SYMBOLISM AS A COMPONENT OF COUNTERING HYBRID THREATS IN THE OPERATIONAL AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES OF THE STATE BORDER SERVICE OF UKRAINE: ADAPTATION TO EURO-ATLANTIC STANDARDS

Authors

  • Yu.O. Babiy Bohdan Khmelnytskyi National Academy of the State Border Service of Ukraine Author
  • V.V. Polishchuk Bohdan Khmelnytskyi National Academy of the State Border Service of Ukraine Author
  • A.V. Yakymchuk Bohdan Khmelnytskyi National Academy of the State Border Service of Ukraine Author
  • V. S. Demchyshyn Bohdan Khmelnytskyi National Academy of the State Border Service of Ukraine Author
  • A.I. Zarytska Military Institute of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Author
  • T.Ya. Servilo Bohdan Khmelnytskyi National Academy of the State Border Service of Ukraine Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17721/2519-481X/2025/87-02

Keywords:

tactical symbols, State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, NATO standards, APP-6, STANAG 2019, counterterrorism, hybrid warfare, interoperability, mobile application, Delta

Abstract

The article examines the process of developing and implementing a unified system of tactical symbols intended for use in the operational and service activities of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine) taking into account compatibility with NATO standards, in particular APP-6 and STANAG 2019. In the context of growing hybrid threats, terrorist challenges and deepening cooperation with partners in the North Atlantic Alliance, the relevance of implementing a single symbol system is significantly increasing. The lack of unified tactical symbols complicates interaction between units, reduces the efficiency of decision-making and makes it impossible to fully use digital cartographic systems, mobile applications and automated control systems. The paper analyzes existing international standards for tactical symbols, identifies the main problems of adapting them to the specifics of the tasks of the border guard service, and also proposes a methodology for building a new system of symbols. The main principles of creating the system include: uniformity, unambiguousness, readability, compliance with international requirements and the possibility of integration into digital environments (for example, ArcGIS, QGIS, combat maps, mobile applications). The article presents practical examples of symbols: for designating mobile groups, border detachments, UAV detection zones, suspicious objects, etc. Special attention is paid to the impact of the new system on the effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination and on the ability of the State Border Guard Service units to respond promptly in cases of terrorist threats or emergencies. The proposed system of symbols is an important stage in the digital transformation of the border service and increasing its capabilities in the field of national security, counterterrorism and integration into joint defense initiatives of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Author Biographies

References

1. (2020). NATO Standardization Office. APP-6(D): Military Symbols for Land Based Systems. Brussels: NATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICE (NSO), p. 922. Retrieved from: https://litpolukrbrig.wp.mil.pl/u/APP-6D_JOINT_MILITARY_SYMBOLOGY._16_October_2017.pdf [in English]

2. (2021). NATO Science and Technology Organization. SAS-161 : The Future of Situational Awareness and Interoperability in Hybrid Warfare. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Brussels: NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, vol. 1, p. 256. Retrieved from: https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Technical%20Reports/STO-TR-SAS-161-VOL-I/%24%24TR-SAS-161-Vol-I-ALL.pdf [in English]

3. (2023). Border Security Measures Against Terrorism. Global Counterterrorism Forum. Geneva: NATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICE (NSO), p. 26. Retrieved from: https://www.thegctf.org/Portals/1/Documents/Framework%20Documents/2016%20and%20before/GCTF-Good-Practices%20-BSM-ENG.pdf [in English]

4. (2021). NATO Science and Technology Organization. STO-EN-IST-170. Cyber and Symbolic Mapping in Digital Battlefields. Brussels: NATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICE (NSO), p. 18. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/yuobabii/Downloads/EN-IST-170-07.pdf [in English]

5. Putrenko V., Pashynska N. (2024). Military Situation Awareness: Ukrainian Experience. NATO Training Mission. ACIG Journal. Military Training and Situation Monitoring. Brussels, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 122–146. DOI: 10.60097/ ACIG/190341 [in English]

6. (2023). Anti-terrorist concept. Report. Kyiv: SBU Retrieved from: https://ssu.gov.ua/ua/pages/antyterorystychnyi-tsentr [in Ukrainian]

7. (2018). United States Department of Defense. MIL-STD-2525D: Department of Defense Interface Standard – Joint Military Symbology. Washington, D.C.: NATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICE (NSO). Retrieved from: https://assist.dla.mil/quicksearch/basic_profile.cfm?ident_number=36181 [in English]

8. (2022). Military Situation Awareness in Ukraine: Delta System in Action. ACIG Journal. 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.acig.org/ukraine-delta-awareness-2022.pdf [in English]

9. Lanham M. (2022). Cyber Defence Planning: Operating on Unconventional Terrain. Army Communicator. Brussels, pp. 7–12. [in English]

10. Jawhara I., Mohamedb N., Jameela Al-Jaroodic J., Agrawald D. and Zhang S. (2017). Communication and networking of UAV-based systems: Classification and associated architectures. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 84, pp. 93–108. [in English]

11. Winkelholz C. Cyber Defence – Visualizing and Analyzing Netflow Logfiles, Visualization for Analysis (NATO STO-TR-IST-110). 2018. Pp 67–75. [in English]

12. McCroskey E. D., Mock C. A. (2017). Operational Graphics for Cyberspace. Commentary. JFQ 85, 2nd Quarter 2017, p. 85. [in English]

Published

2025-11-20

Issue

Section

MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND TWO-DESTINATION TECHNOLOGIES