Current and Future Security Threats Workshop: “Know your Enemy”

The NATO Mountain Warfare Centre of Excellence recently conducted the Current and Future Security Threats Workshop: “Know Your Enemy” in Bled, Slovenia, from 2 to 5 December 2024. This workshop gathered a wide range of experts from 17 different nations to evaluate and address the evolving global security landscape.

The discussions covered a broad spectrum of issues, ranging from strategic to tactical levels, focusing on topics such as cognitive warfare, analysis of Gaza war, and the application of AI in the information domain. A comprehensive analysis of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, hybrid warfare tactics, and the broader spectrum of global security risks provided critical expert and national insights, enabling us to better understand current and future threats and take appropriate measures, leading to improved understanding and heightened preparedness to face them.

We are pleased to present the structured and comprehensive outcomes of the workshop to our community of interest, enabling continued collaboration and enhancing decision-making processes to effectively counter emerging threats.

Middle East Theater of War: Selected Strategic, Operational, and Tactical Insight

Military Strategies and Tactics of Hamas and Other Terrorist Groups

The operational and strategic framework of Hamas and other terrorist groups relies heavily on asymmetry and unconventional tactics designed to bypass conventional defense systems. One of the most notable aspects of these groups’ strategies is the use of low-tech yet highly effective weapons and methods, aimed at exploiting vulnerabilities in Israel’s defense systems and international security.

One of the key defensive systems Israel relies on to protect its population from missile attacks is the Iron Dome, a sophisticated missile defense system designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells. However, the system has its limitations. For instance, the Iron Dome is capable of intercepting missiles traveling at speeds up to around Mach 1, but it is not fully equipped to handle more advanced missiles or high-speed projectiles. This limitation is intensified by the nature of the threats Hamas and similar groups pose, as they often employ rockets with speeds that can exceed the system’s interception capabilities. Despite the Iron Dome’s success in reducing casualties and damages, the threat of rocket fire remains significant, especially as these groups innovate with new weaponry designed to overwhelm defense systems.

In addition to missile threats, Hamas has developed tactic involving lighter-than-air balloons equipped with flammable devices, such as Molotov cocktails. These balloons, launched by wind currents from the Mediterranean Sea, are filled with helium or hydrogen and deployed on a wide scale.

From May 2021 onwards, massive use of air ballons has led to an average of ten fires daily, causing significant logistical challenges for Israeli emergency services. (Picture credit: Mohammed Abed/AFP)

The strategy serves to disrupt and exhaust Israel’s civil defense systems by starting fires across vast areas. These operations, often conducted by children, youth, and civilians, are meant to be low-cost and high-impact, draining Israel’s resources and forcing them to divert attention from more immediate military threats. The balloon attacks highlight the difficulty of countering such unconventional methods, as they are difficult to intercept and can be launched in large numbers, keeping Israeli defenses in a constant state of alert.

The Seashore: A Route for Smuggling

The maritime zone along the Gaza Strip serves as a vital logistical line for Hamas and other militant factions. Israel’s fishing restrictions, which are imposed during periods of heightened conflict, exacerbate the challenges of patrolling the area. Smuggling routes through the sea involve contacts with networks operating in Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Greece, and Egypt, where smugglers frequently operate under the guise of legitimate fishing vessels. These smugglers, often working at night, provide Hamas with critical supplies, including weapons, equipment, and other materials that support its ongoing military operations. Israel’s ability to effectively monitor and control this maritime trade is limited, with the expansive coastline making it a challenging area to secure. In this context, the sea has become a critical pathway for Hamas’ resupply efforts, and the situation is compounded by the presence of “maritime guerillas” engaged in covert operations, further complicating Israel’s security response.

Targeted Killings and Intelligence Operations

Israel has a long history of implementing targeted killings as part of its strategy to neutralize high-value targets from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These operations are typically carried out by military and intelligence agencies, with the objective of eliminating key commanders, political leaders, and strategic figures within these organizations.

Israel’s targeted killings of senior “axis of resistance” members outside Palestine (Picture credit: OpenStreetMap)

The targets are chosen based on intelligence data, and the decision-making process involves the head of government’s approval. Such operations, including the recent assassination of a Hamas political leader, underscore Israel’s doctrine of precision strikes to disrupt enemy leadership and operations.

The complexity and sophistication of these campaigns reflect Israel’s advanced intelligence-gathering capabilities, which include collaborating with international intelligence services and employing cutting-edge surveillance technologies and AI tools to track and target individuals.

On 17 and 18 September 2024, pagers and walkie-talkies intended for use by Hezbollah exploded simultaneously in two separate events across Lebanon and Syria in an Israeli attack nicknamed Operation Grim Beeper. The attack killed at least 42 people with estimates of the number of injured ranged from 1,500 Hezbollah fighters to 4,000 A photo taken on September 18, 2024, in Beirut’s southern suburbs shows the remains of exploded pagers on display at an undisclosed location. (Picture credit: AFP/Getty Images)

A particularly effective facet of Israel’s intelligence operations is its ability to coordinate rapid, simultaneous strikes on multiple targets, creating a disorienting and overwhelming effect on the enemy. This method, which is reminiscent of U.S. military strategies, aims to incapacitate enemy factions by removing key decision-makers from their ranks. In contrast to conventional military operations, these precision strikes have been successful in disrupting enemy leadership and causing significant casualties without engaging in prolonged ground warfare.

The Use of Drugs by Terrorist Groups

An important and lesser-discussed aspect of the operational capabilities of groups like Hamas involves the use of drugs. It is reported that certain militant factions use drugs to enhance the fighting capacity of their members or to fuel certain operations. For example, there are documented cases where drugs such as amphetamines and other stimulants are administered to combatants in order to heighten aggression, endurance, and a sense of invulnerability. This practice can contribute to the fighters’ ability to operate with brutal efficiency, as seen during Hamas’ recent attack on Israel, where militants demonstrated an unnerving level of violence and capability. The attack lasted for several days, with Hamas fighters reportedly operating continuously for up to three days. This endurance and the heightened level of brutality are likely linked to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, which increase aggression, endurance, and pain tolerance, thereby enabling combatants to push beyond normal physical limits.

Hamas terrorists were fueled by the amphetamine-like drug “Captagon” as they rampaged through southern Israel on October 7 2024. Under the influence, the terrorists could sustain their attack over an extended period of time and commit atrocities with a perverse sense of euphoria. (Picture credit: Joseph Eid / Getty Images)

The impact of these substances on fighters is profound, leading to increased recklessness, a diminished sense of fear, and a reduced perception of pain. In some cases, fighters under the influence of drugs are believed to be more willing to carry out suicide missions or engage in high-risk operations. This practice highlights the psychological dimension of warfare, where combatants are pushed to their limits through the use of substances that alter their mental and physical states. The use of drugs by Hamas fighters during the attack underscores how such substances can amplify both the physical and psychological brutality of their operations.

This use of drugs complicates the operational challenges for military forces, as it introduces an additional layer of unpredictability in combat. Fighters under the influence may behave in ways that defy conventional military expectations and tactics. It also underscores the need for counterintelligence and psychological operations aimed at countering the morale of enemy fighters, whose motivations may be driven not just by ideology but by the altered state induced by drug use.

Sub-Terranean Operations: An Emerging Threat

Another key challenge in modern warfare that has been highlighted in recent conflicts is the use of subterranean warfare. Hamas and other militant groups have developed extensive tunnel networks (reportedly in total length over 600 kilometers in Gaza), which serve as both defensive positions and logistical routes for smuggling weapons and fighters.

Israel rapidly expanding sponge bomb is used as one of the tools to trap Hamas in the underground tunnels structure (Picture credit: Dailymail)

These underground systems are difficult to detect and target, making them a significant challenge for conventional military forces. The use of tunnels complicates conventional military operations, as they can be used to infiltrate enemy lines, ambush troops, or launch raids with little warning. NATO’s AJP 3.2., which addresses land operations, mentions subterranean warfare only in passing, suggesting that many military forces have yet to fully recognize the strategic value of tunnels in modern conflict.

In contrast, the U.S. Army’s ATP 3-21.51 (2019) provides a detailed approach to dealing with subterranean operations at the brigade level, emphasizing the tactical dilemmas these networks present. The proliferation of such systems is not a new phenomenon, as evidenced by historical examples like the Italian Alps’ mountain fortresses used by the Italian Army and later by groups such as ISIS. These underground defenses complicate conventional military tactics and necessitate specialized equipment and training to counter effectively.

Key Takeaways:

Military Strategies and Tactics of Hamas and Other Terrorist Groups

• Hamas and similar groups rely heavily on asymmetric warfare and unconventional tactics to exploit vulnerabilities in conventional defense systems.
• The Iron Dome provides effective protection against short-range missiles but faces limitations against advanced and high-speed projectiles.
• Innovative low-tech methods, such as incendiary balloons, are used to exhaust Israeli defenses and divert resources. These are often launched by civilians, creating logistical challenges for Israel.

Maritime Smuggling and Logistics

• The Gaza coastline serves as a critical supply route for Hamas, with smugglers operating under the guise of fishing vessels.
• Smuggling networks extend to countries like Cyprus, Turkey, and Egypt, enabling the movement of weapons and supplies.
• “Maritime guerrillas” further complicate Israel’s ability to secure its coastline.

Targeted Killings and Intelligence Operations

• Israel employs precision strikes to eliminate high-value targets within terrorist organizations, disrupting leadership and operational planning.
• These operations leverage advanced intelligence-gathering techniques, international collaborations, and technologies like AI.
• Simultaneous strikes, like Operation Grim Beeper, showcase Israel’s capability to incapacitate enemy forces without prolonged ground combat.

Use of Drugs by Terrorist Groups

• Militant groups like Hamas reportedly use drugs like amphetamines to enhance fighters’ aggression, endurance, and pain tolerance.
• The October 2024 Hamas attack on Israel highlighted the role of drugs in sustaining prolonged brutality and violence.
• The use of performance-enhancing substances introduces unpredictability in combat, requiring new countermeasures from opposing forces.

Subterranean Warfare

• Hamas has developed a vast tunnel network exceeding 600 kilometers in Gaza, used for defense, smuggling, infiltration, and ambushes.
• These tunnels are difficult to detect and target, complicating conventional military operations and requiring specialized training and equipment.
• The U.S. Army’s ATP 3-21.51 outlines strategies for dealing with subterranean threats, while NATO’s doctrine lacks detailed provisions.
• Historical precedents, like tunnel systems used by ISIS and fortresses in the Italian Alps, underscore the enduring tactical value of underground networks.

Petr Kriz

Share this post

FacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle +Email

Author

Petr Kriz

Categories

• Articles
• E-learning
• Events
• Facebook
• MW Robotics
• News
• News Lessons Learned Portal
• Notification
• Uncategorized

Latest Posts

Modern Battlefields & C-IED Challenges

The nature of warfare has evolved, particularly with the resurgence of conventional warfare seen in conflicts like Ukraine. NATO, having spent the past few decades focused on counterinsurgency operations, now faces challenges adapting its Counter-IED (C-IED) strategies to modern battlefields where IEDs are no longer just insurgent weapons but are used in conventional warfare, such as in Ukraine, Lebanon, and Gaza. This shift has exposed gaps in NATO’s preparedness for major combat operations (MCO) as the alliance had primarily focused on defensive counter-IED measures.

The Evolution of C-IED Doctrine

Historically, C-IED strategies were largely defensive. Military engineers and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) teams were tasked with detecting, avoiding, and neutralizing IEDs. Over time, C-IED doctrine has shifted to focus on combating the broader IED system—both the devices and the networks that support them. The modern approach integrates military, law enforcement, and civilian organizations, aiming to prevent IED deployment rather than just neutralizing them once in place. However, in conventional warfare, IEDs remain a significant threat that needs a proactive, integrated approach.

In conventional combat scenarios, such as in the Ukraine conflict, IEDs are not just the domain of insurgents but are used by state actors on both sides. This use of IEDs in dynamic frontlines complicates the traditional methods of detection and neutralization. In Ukraine, for example, IEDs are placed across vast areas, including at the frontlines and in rear areas, posing a persistent challenge to troops. The complexity of modern warfare necessitates a reassessment of how to deal with IEDs, as they are used in an environment where their placement is not static and their presence is widespread.

Technological Advances: Unmanned Vehicles

The so-called “drone warfare” has significantly changed the landscape of C-IED. UAVs are increasingly used not just for reconnaissance but also for delivering explosive payloads, thus complicating C-IED strategies. These unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have become a relatively easily accessible tool on the battlefield, raising questions about how to treat UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) within the context of IED threats. The same principles of C-IED are now applied to UAVs that carry explosive payloads, with NATO adapting its strategies to address the technological proliferation of drones in modern combat. In Ukraine, drones are also being used to target first responders, adding another layer of complexity to C-IED operations.

Russian UAV as explosive payload dispenser (220 mm 9M27K3 “Uragan” rocket projectile). The use of UAVs on the modern battlefield spans a vast range of applications. These include deployment with improvised or military explosives (including thermobaric and explosively formed penetrator effects), landmine dispensers, as well as victim-operated and first-responder targeting devices. Equipped with electromagnetic protection and thermal cameras, UAVs serve not only as aerial vehicles but also as water-surface and ground vehicles, representing a game-changer in modern warfare. (Picture credit: social media)

Additionally, unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) and unmanned surface vehicle (USV, also as “unmanned surface vessel) are emerging as improvised platforms for IEDs, contributing to the challenge of identifying and neutralizing moving IEDs. The introduction of unmanned systems into naval operations also extends the IED threat to the maritime domain, with unmanned vessels and drifting sea mines presenting new challenges for naval forces.

NATO’s Strategic Shift

With these advancements, NATO is reassessing its C-IED strategy. The traditional focus on land-based, static IED threats is no longer sufficient in the context of modern warfare. The rapid evolution of technology—particularly UAVs, UVGs and USVs—requires a multi-domain approach to C-IED that considers both the IEDs themselves and the networks and technologies that support them. Intelligence gathering and disruption of these networks have become central to C-IED operations, as simply neutralizing the devices is no longer enough to ensure battlefield success.

The Role of Multi-Agency Coordination

As the nature of the IED threat becomes more sophisticated, NATO recognizes that success in countering IEDs requires deep coordination between military forces, local authorities, and intelligence agencies. In multinational operations, particularly those in response to Article 5 operations (collective defense), effective collaboration between military, law enforcement, and civilian entities is critical. This holistic, multi-agency approach ensures that all aspects of the IED system are addressed, from production and placement to detection and neutralization. Also, the use of human intelligence (HUMINT) remains critical in counter-IED operations. Human sources—often local informants—can provide valuable insights into enemy tactics and IED placement.

C-IED operations are spread across different units, without a dedicated force to handle them. This limits focus and expertise. The solution is to tie C-IED efforts more closely with intelligence. Intelligence units, like J2, could be trained in IED threat analysis, making C-IED an intelligence-driven operation. By using intel more effectively, we can better understand how IEDs work and how to prevent or neutralize them in future operations. This approach would improve our overall strategy and response.

Host Nation Responsibilities in Article 5 Operations

In Article 5 scenarios, host nations are no longer just bystanders. They’re fully engaged, working directly with NATO forces as active partners in defense. This requires better coordination between national military forces and NATO, not just good intentions. As operations get more complex and enemy forces don’t follow borders, host nations must play a bigger role in making sure the entire coalition can operate smoothly together.

Key Takeaways:

Shift in IED Use and C-IED Strategy:

• Modern battlefields, like in Ukraine, show IEDs being used by state actors in conventional warfare. NATO’s past focus on defensive counter-IED (C-IED) tactics, primarily aimed at insurgent threats, must adapt to deal with widespread IEDs in dynamic frontlines.

Evolving C-IED Doctrine:

• C-IED strategies have evolved from simply neutralizing devices to addressing the broader IED system, including the networks behind them. A proactive, integrated approach involving military, law enforcement, and civilians is now needed, especially in conventional combat.

Impact of Technology:

• Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), and unmanned surface vessels (USVs) complicate C-IED efforts. These platforms are now used to deliver explosive payloads or as improvised IED delivery systems, even in naval operations. The growing use of unmanned systems calls for adapting C-IED strategies.

Multi-Domain Approach:

• NATO’s C-IED strategy needs to address threats across different domains (land, air, and sea), considering both the devices and their supporting networks. Intelligence gathering and disrupting IED networks have become critical to success.

Collaboration with Local Authorities and Intelligence Agencies:

• Effective C-IED operations depend on close coordination among military forces, local authorities, and intelligence agencies. In multinational operations, especially in response to NATO’s Article 5 (collective defense), a holistic, multi-agency approach is essential. As operations become more complex, host nations must ensure better coordination between national and NATO forces for smoother coalition operation.

Cognitive Warfare in the Future Operating Environment

NATO’s shift to cognitive warfare is a strategic recalibration aimed at dominating the modern battlespace where ideas, perceptions, and decisions determine victory. This doctrine isn’t a passing trend but a cornerstone of NATO’s evolving operational framework, formally rolled out in 2024 and slated for doctrinal reinforcement by 2035. Cognitive warfare shifts focus from conventional warfare to the battleground of the human mind.

Cognitive warfare involves leveraging political, economic, informational, and military instruments in an integrated fashion. Command authority doesn’t rest solely with the generals; instead, civilian leadership takes the helm. NATO’s military structure assumes a supporting role, executing strategies to shape perceptions, disrupt adversary decision-making, and fortify cognitive resilience.

From linear (combined / joint) to multidomain. Gone are the days of simple joint (left picture) operations. Today’s conflicts span land, sea, air, cyberspace, and space domains simultaneously. Cognitive warfare necessitates seamless coordination across these domains. Vertical integration becomes paramount — connecting strategic policymaking with tactical execution. The objective is clear: influence and outmaneuver adversaries while ensuring member state resilience. (Picture credit: NATO MW COE)

NATO’s journey into cognitive warfare is marked by key milestones:

• 2019: NATO Military Strategy provides foundational guidance.
• 2020: Concept for Deterrence and Defense of the Euro-Atlantic Area (DDA).
• 2021: NATO Warfare Capstone Concept is introduced.
• 2023: Multi-Domain Operations Concept is operationalized.
• 2024: NATO launches the Cognitive Warfare Concept.

This progression underscores NATO’s commitment to achieving “cognitive superiority” — outthinking and out-influencing opponents.

Adapting to a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape

As the world transitions from a unipolar to a multipolar order, cognitive warfare becomes a decisive factor. The so-called “gray zone” — where conflict simmers below the threshold of armed confrontation — is fertile ground for cognitive operations. NATO’s strategy aims to secure dominance in this ambiguous space.

However, cognitive warfare isn’t a new concept; it’s been a part of strategic thought for millennia. Sun Tzu spoke about the importance of perception, deception, and psychological destabilization long before the age of modern technology. What’s changing now is the efficiency and power of the methods, thanks to emerging technologies.

The Concept of Cognitive Warfare

Cognitive warfare can be defined as a coordinated military and non-military effort designed to influence the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of an audience in order to gain strategic advantage. NATO’s definition emphasizes information control, with the aim of creating cognitive superiority. This concept extends beyond traditional military tactics and incorporates advanced technologies.

“Cognitive warfare involves coordinated military and non-military activity across the full spectrum of competition, aimed at influencing perceptions and behaviors to maintain and protect cognitive superiority.”

NATO Cognitive Warfare Concept

Cognitive warfare involves both offensive and defensive actions.

The first goal is to gain cognitive superiority, then to protect and maintain it. It’s not about brute force; rather, it’s about manipulating perceptions without physical confrontation.

The Future Battlefield: The Human Brain

The human brain has become the next battlefield. Cognitive warfare is the ultimate psychological manipulation, aimed at subtly controlling human thought, emotions, and behaviors. Technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and neural weapons are already being developed to alter human cognition and decision-making processes without physical force. In this new form of warfare, the brain becomes the “battlespace,” and just like any physical conflict, the fight is over who controls the decision-making process. This shift from kinetic (physical) warfare to cognitive (mental) warfare is the future of strategic dominance.

Neuro-weapons are a key aspect of cognitive warfare. These weapons use directed energy such as radio frequency waves, microwaves, and electromagnetic pulses to interfere with brain function. This technology can degrade cognitive function, impair decision-making, and even manipulate emotions. “Havana Syndrome”, a mysterious illness affecting U.S. diplomats in Cuba, is thought to be the result of such directed energy weapons. These neuro-strikes could subtly alter perceptions, such as making an enemy feel sad, anxious, or confused, making them more vulnerable to subsequent attacks.

Manipulating Perceptions and Trust.

One of the central aims of cognitive warfare is to manipulate perceptions. This extends to trust, an intangible yet crucial element in warfare and geopolitics. Trust is the foundation of financial systems (e.g., currency is no longer tied to gold but to public trust). Cognitive warfare can undermine this trust, destabilizing societies and collapsing economies.

Additionally, cognitive warfare can attack morale and will to fight. Sun Tzu emphasized that the most successful way to win a conflict is to destroy the enemy’s will to fight before the battle even begins. This can be achieved through strategic psychological operations, sowing doubt, fear, and confusion within the enemy’s ranks.

Cognitive warfare can also divide and polarize societies. By manipulating the flow of information, society can be fragmented into competing factions, weakening the social cohesion necessary for stability. When trust and cohesion are undermined, the “center of gravity” of a nation—its social unity—begins to collapse. Moreover, cognitive warfare can shape the identity of individuals or groups. National identities, ideologies, and political affiliations can be subtly influenced or even rewritten using advanced propaganda techniques, including deepfakes, social engineering, and algorithmic manipulation.

Emerging Technologies in Cognitive Warfare

Several emerging technologies are enhancing the capabilities of cognitive warfare. These include:

• Quantum Computing: Within the next 3-5 years, quantum computers could revolutionize data processing, allowing for the instant breaking of encrypted codes and providing significant military advantages.
• Human-Machine Communication: Technologies like brain-computer interfaces and brain-to-brain interfaces enable direct communication between the human brain and machines. Soldiers could control military equipment with mere thoughts, and even communicate with each other telepathically, bypassing traditional communication methods.
• Neuro-Enhancements: Technologies such as brain stimulation can enhance cognitive functions, while cybernetic implants could give soldiers superior sensory capabilities and physical strength.
• Cognitive Hacking: This involves influencing people’s behaviors and decisions through subtle manipulations, like deepfake videos, social media algorithms, and personalized psychological campaigns.

Especially cognitive hacking is an emerging and dangerous aspect of cognitive warfare. Through social engineering, attackers can manipulate individuals or entire populations into making decisions based on false or misleading information. Deepfakes, which can create realistic yet fake videos or audio, are an especially insidious form of cognitive hacking, as they can spread misinformation with a high degree of credibility.

The Ethics and Legal Implications of Cognitive Warfare

While cognitive warfare presents significant strategic advantages, it also raises important ethical and legal issues. Manipulating people’s thoughts, emotions, and decisions without their knowledge or consent can lead to severe consequences for personal freedoms and autonomy. Nations and international organizations will need to establish clear ethical guidelines and legal frameworks to regulate the use of cognitive warfare tactics, especially as technology advances and becomes more accessible.

Cognitive Warfare: Conclusion

The shift to cognitive warfare represents a paradigm change in how NATO approaches future conflict. As we shift from conventional kinetic operations to the manipulation of perceptions and decision-making processes, the battlefield will no longer be defined by terrain, but by the human mind. This evolution requires an integrated, multi-domain approach that leverages the full spectrum of NATO’s capabilities—military, political, economic, and informational—to gain cognitive superiority. The emphasis on cross-domain coordination and the use of emerging technologies positions NATO to outthink and outmaneuver adversaries in ways that were previously unimaginable. However, this shift also demands careful consideration of the ethical and legal ramifications, as the tools of cognitive warfare can easily cross into manipulation that threatens the foundations of democracy and personal autonomy.

Key Takeaways

• Cognitive Warfare as a Strategic Priority:

NATO’s focus has shifted toward gaining cognitive superiority by leveraging psychological operations, information control, and emerging technologies. The objective is not physical destruction but the shaping of adversary decision-making, perceptions, and behavior to achieve strategic advantage.

• Integration Across Domains:

Effective cognitive warfare requires synchronized operations across land, sea, air, cyberspace, and space. This integration will be critical in executing strategies that influence both the immediate battlefield and broader geopolitical environments.

• The Role of Emerging Technologies:

Quantum computing, AI, and neuro-weapons are enhancing NATO’s cognitive warfare capabilities, enabling faster decision-making, more effective manipulation of information, and direct interference with an adversary’s cognitive functions. These technologies provide NATO with an unprecedented ability to disrupt enemy perceptions and decision-making.

• Manipulating Societal Cohesion:

Cognitive warfare aims to weaken an adversary’s social and political unity by undermining trust in institutions, sowing division, and eroding morale. Attacking the societal fabric—without direct physical confrontation—becomes a critical part of modern strategy, as it can lead to destabilization and collapse from within.

• Ethical and Legal Considerations:

As the boundaries between warfare and psychological manipulation blur, the need for clear ethical guidelines and international legal frameworks is paramount. The manipulation of cognition poses risks to personal freedoms, and without proper regulation, cognitive warfare could threaten democratic values and societal norms.

Dataminr: AI-powered Real Time Information

Founded in 2009, Dataminr is a U.S.-based company specializing in AI-driven real-time intelligence. Initially catering to private sector entities for market analysis, the company expanded into defense and public sector applications. The differentiation lies in proprietary algorithms, extensive data ingestion, and historical pattern recognition to filter and analyze critical information. Over the years, Dataminr has become a trusted partner for governments and military organizations, providing intelligence solutions that enhance decision-making in an increasingly complex security environment.

Dataminr provides three key solutions:

• Dataminr for News – A restricted platform for global news agencies like CNN and Sky, offering early detection of unfolding events and crises.
• First Alert – Utilized by allied governments for real-time event detection, allowing defense and security organizations to gain immediate awareness of critical incidents worldwide.
• Dataminr Pulse – Designed for enterprises to safeguard physical assets, personnel, and operational security, providing proactive threat detection and crisis response capabilities.

These solutions leverage advanced AI to parse and analyze massive amounts of open-source data, delivering actionable intelligence to users across various sectors, including defense, law enforcement, and disaster response teams.

However, the exponential growth of public data presents multiple challenges:

• Volume & Complexity: Vast amounts of data require real-time filtering to extract relevant intelligence. The rapid pace of information generation makes it difficult for human analysts to manually process and analyze raw data effectively.
• Multimodal Inputs: Data sources include text, images, video, and sensor data in multiple languages, making translation and contextual interpretation essential for accurate intelligence assessments.
• Data Quality: Intelligence must be distinguished from noise, misinformation, and adversarial manipulation. AI plays a crucial role in filtering out misleading or deceptive content while highlighting key insights.
• Timeliness: The dynamic nature of real-time events necessitates continuous monitoring and rapid analysis, ensuring that decision-makers have up-to-the-minute intelligence to respond effectively to crises and threats.

It’s been calculated that 13 million people working 24-7 would cover only or even less than 0.01% of the data created on a daily basis on the internet. The only solution for such vast data pool is automated, adaptable AI processing. (Picture credit: Dataminr)

As AI-powered solutions, Dataminr has developed advanced AI models to enhance OSINT capabilities:

• Predictive Modeling: Leveraging 15 years of archived data to identify trends and anticipate events, aiding proactive decision-making.
• Multilingual Processing: AI supports over 150 languages, ensuring comprehensive situational awareness across global regions and diverse sources.
• Deep Learning for Verification: Detects bot-generated narratives and authenticates human sources, improving the reliability of intelligence reports.
• Automated Reporting: Regenerative AI continuously updates intelligence reports for evolving situations, maintaining a current operational picture.
• Priority Classification: Categorization of data by strategic, tactical, and operational importance helps streamline intelligence dissemination and response efforts.

Operational Functionality

The intelligence cycle follows a structured approach:

• Data Ingestion – Over one million sources processed, including social media, news, IoT sensors, and dark web content. The ability to process diverse data sources ensures comprehensive intelligence gathering.
• Event Detection – AI identifies key events, reducing noise and enhancing situational awareness. By recognizing patterns and anomalies, AI systems help detect critical developments before they escalate.
• Real-Time Notification – Analysts receive prioritized alerts for immediate response, ensuring rapid decision-making and effective crisis management.
• Customized Access – Users tailor data streams based on operational requirements, from high-level strategic briefings to granular tactical intelligence, allowing commanders and analysts to focus on mission-critical information.

Application in Defense and Crisis Management

Dataminr platform has been deployed in various operational settings:

• Force Protection: Used by U.S. and allied forces for threat detection and rapid response. By identifying potential security threats early, military units can take proactive measures to protect personnel and assets.
• Operational Monitoring: Integrated into military headquarters for intelligence support, offering real-time updates on evolving situations in conflict zones and crisis areas.
• Crisis Management: Utilized by government authorities for civil and military incident response, providing timely intelligence during natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and political unrest.
• Strategic Communication: Assists in monitoring narratives and public perception of military

AI-powered OSINT: Nature of the Mission

AI algorithms play a critical role in detecting and analyzing real-time intelligence events. Automated systems are designed to recognize visual cues such as fire, smoke, and flames. When such imagery is detected, the system initiates an analysis to verify authenticity and assess its context. The objective is to determine whether the event impacts key assets, organizations, or strategic locations. By analyzing imagery for logos, signage, and written language, AI can infer the geographical and operational context without relying on metadata.

Only a small fraction of publicly shared content includes geolocation or descriptive text. AI avoids this limitation by employing pattern recognition, comparative image analysis, and linguistic markers. This ensures that intelligence is actionable even when traditional metadata is absent.

Multimodal Intelligence Corroboration

The risk of misinformation is mitigated through a multimodal intelligence approach. AI does not rely solely on single-source claims but corroborates data across multiple platforms. When an event, such as an aircraft incident, is detected, the system cross-references:

• Existing archival footage to rule out recycled media.
• Flight monitoring services for real-time distress signals.
• Environmental features such as terrain or landmarks for geolocation.
• Regional chatter on multiple social media platforms for confirmation.
• This methodology enhances credibility and reduces susceptibility to adversarial misinformation tactics.
• Situational Awareness and Conflict Monitoring

The system provides real-time intelligence updates by continuously tracking developments in conflict zones. AI-driven tools assist in distinguishing between routine localized incidents and larger-scale military engagements. This is achieved by monitoring multiple indicators, such as the volume and nature of eyewitness reports, government emergency responses, and verified multimedia content.

For example, in analyzing a security escalation, AI detects patterns of violence and geospatial distribution. When a high volume of independent sources report mass casualties, the system prioritizes alerts, differentiating them from low-impact regional skirmishes. By integrating real-time media reports, government statements, and direct visual analysis, the system offers comprehensive situational awareness.

Strategic Intelligence and Response Time

AI-driven intelligence gathering enables rapid decision-making, providing critical lead time over traditional news sources. In certain scenarios, reports generated by AI systems have been up to an hour ahead of major news agencies, providing a crucial advantage in response coordination.

Operationally, real-time alerts allow intelligence officers to analyze events as they unfold, preventing information lag. This has redefined intelligence workflows, shifting reliance from passive news verification to proactive intelligence acquisition.

Counter-Intelligence Measures and Data Security

Adversarial actors employ similar tactics to monitor defense forces. While AI is leveraged to track hostile activities, adversaries also attempt to gather intelligence from open sources. Security protocols emphasize strict operational discipline, advising personnel to avoid disclosing sensitive information, even indirectly. This includes:

• Restricting the sharing of personal images that might reveal strategic locations.
• Avoiding fitness tracking devices that inadvertently map sensitive installations.
• Understanding adversarial OSINT capabilities and limiting publicly available data.

AI can detect enemy intelligence-gathering efforts by analyzing adversarial activity, helping to anticipate and mitigate security risks.

Geospatial Intelligence and Customization

The AI platform allows intelligence units to create targeted tracking parameters. Analysts can define specific geographic regions, conflict zones, or high-priority infrastructure areas. This ensures that critical intelligence is delivered without unnecessary data noise. Customization extends to priority filters, allowing personnel to differentiate between routine intelligence reports and high-impact threats requiring immediate attention.

Tactical Implementation and Future Considerations

While AI-driven intelligence is widely deployed at strategic and operational levels, its effectiveness at the tactical level is increasingly evident. Intelligence systems are adapted to specific mission needs, with some leadership structures centralizing AI analysis at command levels, while others integrate it across various units for distributed intelligence gathering.

As AI continues to evolve, future advancements will include enhanced pattern detection, deeper integration with cyber intelligence, and expanded monitoring of adversarial disinformation campaigns. By refining predictive analytics and improving real-time event verification, AI will remain a force multiplier in modern intelligence operations.

OSINT – Threats perspective

The integration of AI-driven OSINT capabilities by strategic competitors such as Russia and China presents a direct threat to NATO and Western security. These adversaries have developed sophisticated intelligence collection mechanisms that allow them to exploit publicly available data for strategic, operational, and tactical advantage. AI-powered analysis enables the real-time monitoring of military deployments, logistical supply chains, and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities across allied nations. By leveraging multimodal intelligence—aggregating data from social media, satellite imagery, civilian communication networks, and commercial sensors—hostile actors can conduct precise target identification, track force movements, and predict strategic intentions before NATO forces execute their operations.

Moreover, adversarial OSINT capabilities significantly enhance information warfare and disinformation campaigns. By monitoring Western political discourse and public sentiment, these actors can conduct highly targeted influence operations, undermining NATO cohesion and eroding public trust in military institutions. For example, adversaries can manipulate social media narratives to create divisions within allied nations, exploit emerging crises to weaken political stability, or spread misinformation regarding military engagements to disrupt operational planning.

On 01. January 2023, a missile attack has resulted in 89 killed and over 300 wounded Russian soldiers. The main cause of the attack was the use of mobile phones by troops in range of Ukrainian weapons. (Illustrative picture credit: AFP / Getty Images)

At the tactical level, real-time adversarial intelligence collection poses a severe risk to deployed forces. Open-source data leakage—such as geotagged soldier activity, unintentional public disclosures, or even metadata from commercial devices—provides adversaries with actionable intelligence on force positioning and operational intent. Personal mobile phones, when used by military personnel in unsecured environments, can be exploited for location tracking, monitoring of communications, and even biometric profiling through social media and app activity. Smartwatches and fitness trackers present another critical vulnerability; their GPS-enabled tracking and automated data uploads can inadvertently map military bases, patrol routes, or classified installations. In past conflicts, such devices have allowed adversaries to geolocate troop movements, identify sensitive infrastructure, and track operational readiness by analyzing routine physical activity patterns.

Furthermore, adversaries can combine AI-enhanced OSINT with cyber reconnaissance and electronic warfare, allowing them to anticipate Western force movements, identify vulnerabilities in command-and-control structures, and launch targeted cyber or kinetic strikes against high-value military assets. If left unchecked, adversarial OSINT capabilities will significantly degrade NATO’s ability to conduct secure and effective operations.

The ability of adversarial states to rapidly analyze and weaponize OSINT data effectively erodes the West’s traditional advantage in intelligence superiority. If left unchallenged, this capability will not only compromise operational security but also undermine NATO’s strategic deterrence by providing adversaries with an asymmetric means of countering conventional military strength.

To mitigate these threats, Western defense institutions must implement robust counter-OSINT measures, enforce stricter operational security protocols regarding personal devices, and develop AI-driven counterintelligence tools to detect and neutralize adversarial surveillance efforts before they compromise critical missions.

Key Takeaways

• AI-Powered OSINT for Real-Time Intelligence.

AI-driven intelligence enhances decision-making by processing vast amounts of open-source data. Automated filtering and pattern recognition enable the identification of critical events while minimizing misinformation.

• Challenges in Open-Source Intelligence Processing.

The exponential growth of public data requires AI automation due to volume, multimodal inputs (text, images, video, and sensors), and the need for real-time analysis. AI distinguishes valuable intelligence from noise and adversarial manipulation.

• AI-Driven Capabilities.

Predictive modeling, multilingual processing, deep learning verification, and automated reporting strengthen intelligence gathering. AI classifies intelligence by strategic, operational, and tactical importance for efficient decision-making.

• Operational and Tactical Application.

AI enhances force protection, operational monitoring, and crisis response. AI-generated reports allow intelligence officers to react faster than traditional news sources, mitigating information lag.

• Threats from Adversarial OSINT Capabilities.

AI-powered intelligence collection by adversaries such as Russia and China threatens NATO security. Hostile actors monitor troop movements, logistics, and infrastructure vulnerabilities using open-source data, social media, and commercial sensors.

• Tactical-Level Risks.

Open-source data leaks from mobile phones, smartwatches, and fitness trackers can expose military locations and patrol routes. AI-enhanced adversarial intelligence combined with cyber reconnaissance increases vulnerabilities in command-and-control structures.

• Mitigating OSINT Threats.

NATO and allied forces must implement counter-OSINT measures, strengthen operational security protocols regarding personal devices, and deploy AI-driven counterintelligence tools to detect and neutralize adversarial surveillance efforts.

Lessons Learned from the NATO MW COE UAS Workshop (16-19 Sep 2024)

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have become an integral part of modern military operations, particularly in complex environments such as mountainous terrain. Their roles have expanded from reconnaissance and logistics to direct engagement, making them indispensable on the battlefield. The rapid advancement of UAV technology demands an urgent reassessment of NATO’s doctrines, training methodologies, and countermeasures. As conflicts evolve, the integration of UAVs into existing military strategies becomes not only advantageous but necessary for maintaining operational superiority.

The Shift in UAV Warfare: Revolution or Evolution?

A central debate persists: Are UAVs fundamentally revolutionizing warfare, or is their integration simply an evolution of existing combat strategies?

UAVs are no longer just reconnaissance tools but are now fully operational battlefield assets, engaging in direct combat scenarios against enemy ground forces. Their ability to identify, target, and neutralize threats autonomously or under remote control has altered the strategic landscape. The implications for NATO doctrine, training, and procurement strategies are profound.

Key Findings:

• UAVs are shifting from supplementary tools to central components of warfare.
• Traditional NATO manuals and standards require updates to accommodate modern UAV warfare.
• Autonomous and AI-driven UAVs are expected to become a critical game-changer.
• UAVs are now involved in direct engagements, leading to robotic warfare scenarios.
• Defining UAVs: Standardization and Terminology Challenges

NATO Terminology Issues

There are inconsistencies in NATO’s terminology regarding UAVs. The term “drone” is frequently used in civilian contexts but lacks precision in military doctrine. NATO is now emphasizing the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) to differentiate between standalone aerial platforms and integrated operational systems.

Key Terminology Adjustments:

• UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) refers solely to the aerial platform.
• UAS (Unmanned Aerial System) includes the vehicle, operator, and control station.
• Standardizing these terms across NATO doctrines will enhance interoperability.
• NATO doctrines must ensure precision in language to avoid confusion in joint operations.

Tactical UAV Deployment in Mountain Warfare

Given the unique challenges of mountainous combat, UAVs play a crucial role in most joint functions—command and control, intelligence, information, fire, movement, maneuver, protection, and sustainment—especially in reconnaissance, logistics, and surveillance operations at high altitudes. These regions present operational difficulties such as harsh weather conditions, low temperatures, and unpredictable wind patterns, all of which UAV technology must adapt to in order to function efficiently.

U.S. Marines have already in use a Tactical Resupply Unmanned Aircraft System (TRUAS) capable of transporting up to 70kg payload for a distance up to 14km. (Picture credit: US Marine Corps)

Strategic Recommendations:

• In addition to standard UAV training, UAV operators shall undergo at least a basic mountain training to enable independent mobility in mountainous terrain, thereby enhancing the operational effectiveness of the UAS. High-altitude UAV deployment must factor in adverse weather conditions and reduced air density.
• UAV technology should integrate real-time mapping and terrain assessment for operational planning.
• Operational testing should involve extreme conditions to ensure UAV reliability in high-altitude warfare.

Counter-UAV Strategies and Electronic Warfare (EW)

The proliferation of UAVs has introduced new challenges in battlefield survivability. Counter-UAV strategies include electronic warfare systems capable of jamming or neutralizing enemy drones. A key lesson from previous conflicts emphasized the targeting of UAV operators rather than the drones themselves, recognizing that UAV operator training is resource-intensive. As the cost of UAVs decreases and accessibility increases, the challenge of countering adversarial UAV use becomes more pressing.

Key Considerations:

• EW capabilities must be prioritized to counter enemy UAV threats.
• NATO should develop operator-targeting strategies to disrupt enemy UAV effectiveness.
• Training programs should integrate electronic countermeasures into standard UAV operations.
• Coordination between air defense and cyber warfare units is essential to combat UAV threats effectively.
• UAV countermeasures must consider both defensive and offensive electronic warfare tactics.

The Future of UAVs in NATO Warfare Doctrine

Future-proofing NATO’s approach to UAVs requires updates to ATP 3.3.8.1 (“Minimum Training Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operators and Pilots”) to incorporate lessons learned from recent conflicts and emerging technologies. Additionally, the classification of UAVs within NATO’s force structure must be reviewed to ensure clear operational guidelines for their use at platoon, company, and battalion levels. Proper implementation of UAV-based tactics will require a shift in training methodologies and an increased emphasis on battlefield adaptation.

Given the above-mentioned findings, these next steps are likely to follow:

• Update NATO’s doctrine to reflect UAV integration at all levels of military operations.
• Strengthen interoperability guidelines for multinational UAV deployment.
• Continue collaboration with civilian industries to incorporate cutting-edge UAV technologies into NATO’s arsenal.
• Assess the role of AI-guided UAVs in military operations and their potential impact on decision-making autonomy.
• Develop strategies for hybrid warfare scenarios where UAVs serve multiple operational roles simultaneously.

The rapid evolution of UAVs demands urgent adaptation in military strategies, regulations, and training frameworks. Whether viewed as an evolution or revolution, UAVs are reshaping modern battlefields. From reconnaissance to direct engagement, their influence on future military operations is only set to grow. While traditional military assets such as tanks and artillery remain relevant, UAVs introduce a new dynamic that requires comprehensive integration.

Key Takeaways

• UAVs as Central Combat Assets. UAVs have transitioned from reconnaissance to full battlefield engagement. NATO doctrines and training must adapt to their increasing combat role.
• Standardizing UAV Terminology. NATO must refine UAV-related terminology for clarity and interoperability. UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) refers to the aircraft; UAS (Unmanned Aerial System) includes control elements and the operator.
• UAV Use in Mountain Warfare. UAVs are vital for reconnaissance and logistics in mountainous terrain. Operators need specialized training; UAVs must be tested in extreme conditions.
• Counter-UAV & Electronic Warfare (EW). EW is critical for jamming and neutralizing enemy UAVs. Targeting UAV operators is an effective disruption strategy.
• Future of UAVs in NATO Doctrine. NATO must update training, regulations, and interoperability standards. AI-driven UAVs and hybrid warfare strategies will shape future conflicts.

Peculiarities of Warfare in Low-Temperature Conditions Based on the Experience: Lessons from the Russian-Ukrainian War

Cold weather combat presents unique challenges that impact mobility, survivability, and operational effectiveness. The experience gained from Ukrainian forces during Russia’s full-scale invasion has provided valuable insights into winter warfare.

Cold weather conditions demand a reassessment of logistics, tactics, and force sustainment. Low temperatures affect everything from soldier endurance to weapons functionality and aerial operations. A military force unprepared for winter combat risks severe degradation of combat effectiveness, leading to increased casualties and potential operational failure. Mastery of cold-weather warfare requires planning, adaptation, and integration of environmental factors into every aspect of strategy and tactics.

The Impact of Climate on Warfare

Ukraine’s diverse climate zones create unpredictable weather conditions. Soldiers may experience snow, rain, frost, and thaw cycles within a single day. This variability significantly affects military operations and requires adaptable strategies. Cold weather changes mobility, logistics, and tactics, making environmental analysis crucial to operational planning.

The unpredictable nature of winter weather means that commanders must account for rapid temperature shifts that can cause roads to become impassable, equipment to malfunction, and soldiers to suffer from exposure-related injuries. Units that lack proper winter gear and cold-weather adaptations may experience increased attrition, reducing their ability to conduct sustained operations.

Mobile Defense in Winter Conditions

During the initial stages of the invasion, Ukrainian forces conducted mobile defensive operations to delay and disrupt Russian advances. Key tactics included:

• Ambush-Based Delaying Actions: Pre-prepared positions along enemy routes forced adversaries into known engagement areas.
• Use of Terrain Manipulation: Exploiting natural drainage systems to create swamp-like conditions, limiting enemy maneuverability.
• Rapid Relocation of Firepower: Artillery and mobile armored groups striking enemy forces caught in compromised positions.
• Circular Defenses: When breakthroughs occurred, forces established encirclements to contain enemy advances.

Stop – Fix – Destroy. “Kill-Box” as a system of the ambush-by-fire along the routes of the enemy columns, where flank and frontal high-density fire is conducted in combination with a system of natural obstacles and engineered anti-tank barriers. This method has been often used especially during the initial phases of the war. (Picture credit: UAF)

Cold weather significantly impacts mobile defensive operations by reducing maneuverability, slowing reinforcements, and creating challenges in resupplying forward units. Tactical mobility must be carefully planned, leveraging pre-established supply points and multiple defensive fallback positions to counter enemy advances effectively.

The success of these tactics was evident in the defense of key cities such as Kyiv and Kharkiv, where terrain and weather were used as force multipliers. These operations showed the importance of combining strategic planning with rapid tactical execution to maximize the effectiveness of limited forces.

Fixed Defense and Area Denial

As the war progressed, operations transitioned from mobile defense to fixed defensive lines. This shift required different tactical considerations:

• Use of Pre-Arranged Fire Ambushes: Fixed anti-tank positions and layered defenses disrupted enemy mechanized advances.
• Withdrawing Vehicles from the Frontline: Keeping armor in the second echelon (10+ km from the frontline) to reduce vulnerability to enemy reconnaissance and artillery.
• Winter Hindering Mobility: Snow and frozen ground slowed reinforcement movement, making preparation and pre-positioning of supplies crucial.

Fixed defenses in winter demand additional planning in supply logistics, personnel rotation, and environmental cover. Soldiers in entrenched positions face significant risks from exposure, requiring heated shelters, insulated clothing, and careful management of combat shifts to avoid cold-related injuries.

The use of thermal blankets, even those similar to those found in tactical First Aid kits, can significantly reduce body heat radiation, helping to conceal individuals from UAVs equipped with thermal cameras. (Picture credit: UAF)

The UAF command-control algorithm for defensive operations at the tactical level is further projected in following specifics:

Bn HQs:

• Increase attention to the content of enemy radio communications IOT to determine their authenticity;
• send UAVs to recce the area of operations;
• put a part of the forces and means in the area of operations “on alert”.

UAV Recce Section:

• monitors changes in the intensity of movement of enemy groups;
• using thermal imaging equipment, detects the number of enemy troops in intermediate shelters (dugouts – logistics points).

Fire support team:

• distributes firepower IOT destroy identified targets;

Unit commanders (company, platoon):

• clarify the fire system (redistribute firepower to engage targets that are not allocated for engagement or to cover threatened areas);
• clarify the procedure for using reserves (company, platoon).

Tactical Use of Winter Terrain

Winter conditions influence unit positioning and battlefield effectiveness:

• Squad Defensive Responsibilities: Each unit may be responsible for 700 meters of frontage, maintaining gaps of up to 300 meters between positions.
• Battle Order Adjustments: Optimizing engagement distances for small arms and support weapons.
• Deception & Movement Control: Fake routes, movement demonstrations, and strategic shelters for replacement personnel reduce enemy targeting success.
• Planning must account for both enemy actions and environmental challenges to maintain a defensive advantage. Units that fail to integrate environmental awareness into their defensive planning risk losing their effectiveness due to exposure, exhaustion, and lack of mobility.

As cover and concealment remains crucial, the most effective is combination of camouflage net (IAW weather conditions) and anti-UAV net to protect manpower in trenches and vehicles, or in areas of higher manpower concentration. (Picture credit: UAF)

Morale and Soldier Resilience in Winter Combat

Maintaining high morale in winter conditions is challenging but essential. Key morale factors include:

• Success in Combat: Defensive victories significantly boost unit confidence and cohesion.
• Command Care for Soldier Welfare: Demonstrating concern for individual survival increases unit effectiveness.
• Medical Training and Preparation: Regular drills ensure soldiers can treat injuries under extreme conditions.
• Experienced Leadership: Effective sergeants maintain order and control during enemy attacks.
• Practical measures, such as ensuring soldiers have access to proper heating, dry clothing, and morale-boosting leadership, are critical in sustaining combat effectiveness over extended winter engagements.

Heating and dry clothing play an immense role in the cold, wet, static, almost trench-like warfare, further intensified by the widespread use of UAVs and rapid artillery fire. While chemical heating pads can last for 10–12 hours, trench candles are a readily accessible asset that can provide heat for up to 10 hours. (Picture credit: UAF)

UAVs in Winter Warfare

So-called “drones” have become integral to winter combat operations, used for reconnaissance, artillery coordination, and direct strikes. Key UAV functions include:

• Strike UAVs: Including FPV UAVs, kamikaze UAVs, and payload-dropping platforms.

• Aerial Reconnaissance: Real-time battlefield awareness to detect enemy movements.

• Artillery Fire Adjustment: Precision targeting via UAV surveillance.

Integration of UAVs into the UAF battle formations covers all tactical levels down to platoons. Their main task is aerial recce, artillery fire adjustment, situational awareness and UAV strikes, both as explosives drops and barrage (“kamikaze” UAVs). (Picture credit: UAF)

Challenges in winter conditions include the vulnerability of UAVs to enemy EW systems, the need for enhanced operator training, and difficulties in distinguishing friendly and hostile drones in crowded airspace. Additionally, battery efficiency decreases in extreme cold, reducing UAV flight times and requiring alternative power solutions for extended operations.

Command and Control Adaptations

Russian forces exhibit flexibility in winter combat, adapting tactics to mission objectives. Assault operations may include traditional artillery barrages or – on the contrary – skip them to maintain the element of surprise. Unit composition and strategic adjustments depend on whether regular infantry, mechanized, or special operations forces are conducting the attack.

To counter evolving threats, Ukrainian command structures emphasize dispersed command posts to reduce vulnerability to strikes.

• Decentralized Command Posts: Key operational functions are spread across multiple locations, minimizing risk.
• Protected Logistical Nodes: Supply coordination is conducted in hardened positions away from immediate threats.
• Integrated Defensive Systems: Success in winter warfare relies on combining obstacles, sensors, artillery, anti-tank squads, and UAV operations into a layered defense.

Key Takeaways

• Cold Weather Warfare Challenges: Low temperatures affect mobility, logistics, soldier endurance, and equipment functionality. Unprepared forces suffer increased casualties and operational failures. Rapid temperature shifts can cause impassable roads, malfunctioning equipment, and exposure-related injuries.
• Mobile Defense Tactics: Ukrainian forces used ambushes, terrain manipulation, rapid relocation of firepower, and circular defenses to delay Russian advances, especially in early war phases.
• Fixed Defense & Area Denial: As fighting transitioned to static lines, tactics included pre-arranged fire ambushes, strategic withdrawal of vehicles, and reliance on natural obstacles.
• Tactical Adjustments for Winter:
  • Troops responsible for 700m frontages with 300m gaps.
  • Deception tactics like fake routes and movement demonstrations.
  • Use of anti-UAV nets and camouflage for cover.
• Morale & Soldier Resilience: Success in combat, effective leadership, proper medical preparation, and heated shelters are crucial for maintaining soldier effectiveness.
• Heating & Concealment: Dry clothing and heating (chemical pads, trench candles) are essential. Thermal blankets reduce visibility to UAVs equipped with thermal cameras.
• UAVs in Winter Warfare: Used for reconnaissance, artillery targeting, and direct strikes. Challenges include reduced battery life and vulnerability to enemy EW systems.
• Command & Control Adaptations:
  • Decentralized command posts to minimize risks.
  • Protected logistical nodes.
  • Layered defenses integrating artillery, sensors, and UAV operations.

Evolution of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Training System after the Russian full-scale invasion

The full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine demanded rapid and comprehensive changes in the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) training system. As the nature of warfare has evolved, so too has the approach to military training, with a focus on enhancing personnel preparation, integrating new combat techniques, improving technical capabilities, and reinforcing logistical and economic support systems. The urgency of war has demanded swift adaptation to ensure the AFU remains resilient and effective in combat.

Key Aspects of Training Development

The AFU has prioritized several critical areas to enhance operational capabilities. The first is personnel training, ensuring a mobilization reserve of trained personnel who can be rapidly deployed. With the constant rotation of forces and the need for rapid replenishment, training programs have been compressed and intensified. The second focus is the adoption of new forms and methods of combat, integrating real-time lessons learned from the battlefield. Tactical adjustments and innovative approaches have become crucial in countering Russian military aggression. The third key area is the improvement of technical equipment, including armoured forces, rocket and artillery troops, aviation, air defence (AD) systems, electronic warfare (EW), communication networks, and unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Furthermore, logistical support remains vital, requiring an efficient supply chain to sustain prolonged operations. Lastly, the Ukrainian economy has been adapted to a wartime mode, increasing the domestic production of weapons and ammunition to support ongoing combat operations.

Operational Guidelines and Modern Combat Considerations

The AFU Chief of Defence has established clear operational guidelines to guide the AFU’s defensive and offensive strategies. Holding defensive positions while reclaiming lost ground is a fundamental priority. To support these efforts, a system of fortified positions, defensive zones, and engineering obstacles has been established. Additionally, maximizing the effectiveness of weapons and military equipment is essential in ensuring that enemy forces suffer substantial losses. The creation and maintenance of trained, combat-ready reserves remain a priority to sustain prolonged engagements.

Modern combat conditions have demanded changes in tactical deployment. The battlefield is characterized by high-intensity engagements, rapid changes in the operational environment, and the extensive use of advanced military technologies. The role of UAVs, electronic warfare, and reconnaissance-strike systems has significantly increased. Mobility and fire support have become critical components, necessitating highly manoeuvrable units equipped with precise targeting capabilities. The ability to rapidly adapt to shifting combat dynamics has proven vital for battlefield success.

Training Infrastructure and Expansion

The destruction of Ukrainian training facilities, barracks, and simulation centres required rapid adjustments. Despite these losses, the AFU has expanded its training infrastructure nearly four times since 2022. The number of service personnel undergoing training has risen from 10,000 to 45,000 troops. Training programs have been modified to reflect the demands of war. Basic combat training, previously spanning three months, has been condensed to 45 days. Specialist training duration has also been adjusted, with artillery and air defence courses reduced from 25 to 14 days, and advanced crew and maintenance specialist training shortened from 52 to 30 days.

The training centers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are capable of simultaneously training up to 50,000 recruits (Picture credit: Telegram)

Training for non-commissioned officers (NCOs) has been rationalized, with leadership and specialist courses integrated into a single 50-day program. This approach has increased the practical component of training, placing greater emphasis on live-fire exercises and real-world combat scenarios. As a result, soldiers are now trained under conditions that closely resemble actual battlefield experiences.

Unit Recovery and Force Generation

Prior to the full-scale invasion, unit reconstitution required up to eight months. Under current wartime conditions, the AFU has implemented a rationalized Force Generation Process that allows for rapid deployment of combat-ready units. The process consists of:

• Three months of personnel training, encompassing basic combat skills and officer courses.
• One month of organizational activities to ensure combat formations are led efficiently.
• One month of individual training to refine soldier skills.
• One month of unit integration training at the squad, platoon, and company levels.

Collective training for brigades and headquarters is now conducted abroad in allied nations such as Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and France. This collaboration has allowed the AFU to enhance interoperability with NATO forces while adopting modern training methodologies.

Reconstruction and Regeneration Options

To maintain operational readiness, the AFU has established three recovery options for combat units:

1. Reorganization – A two-week restructuring process aimed at restoring unit cohesion.
2. Rehabilitation – A six-week recovery phase, allowing units to regain combat effectiveness while remaining within operational zones up to 40 km from the front line.
3. Regeneration – A comprehensive twelve-week recovery period, enabling full combat readiness through extensive training both within Ukraine and abroad.

These measures ensure that combat units are reconditioned effectively while minimizing idle time.

Command and Staff Training Adaptations

Operational-level headquarters training has been significantly modified to enhance command capabilities under high-pressure combat conditions. The focus has shifted to improving command and control structures, refining decision-making processes, and integrating advanced warfare techniques. Specialized training includes simulations that replicate battlefield scenarios, ensuring that commanders can respond swiftly to emerging threats.

To meet the demands of modern warfare, the AFU has developed methods for countering unconventional threats such as UAVs, cyber warfare, and electronic interference. The military command structure has been reorganized, resulting in the formation of two additional army corps within the Ground Forces and Airborne Forces. The training cycle for corps headquarters now includes a one-month program, incorporating individual and collective exercises. Training abroad in NATO countries has further supported Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to align with alliance standards.

Combat Training Enhancements

Recognizing the evolving nature of warfare, the AFU has introduced additional training measures:

• Enhanced topographic, communication, and engineering training.
• Greater emphasis on air defence and counter-UAV tactics.
• Expanded cyber security, radiation, chemical, and biological protection programs.
• Practical exercises in manoeuvring under fire and combat logistics.
• Increased night-fighting capabilities and simulation-based training.
• Development of comprehensive engineering and sapper training programs.
• Expanded use of explosive and non-explosive obstacle courses.

Establishment of the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Training Command

In June 2024, Ukraine established the Command of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Forces to address the increasing role of UAVs in warfare. With support from partner nations, specialized training has been developed to enhance UAV operational effectiveness. The program includes:

• Standardized UAV operator training.
• Integration of electronic warfare countermeasures.
• Practical exercises focused on UAV-targeted strikes and reconnaissance missions.
• International training courses, particularly in Latvia, supported by the Canadian Armed Forces.

Key Takeaways

• Rapid Adaptation: The Russian invasion forced major reforms in AFU training, emphasizing personnel readiness, modern combat tactics, and logistical resilience.
• Intensified Training:
  • Basic combat training cut to 45 days; specialist training reduced.
  • NCO courses merged into a 50-day leadership and skills program.
  • Greater focus on live-fire and practical exercises.
  • Force Generation & Recovery:
• 6-month Force Generation Process IOT ensure combat-ready units – three recovery stages: Reorganization (2 weeks), Rehabilitation (6 weeks), Regeneration (12 weeks).
• Modern Warfare Adjustments:
  • Enhanced defensive zones, rapid mobility, and advanced fire support.
  • Greater use of UAVs, electronic warfare, and reconnaissance-strike tactics.
• International Training & NATO Integration:
  • AFU brigades train in Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and France.
  • Aligned training with NATO standards.
• Command & Combat Enhancements:
  • Improved battlefield decision-making, counter-UAV, cyber warfare, and EW tactics.
  • Two new army corps formed in Ground and Airborne Forces.
• UAS Training Command (June 2024):
  • Specialized UAV operator training with EW countermeasures.
  • International collaboration in Latvia with Canadian Armed Forces.

Russia’s Occupation of Ukraine as Another Dimension of Hybrid Warfare

The occupation of Ukraine by the Russian Federation is not merely a military incursion; it is an extension of Russia’s broader hybrid warfare strategy. Hybrid warfare is a multi-layered approach that integrates conventional military operations with unconventional tactics, including disinformation, corruption, historical manipulation, and cultural erasure. In the occupied territories of Ukraine, Russia employs a combination of military force and hybrid threats to achieve strategic objectives that it failed to accomplish through traditional influence campaigns.

Objectives of the Russian Occupation

Russia has established a military buffer zone within occupied territories, utilizing these regions as logistical hubs and operational bases. These areas provide strategic depth for military deployments, fortifications, and supply lines. The Russian Federation has significantly invested in military infrastructure, constructing defensive lines, storage facilities, and command centers to maintain control over these zones.

Beyond military control, Russia seeks total dominance over the local population by suppressing resistance and preventing guerrilla warfare. The local economy has been restructured to serve Russian interests, forcing civilians into compliance with the occupying forces. Martial law is enforced to enable Russian forces to operate beyond legal constraints, reinforcing their grip over the local population.

Another central objective is the de-Ukrainization of people and lands. The occupation aims to erase Ukrainian national identity and replace it with Russian cultural and political narratives. Ukrainian language, history, and symbols are actively suppressed, while Russian citizenship (“passportation”) is forcibly imposed. Russian authorities have created a “green card” (blackmail in principle) registry to track and pressure individuals who resist Russian citizenship, making them targets for deportation or punishment.

To make these changes irreversible, Russia is systematically displacing Ukrainian communities and replacing them with Russian settlers. This demographic shift is designed to permanently alter the cultural and political landscape, making reintegration with Ukraine nearly impossible. Additionally, forced relocations, asset seizures, forced conscriptions and repressive policies further entrench Russian influence.

Methods of Russian Hybrid Warfare in Occupied Ukraine

Urbicide: The Systematic Destruction of Cities.

Russian forces employ large-scale bombardments to compensate for weaknesses in ground operations. Cities are targeted to force mass displacement, breaking local resistance and removing Ukraine-loyal strongholds. The destruction of urban centers eliminates hubs of Ukrainian patriotism and civil society, replacing them with Soviet-style stagnation. A clear example is the destruction of Avdiivka, once a stronghold of Ukrainian activism and resistance, now reduced to rubble.

The strategic destruction of infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and public utilities, further degrades local resilience. This results in a humanitarian crisis that forces residents to rely on Russian-controlled resources, increasing their dependence on the occupiers.

Brutality as a Tool of Subjugation.

Brutality is a key instrument of control, with Russian forces employing sexual violence as a psychological weapon to terrorize communities. Targeted killings systematically eliminate local leaders, intellectuals, and pro-Ukrainian individuals. Reports of torture and detentions are widespread in filtration camps and detention centers. Martial law enforcement has led to curfews, checkpoints, and arbitrary arrests, establishing a state of totalitarian control.

Deliberate and systemic brutality of the Russian Armed Forces includes large-scale sexual violence, targeted and random killings of civilians. Pillage, torture and detention centers, martial law – curfew, check points and „screening” of the population in order to achieve complete dominance over the occupied territories. (Picture credit: UAF)

Population control measures include:

• Filtration camps to screen, detain, and re-educate civilians suspected of pro-Ukrainian sentiments.
• Forced mobilization of Ukrainian citizens into Russian military forces, effectively using them as cannon fodder.
• Confiscation of property as a means of punishing those who resist occupation, forcing compliance with Russian rule.
• Biometric data collection to track Ukrainian citizens, making future repression and surveillance more effective.

De-Ukrainization: Cultural and Educational Suppression

Russian authorities impose forced passportation, making Russian citizenship a requirement for daily life. Education is reprogrammed to remove Ukrainian curricula, replacing it with Russian history and ideology. Deportations forcibly relocate entire populations to Russia, altering the region’s demographic composition.

The establishment of cadet schools in occupied territories integrates Ukrainian youth into Russia’s militarized society, ensuring long-term ideological control. Schools that refuse to follow Russian-imposed curricula are shut down, and Ukrainian teachers are replaced with Russian instructors. Propaganda targeting children reinforces Kremlin narratives, ensuring that future generations grow up identifying with Russian identity and political goals.

Monument to the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko destroyed in Russian-occupied city Borodyanka (Bucha region) to eradicate every trace of Ukraine in the city. (Picture credit: Natalka Didenko)

Cultural eradication and media manipulation further reinforce Russia’s occupation. Ukrainian symbols, including historical artifacts, literature, and monuments, are systematically destroyed. Media isolation cuts Ukrainian citizens off from external news sources, subjecting them solely to Kremlin-controlled narratives. Surveillance is widespread, with Russian authorities inspecting personal devices at checkpoints. Any evidence of pro-Ukrainian sentiment results in arrest or deportation. Propaganda networks manufacture legitimacy for the occupation and distort historical truths.

Strategic Implications for Europe

Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics are not confined to Ukraine. Across Europe, the Kremlin exploits internal divisions, amplifying societal rifts through propaganda and disinformation. Rather than attempting to convert populations into pro-Russian supporters, Russia aims to create instability, weaken alliances, and undermine democratic institutions.

Political movements are infiltrated to exacerbate polarization, while economic manipulation through energy dependencies and financial leverage serves as a coercion tool. Historical distortions fuel tensions, particularly in Poland, Germany, and Slovakia. Russian intelligence services fund extremist groups and destabilization efforts within NATO and EU member states.

Additionally, sabotage operations and cyberattacks target European infrastructure, disrupting critical services and fostering political uncertainty. Russia leverages corruption and organized crime networks to influence decision-making processes in fragile democracies. These tactics ensure that Russia maintains a strategic advantage in both military and non-military conflicts.

Countermeasures Against Russian Hybrid Warfare

To counteract Russia’s influence, European nations must adopt a proactive and multi-layered approach:

• Enhanced cybersecurity and intelligence sharing to prevent Russian disinformation campaigns and cyber-attacks.
• Media literacy programs to educate populations on identifying and resisting propaganda.
• Strengthening civil societies by supporting independent journalism and NGOs that expose Russian influence operations.
• Military preparedness with NATO reinforcing its eastern flank and bolstering Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
• Economic diversification to reduce dependency on Russian energy and investment channels.
• Legal sanctions and asset freezes targeting Russian oligarchs to cripple the economic power that finances hybrid warfare.
• Stronger border security and enhanced counterintelligence efforts to prevent covert Russian operations within European nations.

Key Takeaways:

• Hybrid Warfare Strategy: Russia combines military aggression with unconventional tactics, including disinformation, corruption, and cultural erasure, to achieve long-term control over occupied Ukrainian territories.
• Objectives of Occupation:
  • Establish a military buffer zone for strategic depth and logistical support.
  • Enforce martial law to suppress resistance and prevent guerrilla warfare.
  • Systematically erase Ukrainian identity through forced “passportation,” cultural suppression, and demographic shifts.
• Methods of Control:
  • Urbicide: Systematic destruction of cities like Avdiivka to force displacement and erase Ukrainian national hubs.
  • Brutality & Population Control: Widespread use of torture, sexual violence, filtration camps, forced mobilization, and biometric surveillance.
  • Cultural Suppression: Ukrainian language, education, and history replaced with Russian narratives; propaganda targeting youth; destruction of Ukrainian symbols and monuments.
• Broader European Implications:
  • Russia exploits divisions in Europe through propaganda, disinformation, and political infiltration.
  • Uses economic coercion (energy dependencies) and funds extremist groups to destabilize NATO and EU nations.
  • Cyberattacks and sabotage operations target European infrastructure to create instability.
• Countermeasures Needed:
  • Strengthen cybersecurity, intelligence sharing, and media literacy to counter disinformation.
  • Support independent journalism and NGOs exposing Russian influence.
  • Reinforce NATO’s eastern flank and reduce reliance on Russian energy.
  • Implement economic sanctions and asset freezes against Russian oligarchs.
  • Enhance border security and counterintelligence to block covert Russian operations.

The Russian Armed Forces employ positional warfare to systematically fragment and dismantle Ukrainian defensive lines. Their offensive methodology is predicated on concentrated firepower, methodical advances, and tactical attrition, with the objective of seizing and consolidating control over key terrain.

Operations are conducted over narrow fronts with limited depth, ensuring firepower saturation and localized superiority before progression to subsequent objectives. The reliance on artillery, electronic warfare, and assault detachments remains paramount, providing the necessary suppression, disruption, and shock action required for successful offensive execution.

This doctrine is characterized by:

• Heavy reliance on artillery preparation fires to neutralize Ukrainian fortifications.
• Deliberate operational pacing, prioritizing incremental gains over rapid, high-risk maneuvers.
• Extensive use of combat engineers for fortification breaching and mobility enhancement.
• Integration of drone reconnaissance to direct precision fire missions and enhance situational awareness.
• Multi-layered logistical sustainment, ensuring uninterrupted offensive capability over extended durations.
• High-command oversight, with centralized control ensuring cohesion across multiple echelons.

Unlike Western-style maneuver warfare, which emphasizes flexibility and decentralized initiative, Russian forces adhere to attrition-based, echeloned assaults, aimed at exhausting and overwhelming defenders before executing deep penetrations into tactical depth.

Historical Continuity: Soviet Precedents in Modern Russian Warfare

Russian offensive methodologies remain deeply rooted in Soviet-era positional warfare. When faced with heavily entrenched adversaries, Soviet military doctrine emphasized multi-echeloned assault waves, overwhelming firepower, and systematic reduction of defensive positions. These principles, refined through major urban battles such as Budapest, Breslau, and Berlin, continue to define Russian operational planning.

The Winter War (1940) against Finland served as a foundational case study, showing early adaptation of assault detachments to dismantle enemy strongholds. Lessons learned from this campaign influenced Soviet strategies during the Great Patriotic War, leading to the development of combined-arms assault formations capable of operating under sustained combat conditions.

The Winter War in Finland demonstrates the application of infantry tactics, where battalion- or company-sized combined arms assault detachments seized and destroyed key strongpoints in the defender’s position to fragment the defensive layout before exploiting into the tactical depth with battalion/brigade-sized armored units. The assault detachments incorporated a fire support element providing suppressive fires against enemy strongpoints prior to the assault. The similarity to current Russian tactics in eastern Ukraine is striking. (Picture credit: 27 MTN BDE)

Modern applications of these doctrines in Ukraine emphasize:

• Fixing enemy forces with broad-front engagements while striking decisive points with concentrated force.
• Establishing fire superiority through sustained indirect fire missions before ground assaults commence.
• Using urban terrain to conceal troop movements, ensuring tactical unpredictability.
• Leveraging electronic warfare and drone support to minimize Ukrainian counter-mobility efforts.

The persistence of firepower-intensive, methodical offensive planning proves the enduring viability of Soviet-era assault doctrines when adapted to modern combined-arms engagements.

Russian Offensive Strategy: Broad-Front Fixation and Focused Assaults

The 2024 Russian offensive in Ukraine seeks to decisively neutralize Ukrainian defensive networks through protracted attritional engagements across multiple sectors. The primary axis of advance includes:

• Krasnohorivka: Urban and fortified terrain requiring sustained bombardment before mechanized assaults.
• Eastern Donetsk: A critical battlespace where Russian forces prioritize breakthrough operations.
• Chasiv Yar: Key terrain intended for flanking maneuvers and envelopment tactics.
• Kupyansk: A logistical chokepoint vital for disrupting Ukrainian supply chains.

By fixing Ukrainian forces along broad-front engagements, Russian forces establish localized superiority, enabling concentrated strikes against weakened strongholds. This methodology mirrors classic Soviet doctrine, wherein secondary engagements create disruption and confusion, allowing primary thrusts to breach and encircle isolated defensive units.

Tactical Execution: Synchronizing Firepower and Maneuver

At the brigade and battalion level, Russian forces conduct synchronized combined-arms operations designed to attrite, isolate, and destroy Ukrainian defenders. Tactical engagements emphasize:

• Deep penetration strikes following protracted artillery barrages.
• Mechanized assaults leveraging massed IFV and MBT formations.
• Infiltration tactics using specialized assault detachments to bypass primary defenses.
• Combat engineers tasked with breaching minefields and fortifications.
• Electronic warfare assets deployed to disrupt Ukrainian C2 networks.

Brigade-level offensives rely on battalion-sized tactical groupings, which function as self-sustaining, high-firepower maneuver elements. These formations are reinforced with:

• Direct and indirect fire support from divisional artillery groups.
• Dedicated air-ground coordination cells to integrate close-air support and glide bomb strikes.
• Mobile logistics units maintaining forward replenishment and casualty evacuation cycles.

Assault detachments, structured at the company and platoon level, employ localized infiltration tactics to exploit vulnerabilities in Ukrainian defensive layouts. Supported by integrated UAV reconnaissance and precision indirect fires, these units neutralize defensive strongpoints before larger mechanized forces advance.

Russian Assault Detachment Doctrine

At the battalion and company level, assault detachments represent the cornerstone of Russian offensive tactics. These units, often numbering between 160-230 personnel, function as high-intensity shock troops, optimized for close-quarters engagements and positional attrition warfare.

Each assault detachment is structured around:

• Three assault infantry companies.
• One mechanized rifle company for sustained combat operations.
• Integrated tank platoon for direct fire support.
• Dedicated combat engineer platoon for obstacle reduction.
• Flamethrower and grenade launcher sections for CQB dominance.
• Organic UAV teams for real-time target acquisition.

These units execute stealth-based infiltration, sequential breaching, and close-quarters clearing operations, enabling the wider brigade-level offensive to progress without direct frontal engagements.

On January 17, 2024, Russian assault detachment conducted an attack on the “Tsar’s Hunt,” a key Ukrainian stronghold southwest of Avdiivka. Engineers first cleared and expanded an old Soviet pipeline, enabling an assault infantry company to infiltrate behind enemy lines. The company then seized a Ukrainian platoon-sized stronghold while two additional assault companies simultaneously engaged first-echelon platoon strongholds, showing a coordinated combined arms approach. (Picture credit: 27 MTN BDE)

Key assault detachment tactics include:

• Pre-positioning fire support elements to suppress enemy positions before breaching operations.
• Using concealed approach routes, often in urban or tree-line terrain, to achieve surprise.
• Employing sniper and anti-tank teams to neutralize key enemy assets.
• Deploying flame and thermobaric weaponry to collapse Ukrainian defensive pockets.

Successful implementation of this doctrine allows for rapid fragmentation of Ukrainian defenses, forcing piecemeal engagements that favor numerically superior Russian formations.

An example of Russian assault company tactics. Assault company deploys fire support assets forward to engage target area with suppressive fire. Infantry elements execute flanking maneuver to seize Ukrainian position. Battalion-level fire support unit infiltrates ahead of main force, establishing overwatch before assault platoons advance. (Picture credit: 27 MTN BDE)

Key Takeaways:

• Positional warfare doctrine focused on attrition, firepower saturation, and methodical advances over rapid maneuver.
• Narrow-front, limited-depth operations ensure localized superiority before progression.
• Heavy reliance on artillery, electronic warfare (EW), and combat engineers for suppression, disruption, and breaching.
• UAVs and reconnaissance assets for direct precision strikes and battlefield awareness.
• Centralized command structure prioritizes systematic, echeloned assaults rather than decentralized maneuver warfare.
• Broad-front fixation tactics pin defenders while concentrated assaults breach critical nodes.
• Assault detachments (160-230 personnel) execute stealth-based infiltration, CQB dominance, and shock action.
• Pre-positioned fire support, snipers, and thermobaric weaponry neutralize fortified Ukrainian positions.

China’s Transition from Economic Partner to Military Rival

China has transitioned from being a global economic player to a military rival. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has rapidly modernized, incorporating cyber, aerospace, and strategic support forces. Amphibious operations are a training priority, particularly in preparation for a potential Taiwan contingency. China demonstrates an effective cycle of observing, adapting, and implementing military strategies, closely monitoring conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war to refine its approach. Their approach to lessons learned is rapid, integrating new battlefield observations into training and doctrine almost immediately.

During military drills with Cambodia, China’s military showed off a robot dog with an automatic rifle mounted on its back. “It can serve as a new member in our urban combat operations, replacing our (human) members to conduct reconnaissance and identify the enemy and strike the target.” (Picture credit: CCTV)

Key aspects of China’s military evolution are:

• PLA Modernization: The integration of cyber, aerospace, and strategic support forces into China’s military structure demonstrates a comprehensive approach to modern warfare.
• Amphibious Capabilities: Training exercises, particularly concerning Taiwan, have emphasized amphibious operations as a critical focus area.
• Rapid Adaptation: China employs an accelerated cycle of observing, adapting, and implementing military strategies, particularly from conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war.
• Technology Integration: China has deployed advanced robotic warfare systems, such as armed robot dogs, into training exercises, reflecting a shift toward automation in combat.

The Russia-Ukraine War: Old Tactics in a Modern Environment

While China is closely monitoring and adapting new technological advancements from the war In Ukraine, Russia continues to implement modern technology in a conventional warfare theater. Russian military strategy prioritizes attrition warfare over maneuver warfare, employing massed artillery, entrenched defensive positions, and deception tactics known as “Maskirovka”. Russia is actively restructuring its military forces, increasing troop numbers to 1.5 million and implementing new conscription policies. The evolving structure of the Russian military suggests a long-term strategy aimed at sustaining and improving its ability to engage in prolonged conflicts.

Beyond these state actors, hybrid warfare and emerging domains continue to shape military conflicts:

• Cyber warfare is becoming an integrated aspect of military doctrine, contributing to both battlefield coordination and disinformation campaigns. Hacking, network disruption, and psychological operations all play a role in modern conflict.
• Space as a battlefield is increasing in importance, with militaries worldwide enhancing satellite reconnaissance and communication capabilities. Secure satellite networks are now critical for modern force deployment and operations.
• Civilian involvement in conflict has expanded due to social media and open-source intelligence, making the battlefield more transparent than ever before. Civilians are now directly engaged in information warfare, either by spreading misinformation or aiding intelligence-gathering efforts for military forces.

Russian Warfare Doctrines and Battlefield Adaptations

Russian military strategy heavily relies on strategic deception and battlefield misleading. The extensive use of decoys, fake command posts, and psychological operations makes Russian forces unpredictable. However, modern technology, including UAVs and electronic warfare, has made achieving battlefield surprise increasingly difficult. The Russian military is adapting by incorporating UAV reconnaissance into both offensive and defensive operations on lowest tactical level.

“Today, a column of tanks or a column of advancing troops can be discovered in 3-5 minutes and hit in another 3 minutes. The survivability on the move is not more than 10 minutes. Surprise has become very difficult to achieve.” Col. Budanov, DIR of UAF Intelligence Service (Picture credit: General Staff of UAF)

Artillery remains the decisive factor in Russian land warfare, with continuous improvements in precision and volume. Russian forces prioritize massed indirect fire support, with modernized artillery brigades receiving the largest share of military funding.

Attrition warfare is the preferred Russian strategy, relying on prolonged engagements and endurance rather than rapid maneuverability. This slow, systematic approach allows them to grind down opposition forces, an approach that has been effective in Ukraine.

Key elements of Russian defensive positions in Ukraine include:

• Fortifications: Dragon’s teeth, minefields, and reinforced bunkers to impede advancing forces.
• Concealment tactics: UAV-resistant camouflage and rapid fortification improvements to evade aerial reconnaissance.
• Sustainability: Logistical resilience to endure prolonged engagements, ensuring that entrenched positions remain operational despite long-term conflict.
• Tactical deception: The use of false targets and misleading troop movements to confuse enemy reconnaissance and targeting.

Russian Force Reorganization

In response to extended warfare, Russia has begun restructuring its military forces to ensure long-term sustainability. Several critical changes include:

• Formation of new military districts, such as the restructuring of the former western and Northern Fleet district into the new Leningrad military district.
• Expansion of existing units, with brigades being restructured into divisions to improve battlefield sustainment.
• Increased recruitment efforts, including extending conscription ages and offering incentives for contract soldiers.
• Integration of paramilitary and ethnic minority forces into official military operations, drawing heavily from regions with less political influence.

The Role of Private Military Companies (PMCs)

Private military companies (PMCs) have played an increasing role in modern warfare, particularly within Russian military strategy. The Wagner Group has been at the forefront of this shift, acting as an unofficial extension of Russian military operations while maintaining plausible deniability.

Key aspects of PMC involvement in modern conflicts include:

• Deployment in high-risk operations where conventional forces may face political repercussions.
• Use as assault detachments for urban and trench warfare, particularly in attrition-heavy battles.
• Recruitment of former military personnel and convicts, offering lucrative contracts in exchange for battlefield service.
• Influence beyond Ukraine, with operations in Africa and the Middle East aimed at securing geopolitical and economic interests for Russia.

The increasing reliance on PMCs highlights a strategic shift where state actors leverage paramilitary groups to achieve military objectives while minimizing direct state accountability.

The Expanding Role of Electronic Warfare (EW)

Electronic warfare is becoming an increasingly decisive factor in modern battles. Russia has prioritized EW capabilities for disrupting enemy drone operations and battlefield communications. Key aspects of EW in modern conflicts include:

• Jamming UAV signals to disrupt reconnaissance and targeting efforts.
• Cyber disruptions aimed at degrading battlefield network coordination.
• Use of electromagnetic countermeasures to protect key assets from precision strikes.

Lessons from Kursk and Ukrainian Deception Tactics

Ukraine has effectively leveraged deception tactics to counter Russian numerical superiority. The Battle of Kursk serves as an example of successful operational deception, including:

• Disinformation campaigns to mislead Russian intelligence.
• False troop movements to draw enemy forces into less strategic locations.
• Decoy equipment deployment to force Russia to waste precision munitions on false targets.

These deception strategies (combined with weaker Russian defensive positions in the Kursk area) have helped Ukraine achieve localized tactical successes despite being outnumbered in manpower and firepower. Also, strict OPSEC policies were crucial as all information were shared IAW need-to-know principle.

Deception tactics are extensively used by both defending Ukrainian forces and Russian troops. Depicted are Ukrainian decoy mannequins near Kharkiv. The logic behind their use is simple: decoys not only protect soldiers and equipment but are also significantly cheaper than the effectors (UAVs, missiles) used to attack them. (Picture credit: DEU Army HQ G2)

Command Post Concealment and Deception

Command post survivability in contemporary conflict zones is dependent on deception, mobility, and electronic warfare mitigation. The Ukraine war has reinforced the necessity of adapting concealment doctrines in response to persistent overhead surveillance. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces have adjusted by decentralizing command structures and integrating counter-reconnaissance measures to protect high-value targets from precision strikes.

In March 2022, Ukrainian forces destroyed Russian 35th Army’s command post outside Kyiv with high-precision artillery strikes. Since then, both armies adapted to the transparent battlefield reality by significant improvement in concealment and dispersion. (Picture credit: UAF)

• Command Post Dispersion and Camouflage: Early Russian losses due to poor command post dispersion highlighted the necessity for enhanced concealment techniques. Ukrainian forces, having prioritized these tactics early in the war, continue to leverage multi-location command nodes and hardened infrastructure.
• Employment of Decoy Command Posts: Both sides utilize false command posts equipped with dummy antennas, obsolete vehicles, and simulated electronic emissions to deceive enemy ISR assets. Ukrainian forces excel in maximizing deception to misdirect Russian artillery and drone strikes.
• Adaptation to UAV-Driven Surveillance: The near-continuous presence of hostile drones necessitates rapid command post relocation. Russian forces have increased mobility and dispersion within command structures as well as use of infrastructure to prevent targeted strikes, while Ukrainian units reinforce critical locations with subterranean facilities and hardened bunkers.
• Execution of Maskirovka (Operational Deception Doctrine): Russian doctrine continues to emphasize Maskirovka, deploying falsified troop movements, spoofed radio communications, and simulated battle damage to mislead enemy reconnaissance. Ukrainian forces, leveraging real-time intelligence verification, counteract these measures with dynamic assessment and battlefield tracking to validate enemy force dispositions.

Snipers and Ghillie Suit Challenges

The Ukraine conflict has proved the limitations of traditional sniper concealment as persistent UAV reconnaissance and advanced thermal detection significantly degrade the effectiveness of static positions. Ghillie suits, while historically effective for camouflage, now provide insufficient protection against modern surveillance capabilities. Ukrainian sniper teams operate under constant threat from Russian drone coverage, with increased need for adaptive concealment and relocation tactics. Russian snipers, in turn, must mitigate UAV-assisted counter-sniper operations.

• Thermal Detection Countermeasures: Traditional ghillie suits fail against UAV-mounted thermal sensors. Ukrainian and Russian sniper elements have incorporated heat-dispersing materials, insulated barriers, and thermal decoys to mask infrared signatures.
• Mobility and Load Management: Wet or muddy conditions worsen ghillie suit weight, reducing operational endurance and sniper mobility. In Ukraine’s terrain, movement restrictions force reliance on alternative concealment strategies, such as natural cover and rapid repositioning.
• Survivability and Relocation: Persistent UAV surveillance eliminates the feasibility of long-duration sniper overwatch. Ukrainian snipers exploit urban environments and foliage, while Russian snipers employ decentralized positioning and deception tactics to minimize exposure.
• Integration of Tactical UAVs: Sniper teams increasingly deploy micro-UAVs for situational awareness, reconnaissance, and target acquisition. Electronic warfare resistance and counter-UAV measures have become integral to maintaining operational security.

Prisoners of War (POWs) in Modern Conflicts

The handling of prisoners of war (POWs) has remained a crucial aspect of modern warfare, influencing both tactical operations and strategic narratives. Russian forces have repeatedly showed a disregard for international humanitarian laws regarding POW treatment, with reports of mistreatment, coercion, and psychological exploitation of captured Ukrainian soldiers. On the battlefield, Russia employs tactical interrogation at initial collection points, often focused on intimidation rather than intelligence gathering. The absence of structured tactical questioning procedures limits their ability to extract battlefield-relevant information efficiently. Furthermore, POWs are frequently transferred through a multi-tiered detention system, from frontline holding areas to rear-echelon facilities in occupied territories or deep within Russian borders.

Modern Battlefield Challenges for POWs:

• Transparency of Warfare: The increasing role of UAVs and electronic surveillance makes POW movements and treatment harder to conceal.
• Psychological Warfare: Misinformation and psychological tactics are used to exploit captured soldiers.
• Intelligence Value: The importance of immediate battlefield intelligence from captured personnel remains a crucial aspect of military strategy.

Conversely, Ukrainian forces have emphasized adherence to Geneva Conventions, implementing structured tactical questioning at initial contact. The objective is to rapidly assess captured personnel for valuable intelligence while ensuring compliance with legal frameworks governing humane treatment. Resistance to interrogation is also a critical aspect of training for Ukrainian troops, given the likelihood of capture in prolonged engagements. Lessons from past conflicts, including Kursk, highlight the importance of counter-intelligence measures, as misinformation and psychological pressure are routinely employed to manipulate captured soldiers.

Future Russian Military Capabilities and Strategic Predictions

Recent public statements from Putin regarding his expansionist ambitions in central Europe underline the goals articulated in the military doctrine of the Russian federation and lead to expect even more aggressive policy towards NATO in his next term as president. Depicted is a prediction of Russian defense capabilities since end of full-scale conflict in Ukraine. (Picture credit: DEU Army HQ G2)

During this period, key developments may include:

• Mass recruitment and conscription expansion to replenish battlefield losses.
• Increased reliance on paramilitary and private military groups for asymmetric warfare.
• Refocusing on hybrid and cyber warfare capabilities to exploit weaknesses in NATO’s digital infrastructure.
• Improved long-range strike capabilities, with greater investments in missile and drone technology.

Key Takeaways

China’s Military Evolution

• The PLA has modernized rapidly, integrating cyber, aerospace, and strategic forces.
• Amphibious operations focus on a Taiwan contingency; adaptation is driven by Ukraine war lessons.
• Robotic warfare and automation are emerging capabilities.

Russia-Ukraine War: Attrition & Adaptation

• Attrition warfare remains FEBA infantry-centric, with mass artillery and fortified positions.
• Maskirovka (deception tactics) continue but face ISR challenges.
• Electronic warfare disrupts UAVs and battlefield coordination.

Defensive Adaptations & Sniper Operations

• Fortifications, UAV-resistant camouflage, and decentralized positioning with adaptive relocations improve survivability.
• Snipers rely on thermal countermeasures, urban concealment, and micro-UAV reconnaissance.

Command Post Deception & Future Projections

• Frequent relocation & decoy command posts reduce vulnerability to precision strikes.
• PMC influence & cyber warfare will remain key to Russia’s long-term strategy.

Prisoners of War (POWs) & Preparedness

• Russia uses coercion, intimidation, and psychological pressure on POWs.
• Troops must be trained in resistance to interrogation and counter-exploitation tactics to prevent intelligence leaks.

Russian Reconstitution & Military Expansion

• Force expansion to 1.5 million troops, restructuring brigades into divisions for sustainment.
• New military districts and increased PMC reliance for unconventional operations.
• Long-range strike, cyber warfare, and hybrid tactics to counter NATO post-war.

The contemporary security environment is facing the gravest threats since the end of World War II. While the Cold War era was primarily defined by the nuclear standoff, today’s challenges are multi-dimensional and asymmetric. The proliferation of advanced technologies, geopolitical tensions, and socio-economic instability contribute to a volatile global landscape. The merging of artificial intelligence (AI), cyber warfare, terrorism, and climate-induced resource conflicts underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive strategic approach to security.

In addition, the increasing interconnection of global systems means that threats in one region can rapidly spill over into others, making them harder to contain. The rise of “Grey Zone Warfare”—where adversaries exploit the space between war and peace—further complicates the ability of traditional military structures to respond effectively. Strategic foresight and adaptability will be critical in mitigating these challenges. Moreover, the role of non-state actors, including multinational corporations, criminal organizations, and private military contractors, is becoming increasingly influential in shaping security dynamics. These entities often operate beyond traditional state control, adding layers of complexity to global stability.

Geopolitical Challenges in the Strategic Environment

The resurrection of great power competition marks a shift away from the post-Cold War belief in liberal democratic expansion. Instead, revisionist states are actively seeking to reshape international norms and challenge Western hegemony. Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine demonstrate its willingness to use military force to achieve geopolitical aims, while China’s rapid military expansion signals its long-term ambitions to dominate the Indo-Pacific region. These challenges require both military deterrence and diplomatic countermeasures to prevent further escalation.

• Global Conflict Zones:
  • Active Conflicts: Ukraine-Russia War, Middle East instability (Israel-Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq), Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh.
  • Potential Flashpoints: South China Sea (China-Taiwan tensions), Baltic region (Russia-Estonia border disputes), Arctic competition.
  • Dormant Conflicts: Kosovo-Bosnia tensions, migration-driven crises in the Mediterranean.

The resurgence of territorial disputes further worsens instability, particularly in regions where historical grievances have never been fully resolved. In addition, the competition for energy resources and rare earth materials is driving nations toward more aggressive foreign policies, raising the likelihood of economic coercion and proxy conflicts. Nations must develop multi-layered strategies to counter these evolving threats, including bolstering economic resilience and fostering international coalitions.

• Rise of Authoritarianism:
  • Decline in fully democratic states; authoritarian regimes are more prone to military aggression.
  • “Axis of Upheaval”—Russia, China, North Korea, Iran—aligned against Western interests.
  • Strategic use of disinformation, cyber operations, and economic leverage by authoritarian states.

Some of the key figures in the rise of authoritarianism: Vladimir Putin (war of aggression, imperial ambitions), Xi Jinping (economic development and global domination ambitions while preserving communist rule), Kim Jong Un (orthodox communism with ‘monarchical’ elements), Ali Khamenei (Shiite theocracy in Iran with regional hegemony ambitions), Assimi Goïta (head of the military junta in Mali under Russian influence), and Ibrahim Traoré (head of the military junta in Burkina Faso under Russian influence). The common thread among them is their view of the ‘Collective West’ and its values as the greatest threat to their existence.

Authoritarian regimes are not only consolidating power internally but also exporting their influence abroad through hybrid warfare strategies. This includes political interference, economic coercion, and manipulation of social media to destabilize democracies from within. The growing reliance on surveillance technologies also enhances their control over domestic populations while setting an example for aspiring autocrats worldwide.

Additionally, the increasing collaboration among authoritarian regimes poses a coordinated challenge to democratic nations. These alliances share intelligence, military technology, and economic strategies to undermine Western influence. By leveraging state-controlled media and social platforms, they systematically spread anti-Western narratives, exacerbating divisions within democratic societies. The West must enhance its counter-disinformation strategies and reinforce alliances to effectively counter this coordinated threat.

The Impact of Technology on the Modern Battlefield

The rapid evolution of military technologies presents both opportunities and challenges. While advanced AI-driven targeting and autonomous systems provide a battlefield edge, they also introduce vulnerabilities such as hacking and reliance on software-based solutions that may be disrupted.

Moreover, the dual-use nature of many technological breakthroughs means that adversaries can repurpose commercial innovations for military use, accelerating their capabilities at a reduced cost.

• Evolving Warfare Paradigm:
  • Civilian technological advancements outpacing traditional military procurement cycles.
  • Increased reliance on cyber and space-based systems for warfare operations.
  • Hybrid warfare integrating cyber attacks, misinformation, and kinetic strikes.

Military strategies must now consider electronic warfare (EW) as an integral component of modern conflict. The ability to jam enemy communications, disrupt satellite systems, and neutralize networked weapons is just as critical as kinetic firepower. This new digital battleground necessitates increased investment in defensive cyber capabilities and the recruitment of highly skilled personnel capable of managing these emerging threats.

The Transition from Manoeuvre Warfare to Attritional Warfare

Manoeuvre warfare is reliant on technological superiority and operational surprise. However, recent conflicts demonstrate that adversaries are adapting by constructing layered defence systems that blunt rapid advances. This necessitates a reassessment of traditional manoeuvre strategies to incorporate cyber and EW disruptions.

• Manoeuvre Warfare (Historical Context):
  • Rapid penetrations, encirclement, air superiority (e.g., Blitzkrieg, Operation Desert Storm).
  • Objective: Overwhelm the enemy through speed and technology.

The current battlefield situation is shaped by constant surveillance, omnipresent UAVs (reconnaissance, strike, and kamikaze), a short targeting cycle, challenges in concentrating combat power, fortified multi-phase defensive lines, and an integrated multi-layered air defense system, all while air superiority remains unattained. Additionally, electronic warfare (EW) plays a significant role in force protection. Near-peer (also known as close) combat offers little opportunity for victory through maneuver warfare, leading to a greater reliance on attritional warfare.

In the evolving battlefield, attrition-based warfare is increasingly replacing manoeuvre-based operations due to advances in defensive technologies. The proliferation of precision-guided munitions, hardened fortifications, and advanced surveillance makes it more challenging to achieve rapid breakthroughs. This shift necessitates greater logistical endurance, deeper industrial mobilization, and sustained political will to engage in protracted conflicts.

Emerging and Disruptive Technologies

The widespread integration of AI and machine learning into weapons systems creates new vulnerabilities, particularly if adversaries develop countermeasures that can disable or deceive these systems. This technological arms race demands not only innovation but also robust defences against asymmetric threats.

Russia’s “Lancet” semi-autonomous, explosive-laden UAV, powered by AI, is one example of utilizing new technologies in weapon systems. AI in weapons systems brings new risks like hacking, jamming, and tricking the system into misidentifying targets. Enemy forces can exploit AI weaknesses through cyberattacks, false data, or electronic warfare, making systems unreliable or even dangerous to friendly units. (Picture credit: ZALA Aero-Group)

Moreover, advancements in nanotechnology and biotechnological enhancements will redefine human performance in warfare. Future soldiers may benefit from cognitive augmentation, enhanced endurance, and real-time physiological monitoring, creating an unprecedented shift in combat effectiveness. These developments, while promising, raise significant ethical and legal questions regarding human enhancement and the future of warfighting.

Future Challenges:

• Drone swarms autonomously executing combat operations.
• Expansion of cyber warfare targeting critical infrastructure.
• Use of blockchain and big data analytics in military operations.
• Directed energy weapons as a new form of force projection.

Post-Heroic Society and Its Strategic Implications

The post-heroic society is a cultural shift in which collective duty, sacrifice, and national resilience are overshadowed by individualism, risk aversion, and a preference for personal well-being over communal security. This shift has profound implications for military preparedness, national defence policies, and the ability of democratic societies to sustain prolonged conflicts.

• Decline in Willingness to Sacrifice:
  • Modern societies place a higher emphasis on personal freedoms and economic stability, making voluntary military service less appealing.
  • Recruitment and retention rates are declining, particularly in Western nations, as fewer individuals see the armed forces as a viable career path or civic duty.
  • The rise of professional militaries has led to a detachment between civilian populations and defense structures, reducing public support for military interventions.
• Impact on National Defense and Readiness:
  • Democracies face challenges in mobilizing large-scale forces in times of crisis due to reliance on smaller, specialized professional forces.
  • Nations struggling with post-heroic tendencies must increasingly rely on technology, automation, and unmanned systems to compensate for a shrinking human force.
  • Military-industrial readiness is affected by the unwillingness of societies to embrace sustained attritional warfare, favoring precision strikes and low-risk engagements over prolonged campaigns.

• Exploitation by Adversaries:
  • Authoritarian states recognize this shift and actively exploit it through hybrid warfare strategies, including psychological operations, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion.
  • Adversaries leverage the perception of Western weakness, promoting narratives that democracies are incapable of sustaining prolonged resistance.
  • The lack of a unified national narrative on the necessity of defense weakens social cohesion and national resilience in times of crisis.

The post-heroic paradigm-shift influences security frameworks across Europe. The implications are vast, altering how nations perceive threats and mobilize resources to counter them. This underscores the necessity for continuous adaptation in the face of evolving threats.

The consequences of a post-heroic society extend beyond military readiness; they shape political decision-making, economic resilience, and societal attitudes toward conflict. To counteract these vulnerabilities, democratic nations must invest in civic education, emphasize national service as a shared responsibility, and adopt a renewed sense of duty among their populations. Without addressing these fundamental shifts, Western nations may struggle to respond effectively to future security crises.

Climate Change and Security Implications

Climate-induced instability will disproportionately affect fragile states, creating new flashpoints for conflict. Nations must prepare for increased humanitarian crises that will have direct security implications.

Security concerns linked to climate change include impacts on food, water and energy supplies, increased competition over natural resources, loss of livelihoods, climate-related disasters, and forced migration and displacement. (Picture credit: NZ Defence Assessment summary)

The global military apparatus must account for climate-related operational challenges, including rising sea levels threatening naval installations, extreme weather events disrupting supply chains, and changing battle conditions due to shifting climates. Developing resilient infrastructure and climate-adaptive strategies will be crucial to maintaining operational readiness.

• Key Impacts:
  • Resource conflicts over water and arable land.
  • Migration-induced social unrest and political destabilization.
  • Economic shifts due to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
  • Arctic militarization as melting ice reveals strategic shipping routes and resources.

Conclusion

The modern security environment is complex, requiring multidimensional responses. Strategic adaptation, technological superiority, and societal resilience will determine future outcomes in an increasingly contested global order. Governments must accelerate their defense innovation cycles, strengthen alliances, and ensure that their populations remain informed and prepared for the threats ahead.

The failure to anticipate and respond to these emerging dangers risks placing entire regions at a strategic disadvantage, ultimately jeopardizing global stability.

Key takeaways:

• Evolving Threats: The security landscape is more volatile than at any point since WWII, with cyber warfare, AI, terrorism, and climate-driven conflicts complicating defense strategies.
• Geopolitical Shifts: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran actively challenge Western influence, using military aggression, cyber operations, and economic coercion.
• Authoritarian Influence: Regimes exploit Western vulnerabilities, using disinformation, political interference, and hybrid warfare to destabilize democracies.
• Tech & Warfare Evolution: AI, cyber warfare, and autonomous weapons redefine military operations, increasing reliance on electronic warfare and reducing the effectiveness of traditional strategies.
• Military Adaptation: The shift from manoeuvre to attritional warfare demands logistical endurance and industrial mobilization, as constant surveillance and drone warfare make rapid advances difficult.
• Post-Heroic Society’s Impact: Declining recruitment, risk aversion, and individualism weaken national defence, making prolonged conflicts harder to sustain for democratic nations.
• Climate Change & Security: Resource conflicts, forced migration, and Arctic militarization pose growing security risks, requiring climate-adaptive defence planning.
• Strategic Imperatives: To counter these threats, democracies must enhance defence innovation, strengthen alliances, and improve societal resilience against hybrid and technological warfare.

Modern Threats: Shifting Mindsets and Evolving Warfare

Modern warfare is changing, and so must our approach. No longer discussing “opposing forces,” we now recognize the presence of a true enemy. This adversary is large, capable, and strategically adaptable. Their approach to warfare is fundamentally different, and we must analyse and adjust accordingly. A failure to understand the enemy’s mindset and operational strategy puts us at a severe disadvantage. Military success depends on adapting our doctrines to counter new threats effectively.

Technology vs. Reliability: Lessons from the Battlefield

Technology plays a crucial role in warfare, but reliability remains paramount. A candle in a trench can sometimes be more valuable than high-tech solutions. While advanced weaponry and AI-driven tools dominate military discussions, the fundamental need for durable and effective gear remains unchanged. Wars are not won solely through cutting-edge innovations but by the ability to sustain and maintain combat operations in harsh conditions. A well-equipped soldier is one that can operate regardless of environment, technological superiority, or resource scarcity.

China’s launch of the Yaogan-41 satellite in December 2023 enhances its ability to track U.S. and allied assets in the Indo-Pacific, reinforcing its expanding military capabilities. With advancements in naval power, missile technology, and cognitive warfare, Beijing aims to challenge U.S. dominance. Meanwhile, industrial stagnation and supply chain weaknesses hinder Western responses. To avoid strategic disadvantage, NATO countries must urgently bolster military readiness, defence production, and counter China’s military-civil fusion tactics. (Picture credit: Shutterstock/Xinhua)

• China’s two-million-strong military force, which poses a significant challenge, demonstrates the importance of numbers over pure technological superiority.
• Russia’s declining birth rate (25% drop in the last decade) affects long-term recruitment and force sustainment, a critical factor in attritional warfare.
• Modern militaries must balance technological advancements with practical battlefield solutions that work under real combat conditions.

Will to Fight and Attrition Warfare

A soldier’s effectiveness is driven by ideology, not just external stimulants like drugs. The will to fight is a critical force multiplier, and nations must invest in psychological resilience training for their troops. Morale, discipline, and a belief in the mission are crucial for sustaining prolonged engagements. Attritional warfare, by its nature, demands a solid commitment to the fight. The ability to endure hardship and maintain cohesion under fire determines the success or failure of a military campaign.

• Underground warfare is emerging as a critical focus for the next years, requiring significant tactical shifts and infrastructure adaptations.
• Ukrainian forces are rapidly adapting, integrating new tools and strategies faster than their Western counterparts, demonstrating the effectiveness of decentralized adaptation.
• Counter-UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) operations require urgent improvements to combat the increasing use of drones for both surveillance and direct attacks
• Russian soldiers are convinced their deaths complete a “full life,” reinforcing their will to fight through nationalistic narratives.
• Western nations must critically assess their own will to fight and recruitment sustainability. Conscription and increased defence spending may become necessary.

Artificial Intelligence: Strategic vs. Tactical Necessity

AI-driven intelligence provides immense strategic potential but is highly energy-intensive. While AI enhances battlefield awareness and decision-making speed, its dependency on massive computational resources presents logistical challenges. The modern battlefield must integrate AI effectively without sacrificing operational resilience.

• AI systems depend on nuclear power, raising concerns about uranium supply, much of which still comes from Russia, creating an ironic dependency on an adversary.
• Despite technological advances, boots on the ground remain irreplaceable. AI can process data, but human soldiers remain the deciding factor in battle.
• AI’s ability to shorten targeting cycles dramatically increases lethality but also creates vulnerabilities when countered with electronic warfare techniques.

UAV Integration: Evolution or Revolution?

UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are transforming combat tactics, but challenges remain in their practical application. They offer enhanced reconnaissance and strike capabilities but require infrastructure and skilled operators. As UAVs continue to shape warfare, their integration must go beyond sole procurement to real battlefield applications.

• Effective UAV use requires training, logistics, and integration into command structures to maximize their potential.
• Without a supply chain or trained operators, drones are ineffective. Acquiring the technology alone is not enough.
• Ukraine and Russia have already embedded UAVs into their units, while Western forces struggle to catch up due to bureaucratic constraints and slow procurement processes.
• The shift toward drone warfare demands dedicated counter-UAV measures, as reliance on these systems increases susceptibility to disruption.

Command and Tactical Adaptations

Ukraine’s mobile, decentralized command structure enhances battlefield survivability, allowing for quicker adaptation and reduced vulnerability to precision strikes. In contrast:

• Russia’s top-down command model limits adaptability and creates bottlenecks in decision-making, slowing battlefield responses.
• Loss of junior officers in Russia presents long-term leadership challenges, as experienced commanders are irreplaceable in a short timeframe.
• Russian forces may revert to rigid, WWII-era command structures, which could hinder their ability to execute modern combined arms warfare effectively.
• Western militaries must re-evaluate mission command and decentralized leadership models to enhance battlefield responsiveness.

Sustaining the War Effort: Attrition and Economic Impact

Russia has shifted to a war economy, sustaining high recruitment through financial incentives and propaganda. The longevity of any conflict is determined not just by the will to fight but also by the ability to sustain logistics, manpower, and economic pressure.

In 2025, the global resource struggle has intensified, fuelling strategic tensions and escalating security risks. The world order is shifting into a ‘Tri-Polar’ contest, with the Americas, Asia, and Europe locked in competition over AI, green tech, and military supremacy. NATO faces friction with adversaries, particularly China and Russia, increasing the likelihood of economic warfare and regional flashpoints. (Picture credit: Magnus von Koeller)

Economic endurance will determine the long-term outcome of conflicts, making resource management as critical as combat operations.

Final Observations: A War of Adaptation

The battlefield is evolving—modern technology meets traditional warfare in new ways, requiring both innovation and pragmatism. Military superiority will be dictated not by singular technological advances but by the ability to integrate diverse assets effectively.

• AI is shortening targeting cycles significantly—from weeks to days, providing a decisive edge in decision-making.
• Europe remains economically dependent on Russian energy, highlighting the contradictions in geopolitical strategies.
• Trench warfare, deception tactics, and battlefield psychology are resurging as essential elements of modern combat.
• Attrition warfare is not just about firepower—it is about resilience, logistics, and sustainability. Those who master these aspects will determine the outcome of future conflicts.

The key question remains: “Are we adapting fast enough?”