Today, only Ukraine and Russia are ready for land war. We must change that
The requirements for success are the same in general terms. We need actionable intelligence on enemy dispositions and intentions, the ability to strike and defeat the enemy, and the ability to hold ground. This latter and most important element still requires soldiers. The trench warfare today in the Donbas is no different to the trench warfare at Ypres in 1915. Necessity is the mother of innovation on today's battlefield as much as it was during WWI, and trained manpower is still essential to develop and exploit any sort of success.
For most casual observers on the war in Ukraine, it is the drone which has changed the nature of conflict, but I suggest that is a false assumption. It is the changing way drones are used, not their inherent characteristics which have changed the fight. My last post in the British Army was in an intelligence role to help bring the Watchkeeper drone into service. This was a multi-million-pound surveillance platform. If you lose one such vehicle, you lose a huge amount of your capability. Today for the same price you can buy 10,000 drones off the shelf which can do much the same job. You can lose quite large numbers of these and your fighting capability is barely affected.
What is key today is the electromagnetic spectrum – he who controls this, controls the battle space. This means that fighting is not now about men and women being robust and able to shoot straight: there is an increasing role for the gamer and the hacker to affect the outcome of the battle from a 'room in-the-rear'. Most of the soldiers killed in today's war are killed by drones, potentially operated by someone far off: most of the drones, however, are relatively short ranging, meaning that the drone which kills a soldier probably took off from somewhere not that far away. There is thus still a need for tough, brave troops able to operate close to the enemy lines.
At the beginning of the war, we were training the Ukrainian army how to fight, but it is now them who are showing us the way to operate on the contemporary battlefield and I hope we are listening. We must also acknowledge, with the evolution of technology accelerating at such a pace, that where possible, we must buy drones etc off-the-shelf, modified if required. If we try to produce everything ourselves it will be well out of date well before it hits the front. Where we have the advantage, as perhaps in laser anti-drone technology, we should lead, but for most other capabilities we should follow our allies.
The much-discussed Strategic Defence Review is about to hit the streets with the plans for the British military over the next decade or so. With the current pace of change, it is no small wonder it is delayed and shrouded in secrecy. The team producing it are no doubt nervous about backing the wrong horse, tank or drone. The old saw 'there is nothing new, just stuff we forgot' has some resonance here. What has certainly not changed is the general principles of war, or as General Bill Slim put it 'hit the other fellow as fast as you can, as hard as you can, when he ain't looking and where it hurts him most'.
The principles of war have not changed at all, but the pace of innovation and technology has never been faster. Agility and flexibility are key. Well trained, motivated and well led soldiers are still essential, but control of the electromagnetic spectrum is the single most significant element for the successful prosecution of violence on the battlefield today and likely into the future.
The Review must produce a fighting force fit for the current and future battlefield – not the 'status quo ante' which Reviews have been wont to do in the past.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Can Zelensky the warrior cut it as a peacetime leader?
Short, sweet and largely symbolic might be a reasonable summary of Volodymyr Zelensky's Downing Street visit on the eve of the US-Russia summit in Alaska. There will be those who take issue with Zelensky's swanning around foreign parts at such a time. There will also be those – some, if not many of them, in Russia – who hope that the coming days will, one way or the other, spell the end of Zelensky's power. For all the mis-steps and failings on the part of his Kyiv government, Zelensky is likely to be the person who has to try to shepherd Ukraine from war to peace, and needs to be supported as maybe the only one who can. In retrospect, the catastrophic Oval Office press conference where Zelensky was humiliated by the US president and his team, can be seen as a turning point of a kind, which rallied European officialdom and opinion behind him, just as popular enthusiasm for Ukraine's cause was starting to fade. Surprisingly, perhaps, what the Trump administration appears not to have done is ever to have broached replacing Zelensky. There were certainly names in the frame, in late Biden and early Trump weeks, that included Petro Poroshenko, Zelensky's predecessor as president, and the man he soundly defeated at the ballot box; Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's former commander in chief, now ambassador to London; former Zelensky security adviser Oleksiy Arestovych; and the people-friendly mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko. Ukraine's former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, has also recently made a return to Western media prominence. But there are good reasons why the bouts of speculation have now died down, both in Ukraine and abroad. In personal authority and political charisma, Zelensky puts all of these potential rivals in the shade. By any standards, he has shown himself time and again an individual of great personal courage and an exemplary champion of his country. Boris Johnson was not wrong about this, and it would appear that Trump has come around to recognising this – which is why he became a lot less dismissive of Zelensky after their fence-mending meeting at the Vatican after the death of Pope Francis. I would even venture that Trump sees in Zelensky something of the same quality he professed to admire in Vladimir Putin before his first term – a leader unafraid to stand up for the interests of his country. Zelensky has also proved himself a convincing leader and manager of people. These abilities shone through during the presidential campaign he fought and won, as a rank outsider, in 2019. But he could have won simply by virtue of his profile as the acclaimed star of his Servant of the People television satire. What he demonstrated in the months thereafter was that he could actually form a team and use the political system to produce results, and that his undoubted communication skills were transferable to the political domain – and, alas, also to war. The promise of his two first years makes it all the more tragic that he found himself a war leader rather than the architect of a new Ukraine and a pioneer for the durable peace with Russia that had been a significant plank of his election campaign. As someone from a Ukrainian Jewish family whose first language was Russian and who had spent some of his early career performing on Russian TV, Zelensky had a profile that was almost as much of a unifying gift to Ukraine at the time as was Angela Merkel's appearance as a centre-right politician from the East in German politics. It is here that in these early months, I would argue, that most of the West made a crucial mistake: the US, the EU and the UK simply failed to take Zelensky seriously as a political leader. They dismissed him as a small-time comedian (ignoring his law degree and his highly successful career as a writer and producer), and apparently gambled that he would to fail, so smoothing the way for their reliable client, Poroshenko, to return to office, after a defeat they had totally failed to anticipate. That year of lost Western support weakened Zelensky's position both at home vis-a-vis the nationalist right and vis-a-vis Russia. His peace project – which might have averted all that led up to the Russian invasion on 24 February 2022 – faltered and failed. That Johnson, then the US and the EU soon sprang to Ukraine's aid, welcomed refugees and supplied ever more weapons, has enabled Ukraine to continue fighting to this day. And Zelensky has played the tireless war leader, wearing his fatigues, broadcasting nightly to his people, travelling the war zones and the world to defend Ukraine's cause. Even those who eventually tired of Zelensky's ubiquity cannot deny that he has set a formidable example of how to fulfil such a role. As for the charges that he should have held elections this spring – as some of his critics complain, and the Kremlin uses as an argument to deny his legitimacy – this holds no water. Ukraine is under martial law regulations, which rules out elections. They can wait. As for the decree, passed early in the war, that bans talks with Putin; it was passed at Zelensky's initiative; and he can choose to disregard it. Recent ructions over anti-corruption institutions may be a harbinger of latent domestic dissent, but some judicious politicking on Zelensky's part showed who was in charge. None of this is to say that Zelensky is the ideal leader, in peace or in war. Hagiography has to be avoided, and elevating Zelensky from national leader to standard bearer for all Europe and the West, as the Biden administration and some Europeans have done, may come to be seen as a cardinal mistake. But Zelensky has never, so far as I can recall, shirked responsibility for his decisions, unlike so many in his business. The next days and weeks may determine whether, in the future, his name is emblazoned on streets, squares and statues, or whether it becomes a byword for loss. As of now, and perhaps nearing the war's end, Ukrainians should look back with pride that they elected Zelensky as their president in a free and fair election that now seems many, many years ago.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Turkey to provide weapons and support to Syria under new defense agreement
Turkey will provide weapons, military equipment, and logistical support to Syria under a newly signed defense cooperation agreement, Turkish Defense Ministry officials said Thursday. The announcement came a day after Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler and Syria's Defense Minister Murhaf Abu Qasra signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation on military training and consultancy, reinforcing Turkey's support to Syria's interim government. Syria last month requested Turkey's support to strengthen its defense capabilities following sectarian violence in the country that also drew intervention by Israel. Under the agreement, Turkey would share its 'knowledge and experience' and supply military equipment, weapons systems and logistical materials to help strengthen the country's capabilities, Turkish Defense Ministry officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be quoted by name. Syria's newly formed interim government has faced mounting challenges in restoring orde r and addressing the deep scars left by nearly 14 years of civil conflict, following the ouster of former President Bashar Assad by Islamist-led rebel forces in December. Most recently, hundreds were killed in clashes in the southern province of Sweida between government forces and local Bedouin tribesmen on one side and fighters from the Druze minority on the other. Turkey has been supportive of Syria's new administration, which is formed largely by rebels that Ankara backed during the civil war. Also Wednesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan warned Israel and Kurdish fighters to cease actions threatening Syria's stability, accusing them of undermining the country's efforts to reestablish itself after more than a decade of civil war. Speaking during a joint news conference Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani in Ankara, Fidan accused the U.S.-allied and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, of stalling the implementation of an agreement that was reached in March to merge with the Syrian army. Last week, representatives of Syria's various ethnic and religious groups held a conference in the northeastern Syrian city of Hassakeh — which is under the SDF's control — and called for the formation of a decentralized state and the drafting of a new constitution that guarantees religious, cultural and ethnic pluralism. The Syrian government criticized the meeting, and alleged that among the attendees were some with secessionist ambitions. It said that as a result it long longer intends to join planned talks with the SDF in Paris that had been agreed upon in late July. No date had yet been set for the Paris talks.
Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump thinks Putin is ready to make a deal on Ukraine
WASHINGTON, Aug 14 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Thursday he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin will make a deal about his war on Ukraine, and that the threat of sanctions against Russia likely played a role in Moscow's decision to seek a meeting. Trump is scheduled to meet with Putin in Alaska on Friday. The U.S. president said he is unsure whether an immediate ceasefire can be achieved, but expressed interest in brokering a peace agreement. "I believe now, he's convinced that he's going to make a deal. He's going to make a deal. I think he's going to, and we're going to find out," Trump said in an interview on Fox News Radio's "The Brian Kilmeade Show." Earlier in the day, Putin said the United States was making "sincere efforts" to end the war in Ukraine and suggested Moscow and Washington could agree on a nuclear arms deal as part of a broader push to strengthen peace. Trump also mentioned during the Fox interview that he has three locations in mind for a follow-up meeting with Putin and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, though he noted that a second meeting is not guaranteed. He said staying in Alaska for a three-way summit would be the easiest scenario. "Depending on what happens with my meeting, I'm going to be calling up President Zelenskiy, and let's get him over to wherever we're going to meet," Trump said. He said a second meeting, featuring Trump, Putin, and Zelenskiy, would likely dig deeper into boundary issues. Zelenskiy has been adamant about not ceding territory that Russian forces occupy. "The second meeting is going to be very, very important, because that's going to be a meeting where they make a deal. And I don't want to use the word 'divvy things up,' but you know, to a certain extent, it's not a bad term, OK?" he said. "But there will be a give and take as to boundaries, lands, etc, etc. The second meeting is going to be very, very very important. This meeting sets up like a chess game. This (first) meeting sets up a second meeting, but there is a 25% chance that this meeting will not be a successful meeting," he said. He said it would be up to Putin and Zelenskiy to strike an agreement. "I'm not going to negotiate their deal. I'm going to let them negotiate their deal," he said.
