Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has been ongoing for 10 years now, and the Great War has been going on for longer than 900 days. The world has seen that Ukrainian soldiers, our defenders are our golden fund. They are holding us all in this world, holding the State, defending Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, and all of Europe.

Let's talk about what our Armed Forces are fighting with, what warfighting assets – weapons and equipment -- we possess, because the heroism alone, training, and our soldiers’ aptitude to defend their land will not suffice. More weapons are required.

This conversation is with Mykhailo Samus, deputy CEO for International Affairs at of the Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies. He also heads the newly created platform New Geopolitics Research Network --  a platform that addresses exactly the issues this interview is about.

- Recently, a new armed forces branch, the Unmanned Systems Forces, has been organized in Ukraine. We already know pretty a lot about it. Unmanned systems are not just what we encounter now and then, but also what is being continuously developing. Unmanned technologies find applications in a broad diversity of fields. So what was the point in getting them aggregated into a separate branch of the military?

- Application fields for unmanned systems have seen truly amazing transformations over the past two years, if you remember drones of what kind we had at the beginning of the Great War. Thank God, we had Bayraktars back then, which played a crucial role in countering the large-scale invasion in its initial stages. But currently we are talking about millions of drones, hundreds of types of drones, hundreds of manufacturers in Ukraine. Production capacities for these drones are mainly located here, in Ukraine, which is a fantastic achievement. For the time being, it is Ukraine who has taken the lead in the development of unmanned aerial vehicle technology. So it is only reasonable that, in Ukraine, for the first time in the history of its Armed Forces, a separate armed forces branch has been organized. Indeed, one may ask, why set up a separate military branch where diverse unmanned systems are used by each mechanized battalion, Marine or Navy unit, or the Air Force, for example. These are aerial systems, as well as unmanned ground vehicles and marine drones. As for naval drones, Ukraine is the undisputed leader in this field, and Ukraine has effectively expelled ​​the Russian naval fleet from the Black Sea, which is also a unique achievement.

Why create a separate branch of the Armed Forces? Because, basically, the Ukrainian Armed Forces is a system that needs to trial out command-and-control cycles  as quickly as possible: ranging from target coordinate determination, immediate transmission of the target data to a command post, and to decision making on engaging a target and by what means. Drones enable the time involved in the command-and-control cycle to be reduced to the minimum. Now we are talking about the seconds between the times a target is detected, located and engaged with a drone. These capabilities are genuinely unique. Reconnaissance, strike systems, high-precision control systems – these all are concentrated and based on a drone. It is often even said that the Armed Forces have become drone-centric.

And it is precisely in order to develop the use tactics, to have a relevant doctrine in place, to arrange for the training of specialist professionals, the training of units, that it is necessary to have a specialized service within the Armed Forces. In order to make sure a particular military branch is used to best effect, a management system is need that generates power, formulates doctrines, provides for support, training and, of course, combat deployment. And it is within the doctrine of joint forces that particular military branches are integrated for joint operations. And where appropriate for an operation, we already have in place a separate regiment of unmanned systems. We started with strike drone companies, then proceeded to strike drone battalions, and now we have a marine strike drone regiment that reports to the command of the Unmanned Systems Forces.

- Now it became obvious that it is not just about direct management and command-and-control, but more about the principles of combat deployment. And in this connection, another issue that you’ve mentioned arises. Modern warfare and modern combat operations rely on a multiplicity of various data that must be quickly received, quickly processed, and be quickly transmitted to generate target engagement commands. Communication, transmission of information from unmanned systems to command-and-control centers, encryption of these communication links, countering hostile EW threats, this all is the weakest link, at least was in the initial phase of the Great War. How will the creation of the separate military branch, the Unmanned Systems Forces, help break this bottleneck?

- Interestingly enough, as unmanned technologies were developing, the question of creating state-of-the-art automated control systems arose. Automated control systems are known to have been worked on since the 1960s. Modern, industrialized armed forces have developed a host of solutions in this field.

But weirdly enough, the Ukrainians have been able to create cutting-edge, effective, efficient, affordable automated control systems like Kropyva or DELTA, and these technologies had been developed privately with no government funding involved.

DELTA, which is a cloud resource, is the most telling, most conspicuous example. This automated control system is very friendly to the operator, providing him with the integrated information he needs to do the control and make decisions to engage particular targets. As a matter of fact, the Delta system was created based initially on the development of unmanned systems. But there was a need to develop, as our Western partners say, a network-centric capability based on such automated control systems. And our partners are shocked by how cheap this effective, user-friendly system is to develop. This system is used throughout the chain of command – from a squad level and up to the level of the armed forces chief commander. In a famous photo, General Syrsky is shown standing in front of a bunch of screens displaying information from drones and various sensors, and this all is integrated and can be used to support decision-making.

- Indeed, this is perhaps one of the success stories, renowned both across Ukraine and globally, about how a private initiative can create a state-of-the-art, modern technology. Now that the Great War has surpassed its 900th day, it is probably worth mentioning the weapons that were available to us these 900 days earlier, when all our embassies, military, and intelligence were searching across the world looking for Soviet-era ammunition and weapons. Compare this with what we possess now: the first F-16s arrived in Ukraine in late July, the second corvette for the Ukrainian Navy was launched in Istanbul at the end of July, we have a lot more – and this is crazy progress, an incredible difference. How does this affect the situation on the battlefield?

- Where there is talk about artillery, for example, we have gone through a complete transformation; we have switched from Soviet-style artillery to NATO calibers, NATO standards. We have better artillery capability than the Russians, that's for sure. Indeed, they surpass us in numbers.  But they are already using artillery guns produced back in the late 1940s, because the 130-mm guns turned out compatible with the projectiles they’ve received from North Korea. Currently they are taking out of stocks what the Soviet Union probably never thought of putting to use. But they have already reached the bottom, they are digging out everything they can from the Soviet-era stock.

In Ukraine, the situation is utterly different; in terms of artillery, we are several heads ahead. I'm not talking about quantity -- of course, it's hard to argue here -- but about quality, range, high accuracy, and technological effectiveness, again, with a capability provided for integration into automated control systems, artillery, reconnaissance systems, and automated guidance.

Until the middle of this year, we were experiencing a shortage due to the turbulence in the United States Congress and, to put it bluntly, our European partners’ lack of readiness for war. In other words, three decades after the end of the Cold War, everyone was in a somewhat romantic haze, preparing more for peace, business as usual with Russia, cheap gas, etc. This being the case, our partners did not invest in their defense manufacturing capacities. This was looked at as just a business, as in France, Germany, and the Netherlands among many others, while the United States was more focused on exports. If we look at the armed forces of their own, in Germany, for example, there are actually no combat-ready tanks, warplanes, or helicopters. And this all now needs to be reviewed, audited, and increased in numbers. Same with ammunition. There was no need to manufacture millions of munitions every year. And that explains why the switch over to NATO standards and NATO calibers has already taken place in Ukraine.

The transfer of the F-16s is a symbolic event; basically, our air force is being elevated to a higher capability level. This, along with the platform, the aircraft proper, implies the use of systems like LINK-16. This is a data transmission system, a NATO automated control system. Plus the use of AWACS data, the information from which will not just be extremely useful for our F-16s, but will also enable the pilot to be aware of the situation within a 400-500 kilometer radius, to see targets on the ground, at sea, and in the air, and, of course, use his weapons to best effect. So, this is not just a flying platform, but an element in the system that will transform Ukrainian defenses, will integrate them with NATO’s. Even despite our partners’ political hesitation, we are already becoming a member of NATO actually.

- True, Europe, the world as a whole, particularly the United States of America are experiencing the lack of attention to security issues. After the end of the Cold War, the world came to think that everything bad had passed, that we can no longer care about security, can cut down not only stocks, but also production levels. A lack of capabilities is one of the lessons we’ve learnt from the Great War. Defense industries in Europe proved ill prepared not only for military operations of this scale and intensity, but even for replenishing own stocks and giving up ex-Soviet weapons altogether. Now in Europe, it seems like everything Soviet has been broken with.  So, the questions that arise are related to the fact that the European Union and particularly the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who has been re-elected for a new term, have a vision that the EU should become a full-fledged actor on the world stage -- self-sufficient, capable of defending itself and capable of producing weapons and munitions in sufficient quantities for themselves and for the needs of Ukraine. Even more, Mrs. Leyen, already at this point in time, sees that the Ukrainian defense industry will be incorporated. And work on joint production and planning has already got under way.

Getting back to the F-16 fighters and aviation overall, we know that Ukraine possesses aircraft manufacturing capabilities of its own: we can build transport aircraft, but cannot build fighters yet. We need to develop further our capacities and capabilities, we have received the initial shipment of F-16 fighters, and the President is talking about our requirement for 128 such warplanes. When talking about the future, about planning, we must understand where we have to go. Shall we continue with the focus on the F-16 as the core aircraft? Shall we think about setting up a production capacity of our own? Shall we join in co-development and production of next-generation airplanes?

- Indeed, Ursula von der Leyen is currently doing a very big job. This is a kind of turning point, actually. She even uses the term “European defense union”, meaning she's explicitly talking about a European Defense Union. True, no one has yet seen a legislative definition of what it is. Obviously, this does not yet mean the creation of a European army, but rather is primarily about a defense industrial capability.

Regarding specific projects, they in Europe did work on technology development projects. In the aviation domain, there are two European projects to develop sixth-generation fighters, which are planned to be implemented in a collaboration with the UK and Japan. This, unfortunately, means that there was a scattering of funds in the European Union. Because these projects, even at the initial stages, cost 100 billion euros each. Meanwhile, the Americans have taken over the entire market with their F-35s. The European projects have a horizon of implementation until 2050-2060. My opinion is that, at this point in time, autonomous unmanned systems will have more relevance. It will make little sense investing several hundreds of billions of euros in developing a sixth-generation fighter, which will actually be just a follow-on to fifth-generation aircraft (mainly due to electronic systems). This is going to be a piloted aircraft, and, as I see it, piloted aviation, by that time, will be more of a disadvantage than an advantage.

That is why Ukraine and Turkey are now working on a collaborative project, named Kizilelma, to develop an unmanned fighter with the capabilities very similar to a fifth-generation aircraft’s. This holds much promise. This, sadly enough, is not the European Union, but Ukraine has expertise in this domain, and they even employ our engines. I hope other systems will follow; [the Turkish company] Baykar, for example, is building its factory in Ukraine.

That said, Ukraine has the potential to become a lead stakeholder in the European Defense Union and even take the lead in infrastructure building and project implementation. In the EU, these issues are dealt with by the European Defense Agency, but Ursula von der Leyen wants its role changed, because, regrettably, most of the Agency’s projects failed to reach the practical implementation phase. Therefore, they began to think about how it turns out that, in Ukraine, for example, there are 200 companies manufacturing drones, which quickly find themselves deployed to the battlefield amid war. We have formats that enable reducing the time involved in the cycle of technology development, testing and service entry. What takes several years in Europe can be done within a two-months’ time here in Ukraine. So, they are looking at our experience, at how to remove bureaucracy, automate these processes as much as possible and, most importantly, use funds very efficiently. Because funds are scattered when planning procurements. By way of illustration, even the Visegrad Group countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) purchased varieties of fighter jets, helicopters, and air defense systems. These projects are valued at hundreds of millions of dollars each. So it would be good for them to plan together, raise funds together and purchase identical planes together.

So now, when they are talking about sixth-generation aircraft, Ukrainians say: well, let's see, let's figure out what will be happening on the battlefield actually? Should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the sixth generation aircraft, or maybe the F-35 is a suitable alternative, and wouldn’t it be better to invest money in automated unmanned systems, as is done in Ukraine?

So, Ukraine has something to offer, we have good prospects and look forward to joint projects.

- Russia’s war of aggression has changed a lot, in fact, a renaissance of the defense industry is unfolding before our eyes. Let's hope that the Ukrainian industry will take its rightful place and there will be a greater interest by European companies in co-development and co-production, which we could not hope for before. In this connection, it is interesting whether our future potential capabilities are being discussed within the expert community? We need a return to the arms market; Ukraine used to be and should remain a significant arms exporter. Do we have a vision of what we will focus on, what will we develop and produce?

- To me, it looks like our defense-industrial sector still remains to be under-reformed. It was not until 2020 that the [government-owned defense industries group] Ukrboronprom began to undergo reforms and transformations, after a new legislation on government procurements had been adopted, the Soviet-style defense procurement system was eventually replaced with a procurement system similar to NATO’s, and the legislation itself was modeled after NATO law. In terms of functionality, basically, Antonov, for example, is destined to be with Airbus or with Boeing. For now, Antonov is an outstanding design and development company that has in its portfolio unique technologies like the An-70 [military transport], for instance.  Boeing does not have an aircraft like that, but Airbus has the A400M. Boeing has attempted a collaboration with Brazil to create an airplane similar to the An-178, but due to the current political instability in Brazil, I don't think Boeing will feel it comfortable working with Embraer. And that's what makes the An-178, An-70 quite appealing to Boeing, I feel like.

Regarding Ukraine’s missile program, I believe we should contact the American companies Northrop-Grumman and Raytheon to discuss cooperation. Ukraine has technology developments in this domain, particularly in cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, but it is very much difficult for one individual country, be it even Germany, France, or Great Britain to develop a missile program all by itself. And that is where cooperation makes sense, and even more so where technology and experience exchange is involved.

Basically, I think that at this moment in time Ukraine has a very big chance to become a part of cooperation without losing its national identity. We have our achievements, especially in unmanned aviation and automated control systems, EW systems, we have grand achievements, unmanned naval craft. But we still need to finalize the transformation of our defense-industrial sector. It should be less centralized, allow more access to the market, to the domestic defense procurement market, provide private businesses with more opportunities for access to investments. But large state-owned companies, too, have to move closer to the market, because centralization is not going to work now. We need to set up contacts, set up cooperation with Western partners.

- In our defense industry, the private sector is becoming increasingly visible, like in all of Europe, like in foreign countries.  There is healthy competition, everyone has opportunities, and private initiative is appropriate and effective.

Now that our conversation is coming to an end, I would like to ask you a question I feel is important in the context of future strategies, plans for the future. There is obviously a lack of balance in that there are cutting-edge, high-end, highly accurate, high-cost weapons systems coexisting on the battlefield with affordable, easy-to-manufacture, but still efficacious defeat means. So, the question is: where to look for a golden mean between the valuable and cutting-edge on the one hand and the affordable and used in aplenty on the other?

- Expensive, state-of-the-art systems began emerging in the United States and in Europe during the past 30 years, where arms production turned into a business, where aircraft prices reached sky-high, up to USD 200 million for a fighter jet and as much for a transport. It would be unfeasible to buy one such just to deliver rations to soldiers on the battlefield. Since it was a business, and Europe and the United States did not see a big war ahead of them, that is how it turned out. But when the real-world war broke out, technologies began to be created not for the sake of business development or for profit, but for the sake of an effect achieved on the battlefield. And so it happened that the transformed experience in using unmanned systems pushed the Ukrainians to become the first to create a first-person-view (FPV) drone, which, itself valued at just $500, can destroy a tank worth $7 million or a $50 million helicopter.

We are seeing armored vehicles of various types being outfitted with additional protections to make them more resilient to incoming projectiles, But still the question arises: what role a tank, an armored vehicle has in modern warfare.

We have reached a turning point in how a war is being waged; there is a movement towards autonomous systems and artificial intelligence technologies being deployed to the battlefield in ever increasing quantities. Artificial intelligence is exactly what is needed to enable autonomous systems to reach the level where a human makes a decision, which is then executed automatically without further human involvement. That’s to say, this is a future, in which it will be too expensive to get a human personally engaged in hostilities. I am expecting that it will not be long before Western militaries begin using autonomous systems against hostile personnel, meaning a lesser amount of expensive systems will have to be deployed.

What we are witnessing actually is a total transformation of technologies, of the battlefield, of the market, and of the way arms manufacturing industries are being developed. And Ukraine is at the forefront in this transformation. By way of illustration, I saw marine drones displayed at exhibitions in foreign countries 15 years ago, each carrying very high price tag. Ukrainian-made naval drones, valued at several million dollars, can destroy a submarine or a ship priced at 400-500 million. And that's why I think Ukraine should avail of this chance to become a front-runner in implementing new standards on the battlefield and new standards in the manufacture of weaponry and military gear.

- Thank you. This conversation was very interesting; not so much in terms of weapons, but in terms of the future, the prospects, and the fact that the focus is still on man, the one who makes decisions, who fights, who invents new technologies, and on whom everything depends. Nowadays, it is the Ukrainian military on whom everything depends. And let us wish them success! Glory to Ukraine!

- Heroes of Glory! Thank you!

Interviewed by Ihor Dolgov

Full video of the interview is available on Ukrinform’s YouTube channel (Ukrinform TV)