Willingness to fight for Ukraine: Lessons to the Baltic states
By Jānis Bērziņš and Victoria Vdovychenko
Although not necessarily new, indirect and asymmetric methods of warfare have become more common in the last 30 years. This is the result of the development of new technologies and the rise of what the West calls ”hybrid warfare,” with the fabrics of the nation being increasingly targeted by hostile actors to achieve the ultimate objectives of warfare in the political realm. Since the threat is multilayered and targets the nation’s very existence, war and defense should go beyond the armed forces and involve the whole of society. Therefore, the whole of society is a legitimate target and should take part in defense and war efforts. Since contemporary warfare targets a nation in its totality, defense must go beyond the traditional military realm. It must include the people, information system, culture, politics, economics, and infrastructure to increase the nation’s resilience. One fundamental factor determining a country’s resilience is the relationship between the social and the political realms. Data from the World Values Survey shows that, before the escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine, a considerable gap existed between both realms with antagonistic characteristics. Taking the above into account, a fair question to be answered is why Russia’s war against Ukraine helped consolidate the Ukrainian nation and reduced the gap between the social and political realms resulting in greater resilience? This article uses Ukraine as a case study to draw lessons about resilience in non-kinetic/hybrid warfare to the Baltic states that might be extended to Western countries.
Download the latest BSR Policy Briefing: BSR Policy Briefing 9_2022 (pdf) (2.4 MB)
