This Means War Peter Roberts

All wars have elements of attrition in them – like it or not. Battles of attrition are not linear either, they depend – to a large extent – on battlespace geometry. Peter is joined by Dr Jack Watling for one of their monthly chats – this time about attrition, from the 19th Century to today. Their conversation turns covers themes of people, leadership, logistics, casualties, ideation, and time, and how each of these relate to the realities of combat attrition, wars of attrition, and strategies of attrition. And as always, they remind us that the enemy gets a vote too.

Why is winning a war so hard? According to Dr Mike Martin, realism seems to be missing in the formation of strategy to fight wars. Evidence to support this abounds from Russia and the West over the past 25 years, and there is an interesting conversation to be had about why that is. Peter talks to Mike about the other intangibles of war so often overlooked – particularly logistics, morale and training. As a prelude and insight into Mike’s new book “How to Fight a War”, this episode is bound to elicit some comment: it is designed to stimulate some of those important conversations.

Peter talks to Professor Katarzyna Zysk from IFS in Oslo about Russian military AI development, from the core reasons it is being pursued to the implementation plans and their maturity index of outputs. Most worrying perhaps is the discussion on ethical limitations (or lack thereof) being imposed on developers in Russia, whether in the realm of Lethal Autonomous Weapons or in experimentation with humans outside the decision loops. While many commentators have written off the Russian military following their performance in Ukraine over the past 12 months, this might well be premature. The inevitable recapitalisation of Russia’s military will place AI and Emerging and Disruptive Technologies at the core of a new Russian force design. Taking that into account now is essential in de-risking Western decisions about the future.

Peter talks to the inimitable Whit Mason, a strategic communications guru, about why the Ukrainian information operations campaign has been so successful over the past year during Russia’s invasion of their country. They talk about the strengths and weaknesses of President Zelenskyy’s communications campaign, and where the opportunities and threats lie for the next phase of the war. What emerges from this conversation is not just how good the Ukrainian team have been at strategic communications but also how fortunate they have been to have such an incompetent adversary in the Kremlin.

How have cyber conflicts played out between Russia and Ukraine? Over the last decade the idea of cyber war had been widely hailed as a horse/tank moment in warfare, perhaps more even: speeches were made about the cyber domain would have the ability to determine the future of battlefields, and to make armies, air forces and navies irrelevant. And Russia has always been noted to be be a Tier One cyber state, whereas Ukraine wasn't - certainly in February 2022. Peter talks to Rob Black at Wilton Park about how the cyber war played out over the first year of Russia's war on Ukraine - and why it failed to deliver what the cyber acolites promised. While political and military leaders have placed huge emphasis on the silver bullets that were supposed to be cyber weapons, the reality in Ukraine seems to have demonstrated something very different. The Gartner Hype curve of technology seems to have some home to roost.

Meeting the challenges of both conventional and irregular warfare requires mutually exclusive forces specialised in acting against each one. Peter talks to Dr Jack Watling, Senior Research Fellow for Land Warfare at RUSI in London, about why a military force designed for conventional warfare is ineffective at irregular warfare; the verso also applies. There are a myriad of reasons - from embedded culture to training requirements - why this is the case, from formations and skills of Special Forces but also for signals, communication, command, aviation, and logistics. People and their approaches, as well as their networks, is the key factor however. Given that future adversaries are likely to employ both means (unconventional and conventional) to challenge the status quo, nations will need to either construct forces for each strategic approach they face, or specialise in one. Alternatively, states can try to do both with a single force structure and probably - judging on historical evidence, and some contemporary examples too - fail. In times increasing global tensions when autocracies are leaning towards the use of military force as a key lever of power, the decision facing political leaders is whether to fund their militaries or rely on the doctrine of hopeless optimism.