Does the ongoing conflict in Ukraine provide a glimpse into how the battlefields of the future might be shaped, influenced and “seen” through the eyes of non-combatants and outside observers all over the world? In this paper, we extrapolate how Ukraine leveraged the power of the internet and social media, the global news media, and commercial off-the-shelf technologies to inform their intelligence assessments.
Ukraine was, and continues to capitalize upon these advantages to identify, disrupt, and subvert the Russian Government and their military forces. Most importantly, Ukraine has largely managed to control the over-arching narrative throughout the conflict due to the unprecedented, overwhelming global support for their cause against the Russians.
Emerging technologies such as drones, Starlink satellites, social media, encrypted messaging and cyberwarfare allow for near-real-time documentation of the Ukraine and Russian battlespace. While understanding how these developments can impact warfighting is essential, we must also consider the far-reaching impact a democratized and transparent battlefield will have on tangential realities such as intelligence, foreign affairs, state/non-state actors, OE narratives and more.
A Transparent Battlefield
In past conflicts, battlespaces were largely separated from the world writ large. This allowed for one or both sides to control the flow of data into or out of the conflict area. State and/or Military propaganda efforts created clean paths to disinformation and misinformation – controlling the population and media is a major combat consideration. Due to the technological advancements, these traditional norms are being upended – Ukraine has effectively crowd-sourced global support in their valiant efforts to remove Russia as an occupying force within the borders of their sovereign country. As a result, present-day Military leadership must consider these new threats and variables when preparing for a conflict in the age of globalization.
Effective Intelligence Apparatus Could be Created Quickly and Cheaply
In a very general sense, the democratization of the battlefield blurs the lines of soldier and civilian, private company or non-state actor. As we’ve seen with the conflict in Ukraine, their sustained request for new and reliable intelligence effectively and quickly crowd-sourced an intelligence organization overnight, and with minimal cost.
An example of this can be seen early in the conflict when Ukraine invited all nations and individuals to conduct their own intelligence campaigns for the benefit of Ukraine. This invitation was supremely successful. The United States and UK-based Defense Contracting companies showcased their global reach by producing real-time satellite imagery and analysis of Russian tank and personnel movements. Not only did this provide an additional (and potentially inorganic) intelligence collection mechanism to the Ukrainian effort, but it also provided a world audience with a stark look at the magnitude of the situation facing one of our Allies. This undoubtedly contributed to the clear and continuous support Ukraine has received from many of the countries on the globe. Global hackers have united and concentrated their efforts on disrupting Russia inside their borders, while anti-Russia Government and Putin sentiment in the United States and Europe was not hard to conceive – the Cold War and Crimea are still fresh on the minds of many.
Civilians and Non-State Actors Complicate the OE
The transparency of the battlefield also intensifies the risk of smaller-nation and non-state actors engaging with the Operational Environment in ways never seen before. Essentially, a democratized battlefield is one where anyone in the world can become a type of combatant, carrying out intelligence, cyberwarfare and disinformation campaigns. This creates very real legal and ethical questions about what defines a civilian from a soldier. For example, if a young Ukrainian citizen were to post a video of a Russian maneuver and share that video, could that Ukrainian be considered a soldier? A combatant?
Governments Have Less Control Over OE Narratives
Additionally, each nation involved in a conflict could see their narratives get overshadowed by instant/viral videos challenging that narrative. By releasing videos, images and stories (supported by various translation software), a particular wartime post could circumvent governmental powers and be consumed all around the world. If a nation is concerned with generating and sustaining public support for a wartime cause, this effort would be put at risk if a graphic video (real or not) were to go viral and weaken that nation’s public perception.
Impact On International Affairs
Ukraine was able to solicit and gain the support of foreign governments by swiftly responding to rapid news cycles. By delivering updates, Ukraine made the world watch Russia’s advancement and hear moving messages from their leaders. Their effort resonated with populations all around the globe. With no formal communication agreements with other nations, Ukraine was able to amass extraordinary support from all over the globe.
From what we have learned, Ukraine’s efforts will continue to give us clues of how urban warfare is changing and adapting at rapid speeds. And the learning doesn’t stop there. This will be a continuously developing situation. New innovations and adaptations will reveal themselves. We can reasonably expect most world leaders and governments are paying attention and taking notes – they must adapt their fighting forces to maneuver within this new type of OE. Leaders must incorporate lessons learned into training and threat-preparation efforts. The battlefield is changing. We must change with it.