Decisive Point Podcast

Despite its desire to achieve cognitive dominance for multi-domain operations, the Army has yet to develop fully and adopt the concept of cognitive performance enhancement. This article provides a comprehensive assessment of the Army’s efforts in this area, explores increasing demands on soldier cognition, and compares the Army’s current approach to its adversaries. Its conclusions will help US military and policy practitioners establish the culture and behaviors that promote cognitive dominance and success across multiple domains.

Read the article: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol52/iss4/13/

Episode transcript: Cognitive Performance Enhancement for Multi-domain Operations

Stephanie Crider (Host)

You’re listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs.

The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.

Decisive Point welcomes Colonel Dan Herlihy, author of “Cognitive Performance Enhancement for Multi -domain Operations,” which was published in the winter 2022–23 issue of Parameters. Herlihy commands the 20th Engineer Brigade at Fort Bragg, NC, and has a background in airborne and Special Operations engineering. He holds master’s degrees in civil engineering and strategic studies from Missouri S&T and the US Army School of Advanced Military Studies, respectively.

Welcome to Decisive Point, Dan.

Colonel Dan Herlihy

Hi Stephanie, thanks for having me.

Host

Cognitive performance enhancement for multi-domain operations—where does the army currently stand on this?

Herlihy

The army is somewhat quiet on cognitive performance, particularly cognitive performance enhancement, and does not address the topic directly in its warfighting doctrine. So, the new FM, 3-0, operations, our Army’s capstone doctrine, discusses the pursuit of decision dominance and briefly mentions cognitive effects, while describing defeat mechanisms later on in the text. But 3-0 does not touch on the cognitive domain in a deep or meaningful way.

The Army research and medical community is much more in tune with the importance of cognitive performance enhancement. In fact, Army Futures Command, TRADOC, and the Army Resilience Directorate have a number of programs and initiatives aimed at exploring this concept. Many of these stakeholders played a part in the development and publication of FM 7-22, the Army’s Health and Holistic Fitness Manual. And that does a much better job describing the cognitive domain and introducing the topic of cognitive enhancement. Even so, 7-22 describes cognitive skill as one of five factors associated with mental readiness and features a far less prominent role in the writing than physical readiness does.

Host

You say in your article that there are increasing demands on soldier cognition. Please explain.

Herlihy

As we’ve seen warfare evolve and now bringing in the space domain and cyber domain, there are clearly more cognitive demands for our soldiers than there were in the past. Warfare has always been cognitively demanding, but as we add nearly limitless streams of information and data through the cyber and space domains—all the way to the soldier and leader level—this becomes more and more prominent. On top of that, we see the speed of combat increasing, so our leaders are expected to make decisions more quickly and without hesitation to exploit brief windows of convergence against our adversaries. With that, we also see more complex war fighting systems, as our technology continues to grow and become more capable. All that combined just puts more of a cognitive load on our soldiers.

Host

How does the US’ approach compare to its adversaries?

Herlihy

I would say the US takes a less direct approach than our adversaries do. Particularly China and Russia. As we look at China, China has had several leaders in the PLA clearly described the domain of consciousness as one of the key operating spaces in the future. The Chinese, like a civil-military fusion approach towards exploiting the cognitive domain and trying to enhance the cognitive performance of their soldiers. The Chinese are not bound by ethical constraints that we in the West impose on ourselves. And what that means is the Chinese are much more willing to experiment with things such as gene editing to edit human embryos in ways that could enhance cognitive performance.

Similarly, the Russians see the information domain and the cognitive domain as key in the future of warfare. And as we’ve seen in Ukraine, Russian disinformation is ubiquitous on the battlefield, and Russian leaders attempt to saturate the information space to confuse and slow the decision-making of their adversaries, which they do so with some success, as we’ve seen.

Host

What are your recommendations for the US Army?

Herlihy

My recommendations are that we must continue to pursue revolutionary advances in neuroscience and technology that are ongoing, and we must continue to do that in an ethical manner and not be tempted to veer from that to try to keep pace with our adversaries. But at the same time, we must also capitalize on practical and near-term opportunities to improve individual soldier and cognitive performance. And that could be done through a number of ways that are outlined in the writing—indirect approaches that affect our cognition through things such as talent management, dietary intervention, sleep modification, exercise, pharmacology, and other resilience, training. Or direct approaches that more immediately target the structural and functional mechanisms underlying our perception, cognition, and emotion. So, we have to take an integrated approach to that across the .mil pf, and ultimately drive towards a culture of cognitive performance enhancement across the Army.

That means we have to leave behind some myths about multitasking, some myths about operating on little to no sleep, and really take a look at what the science says and make some simple modifications to the way we do business that can help us achieve higher potential in the cognitive domain.

Host

Give us your final thoughts on the topic before we go.

Herlihy

I would just close with, you know, while there’s a lot of exciting research and technology emerging in the cognitive domain, we all have an opportunity to educate ourselves on the basics of brain function, how we think, how we decide, and in doing so capitalize on some quick wins that are already available for us with modest investment. And we can set conditions for even greater advances in the future. And the great part about that is we can do so while keeping our values intact and not stepping into any ethical gray space—and continue to serve the way that we have—and we’ll continue to do so in the future.

Host

I’m curious. You’re an engineer. What inspired you to write about this topic?

Herlihy

That’s a great question. I think for me, I’ve just always been fascinated with the way our mind works, and I had some exposure in the special operations community with the early days of what’s now the health and holistic fitness program, and in that learned a little bit about cognitive performance. And to see the huge amount of untapped potential that’s there, as in the army, it’s easy to focus on the physical domain, and we can see results from exercise and nutrition in that domain with our very eyes. And we can see it because it’s easy to measure on PT tests and other assessments. But the cognitive domain often goes unmeasured or unnoticed. I just think there’s a lot of potential there, and I was excited to have the opportunity to do some research on that area and learn that we have a lot of really bright individuals in the army and across DoD that are taking a hard look at this for us. But in the end, it’s us as leaders that are going to have to take the next step to really change the culture of our army to embrace cognitive performance optimization in the same way we’ve embraced physical performance optimization.

Host

Well said. Thanks for taking that one on. And also, just thank you for sharing your time and your insights today on this topic.

Learn more about cognitive performance enhancement for multi-domain operations at press.armywarcollege.edu. Look for volume 52, issue 4.

If you enjoyed this episode of Decisive Point and would like to hear more, you can find us on any major podcast platform.

Author Information: Colonel Dan Herlihy commands the 20th Engineer Brigade at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and has a background in airborne and special operations engineering. Herlihy holds masters’ degrees in civil engineering and strategic studies from Missouri S&T and the US Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), respectively.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the long-term energy dependencies on Moscow that Europe will neither be able to resolve quickly nor without great sacrifice. Russia’s hybrid warfare—a combination of kinetic strikes against key infrastructure, information manipulation, malign finance, economic coercion, and cyber operations—has used Ukraine to target the heart of Europe’s energy security. This war has forced the Continent to consider how to realize its economic, environmental, and geostrategic energy goals on its own. This study found systemic dependencies and cyber vulnerabilities in critical energy infrastructure throughout the European continent could impact the Alliance’s political stability and threaten military effectiveness. Forward mobility and troop readiness are affected directly by energy shortfalls and increasing cyber vulnerabilities across NATO. The main findings related to cyber and malign influence provide a sobering view of the challenges of hybrid warfare on energy security in NATO nations.

Read the monograph: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/956/

Episode transcript: What Ukraine Taught NATO about Hybrid Warfare

Stephanie Crider (Host)

Welcome to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production featuring distinguished authors and contributors who get to the heart of the matter in national security affairs.

The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are those of the podcast guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.

Decisive Point welcomes Dr. Sarah J. Lohmann, editor and author of What Ukraine Taught NATO about Hybrid Warfare, which was published by the US Army War College Press in 2022. Lohmann is an acting assistant professor in the Henry M. Jackson School for International Studies at the University of Washington and a visiting professor at the US Army War College. Her current teaching and research focus on cyber and energy security, counterterrorism, and emerging and disruptive technology. She received her PhD from the Universitat der Bundeswehr, her masters from American University, and her bachelors from Wheaton College.

Hi Sarah, welcome to Decisive Point.

Dr. Sarah J. Lohmann

Thanks for having me.

Host

Let’s talk about What Ukraine Taught NATO about Hybrid Warfare. How did you get involved in the research for this book?

Lohmann

Thanks for asking. That’s a great question. We, that is NPS based in Monterrey, and I, focused on this particular topic around energy security. We’ve both been doing research in our own areas. And then we went to NATO headquarters, and we launched a research map, inviting scholars from across NATO countries to brainstorm with us. This was about three years ago, and we launched it right there from NATO headquarters. NATO did bless the project, and then Army War College brought me on to work on this specific research.

Host

What were your main takeaways on what’s defined hybrid warfare during the Ukraine War, specifically as it pertains to energy security and critical infrastructure?

Lohmann

So, there are three main landmarks. It’s targeting the emerging tech environment. It’s using cyberattacks and kinetic attacks as two sides of the same sword. And it’s leveraging information operations and malign influence to create greater impact.

So let me talk a little bit more about what that looks like in the energy security environment. What does it look like with emerging tech? Basically, this creates a lot of new vulnerabilities to the energy critical infrastructure environment during hybrid war because malicious cyber actors, whether nation states or cyber criminals, are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities created by the Internet of Things environment. When I say that I mean things like smart grids, renewable energy sources, and the IT and operational technology environment. They can be compromised remotely and that sometimes switches off the lights and the heat for an entire city or region. This landscape has been tested and attacked in the early months of the war in both the Ukraine as well as NATO member states.

We’ve seen Russian-backed hacker groups who’ve targeted everything from satellites to wind turbines and technology for distribution of coal and thermal power plants. We saw in the years and months in the lead-up to the war that the Russian FSB have actually previously carried out malicious cyber intrusions into grids in places like the US and Germany. This is publicly known information, but this was just preparation for what’s happening now. Secondly, if we look at how it is targeting energy security through cyber means in tandem with kinetic attacks, we often see the timing happening pretty simultaneously—so within a 24-to-48-hour time range. Thirdly, as we look at information operations, there’s a lot of malign influence going on, and there’s a partnership with China. China has helped to soften the impact of sanctions. They’ve also helped Russia to track technology. So, for example, in Ukraine, the Ukrainians are using drones that have parts made by China. China has given Russia the means to track those drones on the battlefield. In addition, China has laid the foundation by controlling critical infrastructure and the supply chain in many NATO countries. This, in turn, is impacting food security and the supply chain across NATO as well as transportation and logistics. And, ultimately, it affects our national security.

Host

What solutions are there for cyber secure energy independence on military installations?

Lohmann

We looked at three different solutions. One we analyzed was small modular reactors. The second we looked at was micro gridding, and the third was cyber early warning.

Small modular reactors have the ability to provide resilient, independent energy delivery to installations in the event that connections to an electrical grid are compromised. The great thing about SMRS are that they’re power plants based on these that require refueling only every three to seven years in comparison to between one and two years for conventional nuclear plants. There are some SMR’s out there that are designed to even operate for up to 30 years without refueling. But, of course, there are a lot of challenges, as well, in terms of security. You’re not going to want these anywhere close to the battlefield for obvious reasons because you’re dealing really with nuclear energy, so the transport can also be a challenge, and licensing. NATO is not super excited about this option right now just because of all the regulation and licensing that goes along with it, how long it’s going to take, and some of those security issues.

On the other hand, this could be ready for deployment on US bases by 2026. So, because of the large amount of energy it could provide, it really could be a great independent energy solution that’s not vulnerable to cyberattack. The second thing we looked at was microgrids. Now I looked at a lot of different bases in terms of how successful microgrids are in islanding, so that they are cyber secure, but also in terms of providing that energy resilience needed during blackouts. It really depends on each base and their needs in terms of how successful these microgrids have been. Right now, the aim is to use renewables to power them, but what we found is the technology isn’t there yet. Basically, they remain fully resilient on fuel, but that can be a problem in forward positions near the battlefield because of the footprint that leads, and also, is often difficult to access fuel when you’re in a battlefield era. Secondly, only with the right kind of storage and batteries can this kind of micro gridding and islanding be successful. What we found is that in some of the islanding tests, the storage of the batteries actually caught on fire because the technology is not there yet. But it’s predicted to be there technologically within several years. SMR will likely get there faster, but both of these things are a political game, as well, in terms of what will be supported by NATO, what will be supported by the different countries. And then finally we looked at cyber early warning. Now what’s out there right now in terms of cyber early warning is basically anomaly detection. They’re looking to the past at what kind of attacks have already occurred. But in terms of the future and the environment in which you have Internet of Things and emerging technology, much of that is not taken into account when it’s looking at energy critical infrastructure.

So, a colleague and I brainstormed about how we could make this better. One thing that we’re looking at is virtualization of energy critical infrastructure, for example, of a natural gas pipeline, and then combining that with machine learning to protect that critical infrastructure. The great thing is here you can also combine it with the machine learning so that it’s constantly learning from the new attacks. And it can use a sophisticated network of behavioral analysis models that can at the same time conduct network monitoring to ensure security .That then can be used to build a next-generation early warning system. So, we do believe this technology can soon be developed and soon be finished. We’re not quite there yet, but those tools will soon be available.

Host

Why is this book so important for NATO and our commands in Europe?

Lohmann

We really do believe that the information we found and the general policy recommendations that we analyze are crucial for those commands because it provides actionable information. There’s not a lot of awareness out there about how the Internet of Things and the general emerging technology environment impact their military installations. Right now, it is making them more vulnerable because the cybersecurity does not yet exist for a lot of the energy critical infrastructure, so our hope is that this will make them aware of the vulnerabilities as well as make them aware of the innovation that’s being created and could be used very soon on military installations to help repel these kinds of cyberattacks.

Host

Thank you so much for your time. This was a. Real pleasure

Lohmann

I appreciate it, and thank you so much for your great questions.

Host

If you’d like to learn more about What Ukraine Taught NATO about Hybrid Warfare, visit press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs.

Author Information: Sarah J. Lohmann is a visiting research professor of security studies at the US Army War College, an assistant professor of international studies at the University of Washington, and a nonresident fellow with the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University. She is a co-lead of the NATO Science and Technology project “Energy Security in an Era of Hybrid Warfare.” She holds a bachelor’s degree in communications and German from Wheaton College, a master’s of international service from American University, and a doctorate in political science from the Universität der Bundeswehr.

In the fourth installment of the SRAD Director’s Corner, Shatzer focuses on the Taiwan/China relationship. He reviews The Trouble with Taiwan: History, the United States and a Rising China by Kerry Brown and Kalley Wu Tzu-hui and Taiwan Straits Standoff: 70 Years of PRC–Taiwan Cross-Strait Tensions by Bruce A. Elleman and shows how these books might help strategists better understand the contentious and violent history of cross-strait relations between Taiwan and China so they can deal with the problem today and in the future.

Read the article: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol52/iss4/16/

Episode Transcript: SRAD Director’s Corner: Taiwan as Strategic Imperative

Stephanie Crider (Host)

You’re listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.

Decisive Point welcomes Colonel George Shatzer, director of the Strategic Research and Analysis Department in the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College. Schatzer is the author of SRAD Directors Corner. In this issue, he focuses on preserving Taiwan as strategic imperative.

In your SRAD Directors Corner series, you review books of possible interest to contemporary military strategists—especially those serving in the US Army in joint positions. The Winter issue contains the fourth installment of this series, and the focus is on Taiwan. Thank you for joining us again.

Col. George Shatzer

Well, it’s great to be back, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important issues.

Host

You profiled the security challenge from China in your first review article in the series. Well, that article mentioned Taiwan. It had a broader focus. Maybe you could briefly summarize the key points from that first article and then describe why you decided to narrow in on Taiwan, this time.

Shatzer

The first article appeared in the spring edition of Parameters this year and reviewed The Long Game by Rush Doshi and The Strategy of Denial by Elbridge Colby. You are right that both books took a wider or grand strategic look at what the People’s Republic of China’s global ambitions are and what the United States should do about them.

Doshi argues that the PRC has patiently planned for decades to overtake the United States as the world’s dominant power. He describes how the PRC has first sought to blunt the US’s control of affairs, regionally, and then attempted to build its own control over the region and then how the PRC has expanded those blunting and building efforts globally. Doshi speaks to all aspects of national power when he recommends how the US should essentially follow its own blunting and building strategy to curb the PRC’s growth.

Colby, though, focuses on just military power in his book, but still from a strategic perspective, and doesn’t get deeply into any operational matters. He suggests the US overtly build an anti-hegemonic coalition to check PRC advances.

Both authors, of course, mentioned Taiwan, but their books include far more than that.

I always planned to come to Taiwan as its own topic in the article series. And with the events this past summer following US Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan and the violent PRC reaction, it was clearly the right time to do that.

The potential for armed conflict between the US and the PRC might well be the highest it’s been since the Korean War era and the first Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1954 to 1955. This is no theoretical or purely academic problem, either. The PRC has attacked Taiwan and held territory several times in the past. The US has intervened many times, and the PRC has been very clear and vocal about its willingness to attack again. Even though some argue the true potential for war over Taiwan is low, it would still be a war between the world’s two most powerful nuclear armed states. Such a conflict would be a catastrophe and have devastating consequences for millions of people around the world. That’s a problem set that deserves very careful study and attention.

Host

Let’s talk more about the likelihood of a war over Taiwan. I take it from the article that you believe that a war is more likely today.

Shatzer

That’s right. I’m very concerned, actually. I don’t say this explicitly in the article, but I believe the trajectory of the military situation around Taiwan has entered a dangerous new phase following what some have called the 4th Taiwan Strait crisis from this last summer. In earlier straight crises, the US took very concrete military and diplomatic steps to respond and intervene to warn off the PRC and prevent a larger conflict.

In this year’s crisis, three factors appeared to have changed very substantially since the last crisis in 1995 and 96. First is Taiwan’s ability to defend itself. Taiwan military capacity has decreased significantly since 1996. Taiwan’s military is much smaller. It hasn’t kept pace in key areas of modern combat systems technology, and most of its conscripted service members are required to only serve four months. Yes, that’s months. The second factor is the massive growth in PRC military power. Today, most point to the 95-96 straight crisis in which the US deployed two naval carrier strike groups in response to PRC military actions as a major driver in convincing the PRC to modernize its military because it realized it had no real means to respond to the US carrier deployments. I first became seriously involved in examining the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army, or PLA forces, in 2008. From 1996 to 2008, the growth in PLA capability was remarkable. Subsequent growth in PLA capability since 2008 has been at least as significant, if not more so. Relative to Taiwan and US military capability since 1996, the PLA is vastly more capable and dangerous today. The third differences are pure C perceptions of itself and its perceptions of the United States. This is less clear cut than the other two factors, but I think it’s very likely that the PRC is much more confident in its military capability to seize Taiwan by force today.

Additionally, the PRC has seen a much more muted response from the US to this year’s straight crisis. That might well have been a sensible way for the US to defuse tensions, but what signal did it send about US resolve to defend Taiwan? Yes, the US has made public statements reaffirming commitments to Taiwan security, but lacking a clear set of military moves, I’m concerned that the US may have fostered the PRC belief that the US might not back up its words with deeds. So, taken together, I’m generally worried that the PRC has a much greater capacity to at least isolate Taiwan by force and that the PRC believes it has much greater latitude to do so.

Host

What you’re describing, then, is a major break from past history with the Taiwan Strait crisis. This history is the focus of the first book you reviewed. What does this book offer for strategists today?

Shatzer

Bruce Elleman is one of the foremost experts on Chinese warfare, especially maritime operations. But his book, Taiwan Straits Standoff, does a great job of examining each past crisis in all dimensions. Understanding history is key to understanding PRC perspectives on warfare and on Taiwan, so Elleman’s book is mandatory reading, in my view, for anyone engaged in this problem. The book was published prior to this year’s crisis, which is actually good in that the book provides a clean perspective on everything that’s come before. The short book is stuffed full, though, of valuable strategic insight about the importance of Taiwan, the past thinking of US policymakers, patterns of PRC military behavior, and even how Russia factors into the equation. I thought the most valuable aspect of the book was the discussion of the various problems the PRC has faced in trying to act against Taiwan in the past and the range of problems the PRC faces today.

All of these are suggestive of strategic options the US could use today to frustrate PRC aims. To mention just one is the fixation that the PRC has about Taiwan, and how the US historically leveraged that, especially during the Korean War, to influence PRC behavior. Elleman also reminds us that for much of Cross Strait history, the PRC has viewed war with the United States over Taiwan as being pointless. The PRC has traditionally believed that they could gain control of Taiwan through propaganda and subversion. This “win without fighting” mindset is still fundamental to Chinese military thinking, and it holds great deterrent value. If the United States can encourage the PRC to cling to this idea, then maybe war can be avoided. Unfortunately, growth of PRC nationalism and impatience to “reunify” with Taiwan threatens to erode this barrier to conflict. It’s worth noting too, that Elleman recounts in great detail the US Army LED noncombatant evacuation operation from outlying Taiwan Islands in 1955. It was a massive operation. Eventually evacuating nearly 30,000 people, military, civilian from the threat of PRC attack. I mention this because many questioned what role the US Army could really play in a Taiwan conflict today.

Host

Speaking of nationalism in China and impatience over the Taiwan problem, the other book you reviewed brought a unique perspective to these questions. What was that?

Shatzer

Correct, The Trouble with Taiwan by Kerry Brown and Kalley Wu Tzu Hui offered a fresh, compelling take on the PRC–Taiwan problem. The authors approached the issue through the lens of identity— how history, internal politics and a host of other factors shape the way peoples define themselves and others. In fact, the authors assert that identity is, today, the key driver of the PRC–Taiwan Rift and for the potential for war. They wade through some very complex cultural dynamics in a way that makes the core issues easy to understand for a Western audience.

Put simply, the PRC views itself as the rightful and only legitimate leadership of the Chinese nation. And because the Chinese Communist Party has so clearly and forcefully proclaimed its historical and cultural right to control and re empower the Chinese nation, the status of Taiwan is deeply and symbolically now a key component of the party’s legitimacy. In effect, Taiwan is a test case for the party itself. If it were to give up on Taiwan or fail to gain control of it, this would call into question every other sovereignty claim the PRC makes to places such as the South China Sea, Tibet, and Xinjiang. Relinquishing or failing on these claims would mean breaking up the Chinese nation, something the party simply can’t permit.

The authors further argue that because the PRC has grown wealthier and more powerful, it feels its status has increased. And because the PRC believes it is more capable of forcefully seizing Taiwan, the PRC’s desire for so-called reunification with Taiwan is now more urgent. The authors also stress that notions of China as a civilizational force and mother culture amplify a strong Confucian sense of the PRC being an elder sibling to Taiwan and, hence, deserving of its respect. So, for the PRC, its own identity as the elder prevents any possibility that Taiwan could be of equal status or be sovereign.

For all these reasons, the authors conclude that this is an intractable problem where “to be fully China, to have the status it wants to rank as a great global power, the PRC needs Taiwan to be part of it.”

Host

What hope then, is there that the Taiwan dispute can be resolved peacefully?

Shatzer

Brown and Wu Tzu Hui offer that Taiwan status as a democracy is actually a powerful defense because it means that Taiwan can always say it isn’t ruling out joining with the PRC. That reunification is a possibility because its people may elect to do just that. They also point out that the growing sense of a unique Taiwanese identity—as is distinct from a Chinese identity—while concerning to the PRC, also has a deterrent value.

The PRC should be concerned that a firm Taiwan resistance to a PLA military operation to seize the island will result in a quagmire and undercut the party’s claim to legitimacy. I’m not sure how much these factors deter the PRC, though, especially for the long term or when tensions spike again. I do agree with the authors that the problem is intractable in the sense that there is no real way the Chinese Communist Party can give up its claim to Taiwan. Persistent competition with the PRC may well be the best the US can do, by maintaining a credible deterrent through forward posture and demonstrating the clear will to defend Taiwan. But like with the Soviet Union in the end of the 20th century Cold War, I think the only way the PRC threat to Taiwan ends is if the party in Beijing collapses or experiences a revolution that completely remakes it. That’s something that will only result from internal forces and popular action.

Host

You also point out that US will to defend Taiwan is not clear, at least in the minds of some.

Shatzer

That’s true, unfortunately. Despite the US being very clear in its statements and actions about its commitment to Taiwan since 1955, I think most that question US will do so because they don’t understand the importance of Taiwan to the United States. In the article, I discussed various aspects of that importance, particularly the economic, geographic, and military advantages the PRC would gain from seizing control of Taiwan, enabling the PRC to dominate its neighbors in the rest of the region. But really, the risk even greater than the growth of PRC power would be the damage to US power and prestig—in the region and globally.

If the US permitted the PRC to terminate a democratic nation of almost 24 million people, how could the US credibly claim that it would stand with any other democracy in the face of a similar threat? And if the US can’t be counted on to defend other democracies, why should they look to the US for leadership on anything?

US power starts from the idea that its form of democratic government is superior to all others, especially authoritarian ones. If the US is unwilling to defend that ideal from predators, then it effectively cedes global leadership to any other power willing to seize it. That turn of events might not be an existential threat to the United States in the short term, but it would greatly undermine US influence, wealth, and security in the long run.

Host

Run how does the US prevent that outcome?

Shatzer

Through a serious and unambiguous commitment to maintaining a credible capability of defeating military aggression against Taiwan, by working closely with Taiwan to do just that, and by convincing the PRC that military force will not work, that they must resort to a long game of trying to win without fighting.

Fundamentally, the PRC must be made to fear that the risk of an operation to seizeT aiwan is simply too great, and then a failure in that operation will threaten the very existence of the Communist Party. I think only by holding at risk the party’s grasp of power in Beijing will they be deterred from acting against Taiwan. All this is much easier said than done, but it’s what we must do.

Host

Lots of food for thought here, like always, and plenty of resources to dig into. Thanks so much for your time.

Shatzer

Well, thanks again for the opportunity to discuss this today.

Host

If you’d like to dive deeper into the contentious and violent history of the relationship between the PRC and Taiwan, and how it impacts today’s situation, read the article at press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters. Look for volume 52, issue 4.

If you enjoyed this episode of Decisive Point and would like to hear more, you can find us on any major podcast platform.

Author Information: Colonel George Shatzer is the director of the Strategic Research and Analysis Department in the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College.

Now that Vladimir Putin has chosen a path of escalation in his unnecessary war of aggression against Ukraine, it is imperative Western policymakers know the consequences and how he might escalate further. This podcast examines recent events on the battlefield; the implications of the announced annexation of territory, mobilization of forces, and threats to employ “all means” to defend Russian territory; the domestic ramifications and Russian thinking on “hybrid warfare”; and the possible weaponization of food and energy as Putin determines future escalatory steps. It will assist American and European leaders in determining policies to deal with the ongoing crisis at this moment and prepare for an uncertain future.

Read the article: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol52/iss4/4/

Episode transcript: “Putin Chooses between a Series of Bad Options”

Stephanie Crider (Host)

You’re listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs.

The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government, Decisive Point welcomes doctor Jeffrey McCausland, author of “Putin Chooses between a Series of Bad Options,” which was featured in the winter 2022–23 issue of Parameters.

McCausland is a visiting professor at Dickinson College and a retired US Army Colonel, a national security consultant for CBS Radio and television. He’s the founder and CEO of Diamond 6 leadership and strategy and the author of Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons for 21st-century Leaders, published by Post Hill Press in 2020.

Welcome to Decisive Point.

I’m really glad you’re here.

Dr. Jeffrey McCausland

Stephanie, it’s great to be with you.

Host

Your article, “Putin Chooses between a Series of Bad Options” addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent escalation in his war against Ukraine. In what three ways did Putin escalate the war?

McCausland

We have to consider, Stephanie, that escalation occurs vertically as well as horizontally, and he’s actually done or threatened to do both. You know vertically it’s the use of more and more sophisticated military equipment. As the war progressed to use thermobaric weapons, he attacked civilian population as his situation on the battlefield deteriorated, he’s threatened to use nuclear weapons, and he’s mobilized additional military forces, as well as the economy. But then there’s also a horizontal explanation. Moving, if you will, in that direction, and here we see the Russians using hybrid warfare. And, therefore, using the food weapon, shutting off the export of grain to around the world.

I’m fully convinced the Russians were behind the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline and effort to intimidate Europeans about the possible use of energy and the use of overall energy as a weapon as he has done that to manipulate particularly Western Europ ean public opinion potential. Potential threats and nuclear power plants like around Zaporizhya, which he can kind of press or not as he sees fit. And if he were to cause a major disaster there, he could have similar effects to a nuclear weapon with, perhaps, not exactly as much international backlash. He could try to blame it on the Ukrainians. And recently, he’s made threats to go after US and European satellites. So he’s escalated both vertically with more weaponry as well as horizontally.

Host

So, given all this, what are his options now?

McCausland

Those options are to, again, further process horizontally or as well as vertically–the recent suspension of the food export was an example of that. It now seems to be back online. There is some suggestion he may try to expand the war to Belarus. Move Russian military forces into Belarus and use that as a geographic location to attack Ukraine. Even threatening to do that has already forced the Ukrainians to a degree to move some military forces to the north to, in fact, prepare for that. Should that aggression, in fact, occur.

Sure, he could strike NATO territory, particularly those points that are key to the importation of military hardware coming from the United States or our European Allies in an effort to restrict that. Or they can do is think as most likely right now, which is hunker down as winter progresses, hoping to stabilize the battlefield as the ground freezes as snow arrives. And by depriving Europeans of a lot of energy, hope that the European population in the West will become more and more disenchanted with the war, causing social unrest, and they’ll force their leadership to put pressure on the Ukrainians. Furthermore, of course, his ongoing campaign to strike Ukrainian energy infrastructure may have a similar effect in Ukraine, forcing more refugees as people in the eastern part of the country, in particular, are now faced with a long winter with the possibility of no energy.

Host

In your opinion, what’s the probability of Putin using nuclear weapons?

McCausland

I think the probability is low, but it certainly isn’t zero, and we need to keep that in mind and be clear-eyed about it. You know it’s sort of ironic that we are experiencing what I would argue is the greatest nuclear confrontation we’ve had since the Cuban missile crisis, which was almost exactly 60 years ago this past October.

He could use a strategic nuclear weapon. He has a large arsenal. There’s no two ways about that. But obviously that would have, I don’t think it necessarily military effect. It would make him a global pariah. Make him, in essence, North Korea. Even the Chinese would not support that. He could use a tactical nuclear weapon, a smaller nuclear weapon, on the battlefield. And there are reports out even today that the Russian military has considered that. But again, I find that doubtful he would do that. Russian military doctrine has always talked about using such weapons for two reasons.

Reason number one. In an effort to break through a stalemate on the battlefield and then exploit those opportunities with large scale mechanized advance. He doesn’t have the mechanized forces left to do that. And #2, if in fact, the very existence of the Russian Federation was at risk. That’s certainly not the case right now, though he could say the territories he had next, which are Russia are, in fact, being invaded by the Ukrainians now, which is sort of an odd turn of events. But I think he would, again, lose a lot of international support. He would not have the battlefield effect, and he also has to understand, of course, that nuclear weapons, once used, raise the possibility of escalation with the United States, which he doesn’t want either. And finally, of course, even localized effects like radiation affects his forces as well. As it turns out, most wind in that particular portion of eastern Ukraine blows from west to east, so the large-scale radiation patterns would endanger not only his own forces, but perhaps even Russian territory.

Host

You note that it’s critical the West adopt policies to deter or respond to potential future escalation by Moscow. What would that look like?

McCausland

Well, it looks like is unity of effort, of course is key and this year Putin made the assumption of the very onset of this war that two things would happen.

One, the war would be over quickly, the Ukrainians would collapse. That didn’t happen. Second of all, the West, NATO, and the United States would not get their act together. They would be complaints, but we would basically accept this like we did in 2014. That has been untrue. And NATO is a lot more powerful today than, I would argue, it was back in February. As somebody pointed out, you know in a matter of a couple of weeks, Mr. Putin managed to undermine about two centuries of Swedish neutrality and about four decades of German pacifism in one fell swoop. So that unity of effort in the West is key. Now Putin has got to be comforted by social unrest he see sees in France, a new government in the United Kingdom, a new government in Italy, perceived as quiet even in Germany on the nature of this war going for a long period of time. And even recent comments here in the United States by senior Republicans about, we can’t give retrain a blank check and progressive Democrats sending a letter to Mr. Biden urging negotiation, which they subsequently, by the way withdrew.

I think the second thing we gotta do is we gotta continue to emphasize that Putin is committing war crimes. The attacks on civilians, the attacks on civilian infrastructures, are by any definition, war crimes. We cannot allow him, in essence, to use the same tactics the Russians and the Syrians did against Syrian civilians in the Ukraine. We’ve got to continue not only to provide military assistance, which will change and has evolved from stingers and javelins to longer range artillery to high Mars and now more sophisticated air defense, as this relentless attack by the Russians continues. But we also have to provide humanitarian assistance and economic assistance to the Ukrainians. And I fear this winter may see a second refugee crisis.

And last but not least, I say we need to continue to tailor our military assistance and coordinate it with our European Allies to make sure we have maximum effect and consider, I think doing things much more bold. For example, I think we need to consider, if not direct military assistance in Ukraine, at least contractor support in Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces on their territory and repair equipment on their territory that can more quickly then be returned to the battlefield.

Host

Unfortunately, we’re running out of time here, give us your final thoughts though, please before we go.

McCausland

My final thoughts would be these. First of all, Putin’s lost. By any measure, he’s lost. I mean, consider the effect on the economy. He has lost highly skilled young people. Perhaps as many as 750,000 have fled the country following the initiation of the war and the mobilization. He’s had over 100,000 casualties. Some estimate as many as 40,000 dead. The long-term effect on your Russian economy is inestimable, and people estimate, who follow economies, that it will drop by 5% this year and 10 to 15% next year. If you were an extraction economy, which Russia is, the one thing you don’t want to be described as is unreliable. The second thing we need to keep in mind is he still thinks he can win.

And he thinks he must because he knows only two Soviet leaders left office still standing up. That was Khrushchev and Gorbachev. The rest of them all were carried out the front door of the of the Kremlin. Defeat, therefore, for him may be existential. So he has to think about the 3 variables that will make that possible. One is, does his army continue to fight? That, I think, may be increasingly problematic.

Second of all, will the Russian people put up with this as the economy constricts?

And thirdly, what does the economy actually do in Russia, and how precipitous does that in fact happen?

Finally, I think when you keep in mind that this is not a war between Ukraine and Russia per se.

The stakes here are far, far larger. I think we all agree that democracy around the world is threatened. Therefore, it’s more than just a war between Ukraine and Russia, and we cannot afford to lose this. To do so would encourage every desperate from Iran to North Korea to China, seeking to take over Taiwan, et cetera, that the international norms established at the end of World War II, whereby territory was not seized by military aggression, are no longer in place and they can do willy nilly what they think is necessary and the opportunities they think now present themselves.

Host

Thanks for sharing your insights on this topic. It was a real treat to talk with you.

McCausland

My pleasure, Stephanie.

Host

To read the article visitpress.armywarcollege.edu/parameters, look for volume 52, issue 4.

If you enjoyed this episode of Decisive Point and would like to hear more, you can find us on any major podcast platform.

Author Information: Dr. Jeffrey McCausland is a visiting professor at Dickinson College and retired US Army colonel. During his military career, he served as the dean of academics at the US Army War College, a combat battalion commander during the Gulf War, and a member of the National Security Council staff in the White House during the Kosovo crisis. A national security consultant for CBS radio and television, he is regularly interviewed on US national security policy issues. He is the founder and CEO of Diamond6 Leadership and Strategy and author of Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons for 21st Century Leaders (Post Hill Press, 2020).

To illustrate the logic and grammar of coercion, this analysis relies on decision-theory methods, such as game theory, that examine the strategic decision-making process in interactions with adversaries and partners. The intent here is not to offer predictive models of rational-actor behavior. Rather, the intent is to use game theory and similar approaches to understand how coercion works better. This analysis considers competitive interactions between actors that have discrete and qualifiable, if not quantifiable, preferences and who behave rationally, though this analysis acknowledges the behavior that is considered rational is frequently informed by nonrational social, cultural, and psychological factors. Considering these competitive interactions allows one to identify “rules of thumb” that can orient and guide actors as they compete.

This analysis emphasizes coercion does not depend simply on imposing costs; rather, it depends on placing adversaries in positions in which they must act and their most rational option is the one most beneficial to one’s own cause. To achieve this result, actors must carefully calibrate their demands to ensure their adversary’s cost of concession is as low as possible. To prevent challenges in the first place, actors should convince the adversary acting on a threat is one’s most rational response. If convincing the adversary is not possible, then one must find ways to decrease the value of the adversary’s challenge. When none of those options are possible, preparing for conflict is likely one’s rational option. This analysis then applies the rules of thumb to US relations with China, Russia, and Iran.

Read the monograph: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/952/

Episode Transcript: Coercing Fluently: The Grammar of Coercion in the Twenty-First Century

Stephanie Crider (Host)

You’re listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.

Decisive Point welcomes Dr. C. Anthony Pfaff, author of Coercing Fluently: The Grammar of Coercion in the Twenty-First Century, which was published by the US Army War College Press in August 2022. Pfaff is the research professor for strategy, the military profession, and ethics at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute and a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. A retired Army foreign area officer for the Middle East and North Africa, he has a doctorate in philosophy from Georgetown University.

Welcome back to Decisive Point, Tony.

(C. Anthony Pfaff)

Hey, thanks. Very happy to be here.

Host

Why did you take on this topic?

(Pfaff)

It had been kind of, I think, boiling for a little while. In fact, one of the topics of the year, when we started it about two years ago, was, you know, rethinking coercion and competition. And that, I think, came from a strong sense of frustration over the way the United States was competing globally at the time. China was not only asserting itself in the South China Sea and getting more aggressive over Taiwan, as it is still doing now, but it was also building relations globally—particularly, in continents like Africa—that was threatening to displace US influence. And then you had Russia. You know, you got the invasion of Ukraine, which is a very obvious failure of deterrence. But even before the invasion, Russia was a . . . very much a destabilizing influence—particularly, in Europe—already having seized Crimea, supporting Ukrainian separatists, while at the same time using sort of gray zone means, like social media and others, to sow domestic instability or uncertainty within United States and, uh, its European allies.

Then you always have Iran. Iran’s really good at this, you know, using . . .

Host

Yes.

(Pfaff)

Their proxies. They were pretty much able to attack US forces—especially, in Iraq, but, also, elsewhere—with relative impunity. And whenever we struck back, we always found ourselves in a worse position than if we hadn’t struck back. And that kind of quagmire is very frustrating. And what was really frustrating, from a lot of the practitioners that we talked to, is there was no theory of the case on what to do about it. We study war. We know how to use and apply military forces in war, and so our deterrence thinking is often shaped by the idea that as long as we have the right kinds of capabilities, we’ll get the right kinds of deterrence. That’s part of the equation, but it’s not the whole thing. And that’s why I kind of started looking at grammar as a way of thinking about this. You know, (Carl von) Clausewitz famously said, you know, “Apply the idea of grammar to war,” saying war has a grammar of its own, but its logic is peculiar to itself. So if war has a grammar of its own, why wouldn’t coercion have a grammar of its own?

Host

In your work, you talk about compellence, deterrence, and coercion. What are the differences between the three?

(Pfaff)

Very little, actually. Well, so, compellence and deterrence are forms of coercion. As the theory goes, coercion is about getting somebody to do something that you want them to do (compellence) or getting them not to do something you don’t want them to do (deterrence). I like doing . . . calling them, you know, they’re two sides of the same coin. As (Thomas C.) Schelling argues, you can see the difference between deterrence (and) compellence kind of lies in the timing and initiative, determined by who makes the first move and whose initiative is tested. But there are differences where deterrence is obviously kind of more of a passive activity. You could draw a line, and you tell people, “Don’t cross the line. If you do cross the line, I’m gonna do this.” Whereas compellence is a lot more active, “Stop this now. Uh, you have exactly five minutes.” So, you have to specify time and space where, you know, the compellent threat will be enacted. And so, it’s kind of got a timer on it. Where deterrence is open ended, compellence is a lot more limited.

Host

Game theory and coercion: How are they related?

(Pfaff)

Trying to figure out, given the problem, how do you compel and deter—particularly, against adversaries who seem to be, you know, doing a little bit better than we are. What’s the method by which we sort of analyze these things? Basically, we’re talking about an interaction, and that’s kind of what game theory does. It’s probably more accurate to say that we’re using sort of the structure of the game theory to kind of help understand the interactions under the specific conditions of international competition. You know, having said that, even though we . . . you know, this project doesn’t have quite the mathematical rigor you normally associate with a lot of game theoretic analysis, it gives us a way to discipline and structure our thinking about a problem so we can increase our understanding of it. So whether they’re looking at any kind of predictive or even descriptive reliability, it’s kind of trying to look at those interactions, pull out the logic of them, and discern, “What are some rules of thumb that follow from, uh, these interactions, you know, in the real world, can apply when engaged in a competitive interaction?”

Host

How would that work?

(Pfaff)

You have to identify who the relevant actors are; what their interests and goals are; what they can do in pursuit of those interests and goals; and, just as importantly, what they know and believe about other actors—particularly, how they might respond. And these factors boil down to preferences actors have for cooperation, concession, or conflict because that’s basically the . . . you know, that’s basically the shape of the choices that both or however many actors are in play are making.

And so, when we’re looking at these interactions, we’re looking for equilibrium. What do we learn from studying these kinds of interactions? So now we’re thinking putting yourself not in the shoes of the other person in a way. You understand the credibility’s less about how they perceive your resolve as much as how they perceive what’s your interest in doing something?

If the Russians, for example, believe that we would be worse off if we intervened on behalf of the Ukrainians, they would not take our deterrence, our deterrent threat, as credible because we would be worse off if we applied it. It also has to be capable. But here, capability isn’t measured in terms of balance of power necessarily. It’s more measured in terms of if the deterrent or compellent threat is triggered. If they don’t comply, if they don’t cooperate, are they going to be worse off if you apply that threat? Russia, believing that yes, it might be subjected to sanctions and, perhaps, you know, trade restrictions and things like that, felt that no, given the deterrent threat, as they understood it, they would not be worse off if they had invaded Ukraine. I think we’re seeing they were wrong about that.

And a lot of times, in game theory, you talk about rational actors. We talk about rationality. But rationality in this sense just really means knowing what you want and how to get it. Couple of other things fall out, particularly regarding compellence and deterrence. Compellence may not always work out quite the way you think it would in real life—in particular, because the possibility of future interactions and iterations impacts how other actors are going to respond. First, for the one who’s doing the challenging, doing compelling, it offers, you know . . . offers you an opportunity to, uh, test your opponent. So you might be logical—and you see this sometimes—to open up with a very high demand. Even though you don’t expect that they’ll concede, you want to test the waters. And that’s particularly true in stronger/weaker interactions where the stronger actor can afford failure, as a result, might make a very high demand but not be willing to go all the way through to achieve it. Because on the other side, the weaker actor’s incentivized to resist, even where the demand might actually be reasonable if this were a single iteration sort of thing. Because of a fear of future demands, they’re incentivized up front to really dig in. And you kind of see this with the Iranians, right? You know, we make lots of demands. They dig in because they fear there’s going to be another one.

Host

How can it be applied when it comes to, say, China, Russia, Ukraine?

(Pfaff)

There’s three things that you can get out of it. One is helping understand the outcome of an interaction. One is then maybe prescribing effective strategies—at least, things you can try as well as assessing strategies relative to others. Why does something work, and why does something else not work?

So, for example, a key advisor to President Xi (Jinping) of China, Jin Canrong, made a bunch of speeches in 2016 where he really laid out a detailed strategy on how China was going to achieve global hegemon status. And that strategy is comprised of six sequential moves that involve, first, a lot of cooperation, intertwining US and Chinese interests, while establishing alternatives to the United States for other countries like the Belt and Road Initiative that would eventually displace US influence while constraining what the US can do because that cooperation, that status quo they’ve created is now too valuable for the United States for it to, you know, just easily walk away from. It’s a strategy based of “Let’s cooperate in some areas, maybe as many areas as possible, so we’re in a better position to challenge in others.”

Now compare that to the US maximum pressure campaign against Iran. Which one’s more likely to work? Well, maximum pressure just raises the stakes for Iran as well as raises concerns that if they give in to one demand, others will follow. Logically, you know, they should dig in and absorb whatever cost short of war the US is willing to impose and while imposing some costs on their own. It’s a strategy that gives them little to lose.

That point doesn’t mean that a maximum pressure campaign was necessarily a bad idea. It’s just not going to alter Iranian behavior. So if that’s his point, it’s going to fail. But in this context, we can also take a step back and look at what this analysis will tell you is “What’s the space for changing that behavior?” And it’s probably very little. There’s very little room for cooperation, so a strategy that denies Iran resources and makes it harder for them to compete might be the best move.

And then, when it comes to Russia, uh, its interests are limited. Where it has success is with countries where we have little interest. And there’s probably a little we . . . very little we can do about that other than sort of change those other countries’ interests.

But let’s look at, um, Ukraine real quick, just to kind of wrap things up. NATO was criticized in the United States for not signaling resolve. For (Vladimir) Putin to be deterred, he had to believe that the deterrent threat was both credible and capable, which meant that we would “out-escalate” him. There was just really no good reason for him to believe that. And even though the United States, prior to the invasion, basically said, “We’re gonna impose really high costs,” there was enough caveats in the way people were presenting things. There was, uh, an appearance of, uh, lack of consensus among NATO nations on what to do. And in a situation like that, that’s going to signal to the other actor, and it’s time to act.

But Putin made a mistake too, I think, uh, or may have. Well, not only did he not get that right. Uh, apparently the resolve was there, despite how he interpreted the signals. He also probably caused that a little bit or incentivized it. In December of 2021, he issued an ultimatum. He said, “Okay, we’ll back off. We won’t invade Ukraine.” But he demanded no further enlargement of NATO to the east; all cessation of military cooperation with post-Soviet countries, which includes a lot of NATO allies; a withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Europe; and cessation of many military activities in Ukraine. It also demanded a withdrawal of NATO forces all the way to the borders of 1997, which would leave, basically, all of Eastern Europe, you know, vulnerable ’cause that’s the 14 Eastern European and Baltic states that joined after that date. Not only would exceeding these demands prevent any kind of military intervention in Ukraine, it would impair the alliance’s ability to meet its defense obligations under article V. It would essentially kill NATO—probably, the unraveling of the alliance.

As we talked about before, that raises the stakes, which is likely to increase resolve. ’Cause, you know, it went from “Do we just defend a single country,” or are we now worried about the alliance? Now, he’s put it on the alliance. Now what you could say is that this might’ve been used as a separating strategy. “This is a really tough demand. What’s NATO gonna do?” That might’ve been the case, but when you do those, you kind of have to have a plan to walk it back if they stand. And he didn’t walk it back.

So it wasn’t that, and it certainly backfired and increased the resolve of NATO, to the point that it doesn’t look like he’s gonna get any kind of outcome that he’s going to want. The stakes are very high for him. He’s gonna resist all the way down, however many nodes you’d want to go. So if we don’t want to escalate the war, the math says, basically, there has to be some kind of accommodation, or the conflict continues and will continue to escalate. Now, whether that means nuclear weapons—this is where the . . . you know, you leave the analysis.

’Cause the analysis says, yes, that, you know, there’s no limit. Whether or not he’s going to do it is going to depend on a host of other reasons that might fall outside this. And that’s another lesson is that, what this also does for you, you sort of bound that but give you a direction to go look for the other things that’ll fill in your knowledge gap so that you can make better-informed decisions.

Host

So, last question before we go: The way forward—what do we need to keep in mind?

(Pfaff)

The competition’s generally open ended and, you know, coercive failures can sow the seed for future success. In fact, some strategies might integrate failure into the plan in order to get more information. But then, what it tells you is you’ve got to be sufficiently opportunistic, agile enough to take advantage of the things that arise out of that particular interaction. So coercive failure’s not also a bad thing. And there’s a couple other things. So, like, regarding forced postures, it says you should favor those that are flexible and create ambiguity, may be more productive than those that signal overmatch and overcommitment. There’s a lot that it says about how to collect, what to collect regarding intelligence and gearing it towards understanding adversary preferences, their thresholds, as well as, most importantly, their assessment of you. Because as we talked about Putin, he assessed us a certain way. He got it wrong. But knowing he assessed us that way should inform how we respond. Do we want to retain that ambiguity? Do we want to signal more clearly?

And then, third is finding more space to compete in and be out there. So, for example, the United States’ contributions to peacekeeping operations went from a high of 115 to 34 in 2020. And so, we’re not really resourcing those. But those are places where there is a lot of competition going on. When we withdrew our observers out of, uh, Congo, for instance, Russians and Chinese filled it in. That gives them leverage . . . and that gives them leverage and access in those places that we now don’t have. Now maybe we don’t want to do this, but now we need to understand when we withdraw from these sort of inter- and intranational sort of things, we’re ceding space to the other guys. And yes, you’ll have to take into account, you know, whatever agreements or cooperation. There’s always cheating. Know that your adversary’s building that into their costs. Build that into yours as well. And that’s it.

Host

Thanks, as always, for your time.

(Pfaff)

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Host

You can learn more about Coercing Fluently: The Grammar of Coercion in the Twenty-First Century at press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs.

If you enjoyed this episode and would like to hear more, you can find us on any major podcast platform.

Author Information:

Dr. C. Anthony Pfaff is the research professor for strategy, the military profession, and ethics at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute and a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. A retired Army foreign area officer for the Middle East and North Africa, he has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and economics from Washington and Lee University; a master’s degree in philosophy from Stanford University, with a concentration in philosophy of science; a master’s degree in national resource management from the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy; and a doctorate in philosophy from Georgetown University.

After Russia’s unprecedented seizure of Ukraine’s nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhya, the United States needs to adjust its military planning and policies to cope with hostile military forces’ targeting, seizure, and garrisoning of armed forces at large, operating nuclear plants and clarify its policies regarding possible US targeting of such plants. This podcast analyzes these concerns. It compares Russia’s assaults with previous strikes against research reactors and nonoperating nuclear plants in the Middle East and clarifies what new military measures and policies will be needed to cope with military operations against large, operating nuclear plants. US Army and Pentagon officials, as well as military and civilian staff, will discover ways to mitigate and reduce future military harm to civilians in war zones and understand the operational implications of military assaults on and seizures of civilian nuclear facilities.

Read the article: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol52/iss4/3/

Episode Transcript: “Present Danger: Nuclear Power Plants in War”

Stephanie Crider (Host)

You’re listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs.

The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.

Decisive Point welcomes Henry D. Sokolski, author of “Present Danger: Nuclear Power Plants in War,” which was published in the winter 2022–23 issue of Parameters. Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues among policymakers, scholars, and the media. He teaches graduate-level classes on nuclear policy in Washington, DC. He’s also a senior fellow for nuclear security studies at the University of California in San Diego’s (University of California, San Diego’s) School of Global Policy and Strategy.

Welcome back to Decisive Point, Henry. It’s great to chat with you again.

(Henry D. Sokolski)

Well, thank you for having me.

Host

Absolutely. My pleasure. In your article, you note that Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhya should inspire the US to adjust its military planning and policies when it comes to hostile military forces and operating nuclear plants. What about this situation inspired your article?

(Sokolski)

Well, I think what got me going was something halfway around the globe in Taiwan. The election of the current president in 2016 came with a pledge to shut down their nuclear power plants. They had three and one partially constructed. And when I went and visited, it occurred to me that one of the strongest arguments in support of the government’s position was not being made, and that was that these plants were targets, and . . . uh, the more I looked into that, the more I discovered that, indeed, the Chinese were targeting those plants and planning to target them and that the radiation releases, depending on the time of the year, could be quite remarkable and devastating. And I . . . I worked that, and then I started looking around the world.

By the time Zaporizhzhya occurred, I was ready. So that was six years of research that I had been doing on this topic and . . . and problems there.

Host

So this isn’t the first nuclear plant to be attacked. How is this situation different from other attacks?

(Sokolski)

Well, it’s different in several ways. First of all, this is the first nuclear power plant to be attacked . . . uh, we have lots of history in the Middle East of plants being attacked, but they either weren’t operating, or they weren’t power plants. Power plants are big. Power plants present radiological release dangers that are significantly higher than small research or production reactors. That’s one difference.

I think, in addition, attack was not seized by the enemy. We have Russians running . . . trying to run this plant and trying to steal it. That had never happened ever before. Also, we’ve never had strikes against plants with anything akin to drones that are precise. All the attacks before were done by, you know, gravity bombs or by planes flying over the target or inaccurate missiles. Why does that matter? With accurate strikes, you can pick specific things, rather than decimating the whole plant. And that’s exactly what’s been going on at Zaporizhzhya, and it is unprecedented. Before, it was all or nothing at all in the way of an attack.

Yet another way in which the strikes against reactors in the Middle East really don’t tell a tale similar to what’s going on at Zaporizhzhya is none of those plants in the Middle East were surrounded by cities or population. I mean, Zaporizhzhya, Oblast has 1.7 million people living there. Now, admittedly, there are far fewer now. But you’re talking about hundreds of thousands still, and the ability of a population to protect itself against radiation if one of these plants produces a massive release is pretty limited. And that’s something folks striking reactors in the Middle East really did not have to worry about or think about much.

And then, finally, none of the reactors previously targeted in the Middle East were adjacent to treaty parties to a security pact with the United States, whereas you have NATO nations—Japan, South Korea—located close to or having . . . themselves have reactors. And that’s important because in the case of, uh, Zaporizhzhya, if radiation wafts over into NATO territory, it’s not clear what that will or will not trigger in the way of a response, and that’s totally different and unprecedented as well.

Host

You had some specific recommendations for the Pentagon. Will you share those with us?

(Sokolski)

Sure. There are three. The Pentagon needs to start looking at these plants in war zones as stationary, potential, slow-burning, radiologically dispersing nuclear weapons instead of simply another portion of the civilian infrastructure. If they look at them that way, then the deterrents and security alliance implications of waging war anywhere near these plants has to be thought out. That includes in Europe, the Middle East, and in Asia. And they . . . they have to start asking what they’re going to do under different circumstances and what, if anything, they are going to plan around themselves. Are we going to strike these plants? Hope not, but, you know, right now, that’s an open question. They need to close that question in some fashion or another by doing some planning.

The second thing that they need to do is they have to take a more active role in the US nuclear export license application process. They need to be giving their view as to how vulnerable proposed plants that are going to be built by the United States, supposedly—again in Ukraine, in Poland, and in Romania, to say nothing of other places in the Middle East—how vulnerable they would be to being attacked. They have a statutory requirement to do this already. I don’t think they are doing enough to take that statutory requirement seriously. Now they have cause to. I think in addition, they have their own military reactor program that they claim they’re going to base overseas, so they have a real stake in trying to be clear about what their thinking is.

And then, finally, the department needs to clarify and strengthen its current guidance with regard to targeting nuclear plants in a war. We are signatories to a protocol in the Geneva Convention (Geneva Conventions) that strongly discourages targeting electrical power-generating plants. And when you take a look at how the military interprets this obligation, the Pentagon ultimately comes down on the side of freedom of action, such that if a commander in the field thinks it’s important to hit a nuclear power plant, he’s given authority to do it. I think that may need to be reexamined.

And then, the presumption against hitting these things is much stronger in the protocol that we’ve signed than what the guidance and interpretation of that protocol says. I think that that is an invitation for mischief. We are the . . . perhaps amongst the only country other than Russia that hasn’t ratified this agreement. Now, Russia pulled out of it, but even China and North Korea have ratified the darned thing. All of our allies have, so we need to consider how we interpret this. I’m not saying we need to ratify it, but I think we need to come to terms that it’s time to take another look after Zaporizhzhya on how we view that obligation.

Host

I so wish we had more time. There’s so much to unpack here. I just want to thank you, though, for sharing your time and for sharing your insight. It’s always a treat when I get to talk with you. Thanks, Henry.

(Sokolski)

Well, thank you.

Host

To read more about nuclear power plants and more, visit press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters. Look for volume 52, issue four.

If you enjoyed this episode and would like to hear more, you can find us on any major podcast platform.

Author information: Henry D. Sokolski is the Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues among policymakers, scholars, and the media. He teaches graduate-level classes on nuclear policy in Washington, D.C. He is also a Senior Fellow for Nuclear Security Studies at the University of California at San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy.

Early in academic year 2018, a group of US Army War College faculty and students came together in pursuit of an integrated research project devoted to an examination of contested deployment and the growing realization the US homeland can no longer be considered an inviolable zone in preparing for war. Expecting free movement of forces in mobilization, movement to ports of embarkation, and deployment against the nation’s adversaries is beneath reason. Two oceans and benevolent neighbors to the north and south can no longer be considered a significant buffer against internal and external enemies. Adversaries of the United States will seek to disrupt or disable the movement of its forces long before they can be placed in combat against foes overseas, and the nation must be prepared for this opposition.

Read the IRP: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/948/

Statistical evidence suggests that Army battalion commanders are significant determinants of the retention of their lieutenants—especially high-potential lieutenants. Further, this so-called Battalion Commander Effect should be included in brigadier general promotion board assessments and used to inform officer professional military education curricula.

Read the article: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol51/iss3/10/

The reemergence of great power competition, conflict with near-peer competitor states below the level of armed conflict, and persisting threats from nonstate actors with transnational ambitions and global reach pose challenges for strategists planning, executing, and assessing military operations and strategy. Building on current visualization tools, two proposed models—the National Strategic Risk Abacus and the National Strategic Risk Radar Chart—address these challenges and better depict how the US military may inadvertently contribute to risk at the national strategic level.

Read the article: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol51/iss3/5/

Global health engagement, an underutilized strategy rooted in the strengths of soft power persuasion, can lead to more military-to-military cooperation training, help establish relationships that can be relied on when crises develop, stabilize fragile states, and deny violent extremist organizations space for recruiting and operations. Examining Chinese efforts worldwide to curry favor and influence and the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, this article shows health as a medium is a very compelling and advantageous whole-of-government approach to national security policy concerns.

Read the article: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol51/iss3/7/