed within the Russian Federation, making it

the second largest nuclear power, after the USA. A broad research process in

the field of armaments was also launched, with reference to its cognitive

51

GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

component, of the latest generation. As the military and economic power of

the Russian Federation became more evident, as it initiated new and new

strategic understandings with countries that did not accept the unipolar

tendencies of world politics, in 2008, in Bucharest, Vladimir Putin declared

that NATO's expansion to the east, with the acceptance of Ukraine and

Georgia, was no longer acceptable, considering this as an existential threat to

its national security. From this moment on, the Russian Federation

conditioned the West, especially NATO and the European Union, that any

steps taken in relation to former countries that were part of the USSR, without

its consent, would constitute an occasion for military retaliation. In this

regard, in order to be even more convincing, the Russian Federation made

public its new military strategy, in which the spectrum of use of its nuclear

weapons was broadened. As a result, the USA, NATO and the EU began to

consider the Russian Federation as a threat to peace and this was materialized

in NATO documents, from which it began to emerge that it had become a

probable and possible aggressor. In order to put the Russian Federation in

front of the accomplished fact, the USA and Western countries began to

influence the development of major political processes in both Ukraine and

Georgia, by financing and directing specific civil society organizations, as

well as opposition parties, which declared themselves public opponents of

any influence from the Russian Federation. At the same time, actions were

stimulated to restrict the rights of Russian minorities within these countries,

actions that culminated in the banning of the Russian language as an official

language in Ukraine. . In turn, the Russian Federation began to declare itself

as the defender of the rights of the Russian minority wherever they were. As

such, nationalist contradictions within these states were accentuated,

contradictions that took on aspects of violent manifestations, which even led

to the emergence of armed separatist groups, which engaged state forces in

real confrontations with deaths and material destruction. A first public

expression of the confrontation between the Russian Federation and the

Western world acquired military substance in 2008, when Georgia declared

its intention of Euro-Atlantic integration and tried to consolidate its state

authority over the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, regions that

enjoyed Russian support. In fact, the Georgian authorities, before the actual

military actions were launched, declared that relations with the Russian

Federation could not have prospects, while relations with the USA constitute

a model for how a superpower and a small country can be strategic allies.

Thus, in August 2008, when Georgia launched an attack on South Ossetia,

the Russian Security Council, meeting on August 8, decided to enter the war

on the side of the Ossetians. The argument was supported by the Russian

president, who declared that "women, children and the elderly are dying in

South Ossetia, and most of them are citizens of the Russian Federation", and

"those responsible for this will be punished accordingly". Through Russia's

52

Brigadier-general Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret.) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

direct intervention in the internal conflict to impose state authority in Georgia,

Georgia, noting the obvious superiority of its military opponent, requested

US support to mediate peace. US President Bush decided not to let the

Russian-Georgian war escalate into a Russian-American confrontation of the

Cold War type. Therefore, Georgia's strongest ally did not want to take the

reins of mobilizing the West to formulate a common decision towards

Moscow, which eliminated any possibility of responding militarily to Russia,

since the only one capable of doing so would have been America. In this

context, the United States played an active role in resolving the crisis, but

only by politically supporting the mediation, from behind the scenes, and

giving media priority to the European Union, through the direct involvement

of France. The six-point Peace Plan brokered by the French President on

behalf of the EU provided for: not to resort to the use of force, a definitive

end to all hostilities, granting free access for humanitarian aid, the withdrawal

of the Georgian armed forces to their permanent cantonment positions, the

withdrawal of the Russian armed forces to the lines prior to the outbreak of

hostilities, the adoption of additional security measures by the Russian

peacekeeping forces before the establishment of international mechanisms,

the organization of an international conference on the future status of South

Ossetia and Abkhazia and the ways to ensure their long-term security.

American officials found the document outrageous, although they were in

constant contact with French officials, but stated that they did not expect such

an outcome. The plan was considered simplistic and ambiguous, and because

it did not mention anything about the territorial integrity of Georgia.

However, at the press conference, the French president mentioned the respect

for this inalienable right of any sovereign state, inviting the Russian president

to share his opinion, given that the Russian president had previously omitted

it from his speech. In response, the Russian president added, threateningly,

that this right “does not mean that a sovereign state has the right to do

whatever it wants”, and regarding the situation of the two separatist enclaves,

he stated that “in recent years, international law has given rise to numerous

very complicated cases of peoples exercising their right to self-determination

and the emergence of new states on the map. Here, for example, is Kosovo”.

In attempts to modernize its own military, on February 5, 2010, Moscow

adopted the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, which defined the

most important threats as follows: "... the tendency to confer global functions

- achievable through violation of international law - to NATO's military

potential, and the approximation of the military infrastructure of NATO

member states to the borders of the Russian Federation, in particular through

the expansion of the Alliance; the deployment of military contingents of

foreign states (or groups of states) in the neighboring territories of the Russian

Federation and its allies; the creation and deployment of missile defense

systems, which undermine global stability and the balance of forces in the

53

GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

nuclear missile field, as well as the militarization of outer space."¹Between

2008 and 2014, Ukraine swung politically towards the Russian Federation,

but the subversive actions initiated by the US created the premises to remove

Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence. Thus, before Maidan, in

December 2013, Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State, drew public

attention to the fact that American investments in Ukraine had reached the

point of highlighting their return on investment, as follows: "We have invested

over $5 billion to support Ukraine in these goals - democratization, good

governance, civic participation - n.n. and in others that will make a secure,

prosperous and democratic Ukraine"², this after only a month ago, the former

president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, had surprisingly rejected the

signing of the Association Agreement with the EU, negotiated since 2007,

thus suggesting a certain orientation towards Russia. The decision of the

leader in Kiev triggered widespread protests in Ukraine, a scenario set in

motion many months ago by American advisors and which was expected to

be profitable. As such, demonstrations against the democratically elected

president are intensifying, protesters have occupied the city hall in Kiev and

laid the foundations of a battle zone called Maidan. Opponents insistently

demanded the resignation of President Yanukovych, which occurred in

February 2014. Immediately, while the confrontations between supporters

and opponents of the new leadership in Kiev intensified, to the surprise of

American advisers and to the surprise of international public opinion, pro-

Russian militias occupied the Government headquarters and the Parliament

in Simferopol, the capital of the Crimean peninsula, demanding the accession

of Crimea to Russia. Also surprisingly, in early March, men dressed in

uniforms without national insignia took control of strategic points, ensuring

the holding of a referendum on the status of Crimea, on March 16, in which

over 90% of voters demanded accession to the Russian Federation. Although

the US and the EU threatened Russia with sanctions, it proceeded with the

steps to incorporate Crimea. In this context, as a result of the steps initiated

by the USA, the Russian Federation was excluded from the G8 group, the UN

condemned the annexation of Crimea, and NATO ceased cooperation with

Moscow, which was considered a public moment of recognition of the

conflicting states between the West led by the USA and the Russian

Federation, a kind of new cold war between irreconcilable authoritarian

ideologies, on the one hand of Russian origin, on the other hand of origin

specific to the steps of Western democracy. In this new context of relations

between the great powers of the world, on December 25, 2014, Putin put into

operation the new military doctrine, according to which the expansion of

¹Laurențiu Costantiniu, Federația Rusă de mâine prin prisma a două documente importante,

Policy Brief Magazine, n0. 20, Bucharest, Romanian Diplomatic Institute, february 2010,

p.4.

²Victoria Nuland, USA-Ukraine Foundation Conference, december 2013.

54

Brigadier-general Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret.) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

NATO to the borders of Russia or only of its military capabilities, but also

the development and implementation of anti-missile systems represented

threats to the security of the Russian Federation. In response, Moscow's

aggressive actions constituted for NATO "growing threats to the security of

the Euro-Atlantic space"³. The constitutional order in Ukraine continued to

deteriorate, although American advisers were making desperate efforts to

pacify all regions inhabited mainly by Russians. But, as if on cue, the regions

inhabited mainly by Russians in eastern Ukraine began to organize

themselves on a nationalist level, reject the Ukrainian authorities and demand

accession to the Russian Federation. Ukraine felt obliged to extend its state

authority over these regions, its steps taking on the appearance of real armed

conflicts, resulting in loss of human lives, material destruction and ideological

radicalization between the parties. Moreover, after numerous actions to

internationalize Ukraine's internal conflicts, on March 24, 2021 Volodymyr

Zelensky issued a decree to reconquer Crimea and began to deploy his forces

in the south of the country. At the same time, several NATO exercises were

held between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, accompanied by a significant

increase in reconnaissance flights along the border with Russia. Russia, in

turn, conducted several exercises to test the operational readiness of its troops

and to show that it was following the development of the situation. During

this entire period, in the media, the country's president and the Russians

became everything that was worst for world peace, for European security, a

threat to which all peace-loving forces had to rally. At the end of November,

Putin sent a request to Washington asking for guarantees from the United

States, which were three: Ukraine to be a neutral state. No nuclear missiles to

be stationed in Ukraine. Ukraine will not be a member of NATO. Weeks

passed, but Washington did not respond. Soon, the security requirements of

the Russian Federation became imperative in two documents, made public

unilaterally in December 2021, one for the United States and one for the

NATO bloc. Through the “Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of

the Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization”, the Kremlin, in the form of an ultimatum, proposed to the

United States to reconsider the results of the Cold War and effectively restore

the status quo of May 27, 1997. In the document to the US, the Russian

Federation demands that the US: eliminate its nuclear weapons and

infrastructure for them from Europe and henceforth refrain from deploying

them near Russia’s borders; not to establish military bases on the territory of

the states that were formerly part of the USSR, not to use their infrastructure

for conducting military activities in these states and not to develop bilateral

military cooperation between the countries from which they can strike targets

3

Brussels Summit Communique, NATO, 14 June 2021, available at https://www.nato.int/-

eps/en/natohp/news_185000.htm?selectedLocale-en, accessed on 13.01.2026.

55

GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

on the territory of the other party; the parties undertake not to deploy ground-

based intermediate-range missiles and shorter-range missiles outside the

national territory, as well as in those areas of their national territory from

which these weapons are capable of striking targets on the territory of the

other party. In the Treaty with NATO, Russia demanded, among other things:

the participants confirm that they do not consider each other adversaries and

maintain dialogue and cooperation to improve mechanisms for preventing

incidents on the high seas, in the airspace above it; the Russian Federation

and all parties that, on May 27, 1997, were member states of the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization do not deploy their armed forces and weapons

on the territory of all other European states, in addition to those deployed on

this territory on May 27, 1997; the participants that are member states of the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization refuse to conduct any military activities

on the territory of Ukraine, as well as in other states of Eastern Europe,

Transcaucasia and Central Asia. The USA and NATO considered such

demands unacceptable and insisted that Russia has no right to oppose the will

of other states to join NATO and has no right to demand changes in NATO

policies. After the regions of eastern Ukraine held referendums declaring

themselves autonomous regions, with the right to demand military defense by

the Russian Federation, the State Duma took note of the demands of these

regions and asked President Putin to act accordingly. World peace was shaken

by the indiscriminate pursuit of the specific interests of the two great powers

of the world: the USA and the Russian Federation, with the direct

involvement of Ukraine and the alignment of the European Union, as well as

the attraction of other state entities.

2. War of aggression or special military operation

Putin ordered his army to take under military protection the Ukrainian

regions that had democratically declared their independence and accession to

the Russian Federation, as part of a “special military operation”, in the more

general context of “denazification” and “desfascism” of Ukraine. Putin called

this military takeover of the respective regions a “special military operation”,

because he believed that he was proceeding in accordance with the recognized

principles of international law, according to which any national groups can

decide through referendums their status of independence, separation from the

old state authorities and accession to the state order specific to other states.

However, the penetration of the Russian armed forces into these regions was

considered by the USA and the European Union as a “war of aggression”,

“unjust war”, “war directed against democratic freedoms”, etc., which

justified the Western world to mobilize and help Ukraine until “victory is

achieved”. Based on the responsibilities assumed towards the leadership of

Ukraine, the USA and the EU initiated a lot of economic sanctions against the

Russian Federation and began to multilaterally support the Ukrainian military

56

Brigadier-general Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret.) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

efforts. At the same time, in the media, the Russian military efforts were

covered with ridicule, and the offensive actions of the Ukrainians were

considered as epic deeds, the heroism of these soldiers being strongly justified

by their desire to restore Ukraine's authority over its borders recognized

before the imperial aggressions of Russia. After almost four years of fierce

fighting, after immense loss of human lives and great material destruction,

after the financial, economic and military resources of the West for this war,

which was expected to be short-lived, began to be exhausted, after

international economic relations were destructured and fragmented, etc., the

USA and the Russian Federation came to the conclusion of returning to a

general peace, which would correspond to bilateral interests. This time, the

EU has found itself excluded from the peace talks, although it has been

heavily involved in supporting the war effort. While there is talk of peace, the

material destruction and loss of life in Ukraine are becoming dramatic, and

the EU feels that it no longer has the resources to support the effort to continue

the war. And this time, the dawn of peace is being discussed at the level of

the great powers that generated the war, while the parties that aligned

themselves with it painfully note that they will only register the costs to which

they were a party. After almost four years of war, Romania, like the entire

EU, notes that "although it has committed to helping Ukraine not only with

what it needs for defense, but to achieve victory", the terms of victory are

conditioned only by the Russian Federation, in agreement with the USA.

3. Lessons of war. Logistical experiences. Consequences

3.1.Lessons of war.

The media have been involved in describing the conflict between

Ukraine and the Russian Federation, mainly from the position of those who

accused Russia of armed aggression, completely ignoring the reasons behind

the special military operation. At first, Russia was presented as a military

colossus, which aimed to conquer the whole of Ukraine in a few days, only

to be covered with ridicule as the offensive actions of the Ukrainian military

forces intensified in the regions where Russian authority was to be

established. Fear of the Russian army was propagated throughout Europe, so

that the EU countries would mobilize, for fear of a war of aggression, to

provide multilateral aid to Ukraine, which had become the defender of

European peace. The US mobilized the EU and other international bodies to

join multiple policies of economic sanctions to which the Russian Federation

was subjected, the media bet on the fact that the Russian Federation would

enter an economic, social and military collapse, but each time the Russian

Federation found solutions to overcome those planned in Western

chancelleries. The EU's trade relations with the Russian Federation were

diminished, to the point of abandoning them, but the consequences of these

steps made the losses of the economies of Western states extremely important.

57

GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

And since a victory of Ukraine, publicly helped by Western states, was

promised, the war in Ukraine turned into one of attrition, the Russian army

quickly adapted to new combat techniques, the threats of the Russian

Federation in the use of nuclear weapons increased, while the financial and

material resources of Western countries began to become problematic.

Military analysts of the four years of devastating war were forced to note that

Russia acted systematically to learn lessons from the battlefield and to begin

a process of repelling Ukrainian forces and advancing safely in the territorial

plan, to incorporate the regions whose military defense they proposed,

threateningly promising to extend these actions to other regions with a

Russian history, but now incorporated into Ukraine. As part of the lessons

learned, Russian officials systematized: the emergence, through Western

advice, of new tactics on the battlefield, which were included in military

regulations; the intensification of weapons research and the innovation of

tools aimed at minimizing new combat tactics. Ukraine systematized the

incorporation of drones into combat processes at any military level, to destroy

manpower and combat equipment identified throughout the depth of the

battlefields; the improvement of tactical missiles and the improvement of

high-precision strike systems; creating more efficient armor. Russians oficials

systematized rethinking the destructive force of tactical artillery; transferring

responsibility to small commanders in the direction of planning and

completing missions; coordinating forces to obtain slow results on the ground

in conditions where they rely on the saturation of NATO states in continuing

to provide aid, since the losses become irreplaceable; organizing superhuman

resistance, characterized by heroism and loss of life, but which would

influence Americans and Europeans to lose interest in Ukraine, etc. From the

highest level of the ukrainian military effort, a five-step learning system was

established: analysis of combat experience, systematization of proposals and

recommendations, dissemination of the solution as a lesson learned, and

future action as an adopted consequence. Even at the central level, in

Moscow, the Russian military has established over twenty commissions

dedicated to analyzing information received from the front lines and

establishing measures and procedures to be disseminated on the battlefield in

the shortest possible time. To increase the destructive power of artillery,

Russian experts have prepared and implemented procedures for integrating

drones into artillery attacks. To ensure that training programs are relevant and

realistic, commands at all levels have taken measures to rotate troops between

the battlefield and their own training ranges, so that intensive training and

modernization of combat operations are carried out throughout the entire

depth of military devices. In order to unconditionally fulfill combat missions,

all servicemen are taught how to take command of missions, how to drive

military vehicles on a complicated battlefield, as well as how to continue

small-scale assaults, within a larger-scale assault, in the face of intense enemy

58

Brigadier-general Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret.) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

artillery and drone countermeasures. Given that Russian soldiers know that

the entire military space is heavily watched by Ukraine, they are trained to

organize assault teams designed to suffocate, overwhelm Ukrainian defensive

positions, by continuing the mission to the last living being.

3.2. Logistical experiences

In the first years of the conflict, ukrainian military specialists

inventoried the design, manufacturing and maintenance defects of the

weapons and equipment in the equipment, simultaneously with the provision

of measures to remedy or replace them. In a short time, manufacturers in the

highly centralized defense industry received instructions to improve

production, to increase the rate of maintenance and innovation on the

battlefield, simultaneously with the launch of specific programs for cognitive

warfare, to find solutions characterized by disruptive novelty, both for

operational weapons in the tactical field, especially for weapons of strategic

importance. Defense companies were obliged to send specialists from various

industries to the perimeter of tactical devices, to direct the repair of damaged

equipment, assess malfunctions and transmit in operative time indications for

its projective and executive modification. Towards the end of 2023, the

central leadership in Moscow ordered measures to integrate civilian

universities and research centers into the general effort required by the front.

Concrete forms of collaboration between military engineers and engineers of

design and research centers at test sites, in training ranges, for responsible

testing of prototypes before they are sent into battle were also specified. In

order to reduce the effectiveness of Ukrainian weapons, Russian engineers

operatively mounted protective armor on vehicles, invented new camouflage

techniques and proposed the adoption of new tactics for conquering tactical

objectives with small and highly mobile subunits. New techniques were put

into operation to integrate logistical mutations into the tactical field by

correlating systems; acquisition or equipment plan, training plan, operation

conduct plan, by involving all military levels. To increase its tactical

resilience, Moscow has been adapting its logistics system on the fly, with an

emphasis on introducing new technologies and new ways of using older

technologies to improve targeting accuracy. The Russian central leadership

has also focused on equipping its own army with unmanned aerial vehicles,

as well as on detecting and destroying these vehicles coming from the enemy

side. As soon as the importance of unmanned aerial vehicles was realized, the

Russian central leadership ordered the establishment of the Rubikon unit, an

elite entity of the Ministry of Defense, which received as its central object of

activity the research and operation of drones, as well as the experimentation

of various training tactics for the effective use of this new combat vehicle.

Overall, Russia, in contrast to the experience of the last world war, has begun

to pay special attention to the logistical conditions of the front. Thus, defense

59

GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

companies have fully moved to modernize vehicle armor, equipping them

with more powerful engines and sophisticated jamming systems, increasing

the lethality of their hovering bombs, increasing drone production, fixing

manufacturing defects, improving maintenance and upkeep protocols, etc.

3.3. Consequences

The Russian army is about to emerge from this war with vast

experience, with a distinct vision of conducting military actions, being able

to share its experience with the countries that were close to it, especially

China, Iran, North Korea, etc. More than anything, the great powers of the

world and the EU are in a position to learn from the created situation and to

understand that the war actions in which the great powers are fully involved

can easily degenerate into a real apocalypse, and world peace already needs

a new reglobalization of the world according to the model after the World

War II. As Russia took measures to adapt the procedures for conducting

military actions to the "lessons learned", Ukraine began to face even greater

losses, so that the flows of resupply of forces from the USA and the EU

became difficult to synchronize. The drastic changes in the fields of research,

manufacturing and dissemination of innovative combat equipment have made

it possible for the technological advantage that Kiev initially enjoyed to be

enhanced. Russian drone and missile attacks have gradually become more

extensive and complex, which has forced the West to provide Kiev with more

air defense systems. After some ephemeral successes, the Ukrainian military

has understood that they have had some successes due to the innovation

advantage supported by the West, but this is about to erode, and Ukraine

knows that, without the coordinated involvement of the US, EU and NATO,

it cannot stop Russian offensive actions by the number of soldiers alone. The

ukrainian army has adapted on the fly to the new requirements of the perfectly

visible battlefield and has abandoned the use of large armored formations,

insisting on the use of small assault teams, strongly supported by all possible

media. Reconnaissance teams, assault teams, heavily supported by drone

forces, etc. form a unified whole designed to ensure the overcoming of the

russian defense. When these small attack units are rendered impossible to

succeed, artillery, missiles and aviation are given the mission of

systematically destroying all physical landmarks incorporated into defense

systems. Whoever looks at the settlements occupied by the ukrainian army

finds that they are strikingly similar to those of World War II, which were

simply wiped off the face of the earth by continuous artillery and aviation

bombardments. Therefore, the Russian army is already focusing on

diversifying unmanned vehicles, an action considered as a multiplier of its

military power, on the modernization of robots, unmanned vehicles and

robots specific to military actions already constituting the most important

weapons of the future. Future military actions, which terrify even the world's

60

Brigadier-general Professor Mircea UDRESCU, Ph.D

Colonel (ret.) Professor Engineer Eugen SITEANU, Ph.D

major military powers, are imagined as directed swarms of relatively

autonomous drones, designed to overwhelm enemy defenses, as microdrone

systems that are difficult to detect and identify, because they can imitate birds,

insects, even other wild animals. Russian military theorists believe that

artificial intelligence will be essential for modern warfare. That is why they

believe that it is absolutely necessary for artificial intelligence to be able to

dominate hypersonic missiles, air defense systems, critical infrastructure

defense systems, etc. In order to avoid being left behind, the US, EU and

NATO are obliged to pay increased attention to the lessons learned from the

war in Ukraine, especially since Russia is already disseminating the lessons

learned to countries considered autocratic. After almost four years of war

between NATO and the Russian, it seems that Ukraine cannot be easily

defeated.

Conclusions

World peace has been put to the test by the two great powers – the

USA and the Russian Federation, whose interests began to become blunt as

NATO entered into a process of expansion to the east, which was interpreted

as an existential threat to the security of the Russian Federation. The turning

point of these interests was marked by the year 2022, when the “special

military operation” initiated by Putin on some regions of eastern Ukraine

became a “war of aggression” for the Western democracies which, led by the

USA and the EU, committed to helping Ukraine until victory was achieved

against the aggression. After almost four years of war, it seems that the

Russian army is in a relatively offensive process, while the member states of

the democratic coalition are already tired in the face of Russian military

resilience. While the US and the Russian Federation agree on a peace plan,

the EU and Ukraine find that they will be forced to pay the price of the war.

For Moscow, the issue is no longer a compromise, in the sense suggested by

the EU, but rather the acceptance of an unconditional surrender by Ukraine,

since the US is trying to pressure the EU to agree to the peace conditions

agreed by the two great powers. In this context, the EU finds itself in a

position to note that the Russian-American plan is nothing more than the

outline of a framework for strategic cooperation between the two great

powers, for which Ukraine is no longer an end in itself, but an instrument for

designing new strategic partnerships agreed by the US. The lessons, logistical

experience and consequences of conducting military operations support

precisely the fact that the great powers that have disrupted the objectives of

world peace, still find reasons for reconciliation, leaving the war efforts to be

paid for by the other states that have engaged in such strategic games.

61

GREAT POWERS AND THE DETERIORATION

OF GLOBAL PEACE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brussels Summit Communique, NATO, June 14, 2021, available at https://-

www.nato.int/eps/en/natohp/news_185000.htm?selectedLocale-en;

COSTANTINIU L., Federația Rusă de mâine prin prisma a două documente

importante, Policy Brief Magazine, no. 20, Bucharest, Romanian

Diplomatic Institute, february 2010.

FREEDMAN L., Viitorul războiului, Litera Publishing House, Bucharest,

2019;

NULAND V., USA-Ukraine Foundation Conference, december 2013.

62