SPECIAL: Ukraine Proves That Silicon Can't Replace Skill on the Battlefield
One year into the Ukraine-Russia war, the conflict has revealed the fragility of old lessons – highlighting the importance of a motivated, tactically savvy fighting force and European unity.
By Jack Burnham
A YEAR AFTER RUSSIA’s initial attempt to capture a swift victory ended in nearly disastrous defeat, the war in Ukraine continues unabated. While Kyiv managed to seize back much of the territory lost in the first wave of the invasion over the summer, the fighting remains intense around the eastern part of the country as both belligerents prepare fresh offensives.
Beyond the blasted ruins of Bakhmut, a year of intensive interstate war has offered a clearer perspective on the state of conflict in the twenty-first century. From testing popular theories of military affairs to long-standing alliances to the stability of sub-Saharan Africa, the conflict has revealed the fragility of old lessons — while setting the stage for a new understanding of international security.
The theory of war that emerged from the First Gulf War promised to revolutionize the West’s age-old image of large-scale combat, by ushering in a fundamentally new era of warfare. Rather than “unmoving” contact lines stretching out for miles across the desert, and a strategy focused on attrition rather than maneuver, Coalition forces appeared to be able to destroy much of Saddam Hussein’s military — relying solely on air power and advanced technological capabilities.
The swift end to the fighting in Kuwait prompted a wider embrace of the belief that a revolution in military affairs (RMA) was imminent — a development which would allow advanced industrialized countries to capitalize on their technological superiority and rely on more professional and lethal forces to accomplish military objectives (once deemed the sole provision of industrial-scale militaries).
While the validity of this hypothesis, including its applicability to the Gulf War, has been repeatedly debated across the policy literature, its fundamental assertions have come under increasing strain over a year into the war in Ukraine. While technology has played a significant role in the fighting, Ukraine has proven far more capable of harnessing its unique advantages compared to Russia — a country with a much larger and technologically advanced military industrial base.
However, beyond the role of high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS), Patriot air defence batteries, and Leopard tanks in contributing to Ukraine’s battlefield successes, much of the fighting in the east has featured forces using similar equipment battling block by city block. In these circumstances, Ukraine has proven that there remains no effective replacement for a highly motivated, well-trained, tactically savvy fighting force backed by massed combined arms.
Fighting against an enemy heavily reliant on technologically sophisticated assets such as drones, which has simultaneously fielded an army of poorly trained conscripts, Ukraine’s experience after one year of war has demonstrated that silicon cannot fully replace skill on the battlefield.
Further, from Germany’s decision to release Leopard tanks to NATO member states’ staunch public support for Kyiv, the war has ushered in a new era of European unity while largely silencing discussions over the continent’s “strategic autonomy”. While not quite representing the “hour of Europe” as imagined during the height of Yugoslavia’s dissolution, the continued unity of Germany and the United Kingdom on the issue of the war despite rising energy costs remains notable.
Although the United States has so far funded the bulk of the war effort, the UK and Canada’s efforts to train Ukrainians, Poland’s willingness to extend aid to refugees, and the continent’s general interest in increasing military spending highlights Europe’s commitment to bolstering its military preparedness. Further, the war has also largely silenced discussions aimed at developing the European Union’s “strategic autonomy” outside of the confines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, conversations which reached a fevered pitch during the Trump administration. After a year of ceaseless war, it has become clear that while the US may still be called upon to lead within Europe, it can also confidently rely on the strengths of its partners.
The war in Ukraine has also exposed the threat of state-sponsored transnational terrorism to the stability of the international system, particularly within sub-Saharan Africa, once a hotspot for post-Cold War conflicts. The emergence of the Wagner Group as a dominant force within both Russia’s war effort and the Central African Republic highlights the organization’s growing international reach and lethality.
While the Russian military’s efforts to capture more territory have largely stalled, placing significant pressure on its senior leadership, the Wagner Group’s fighters have scored significant propaganda points for their marginal but symbolic victories. Further, Wagner has also been highly active within the Central African Republic, filling a security vacuum left by the withdrawal of French forces that intervened after a coup in 2013.
Beyond acting as a private security service for senior government officials, the organization has also sought to bolster its finances and secure an independent source of wealth by expanding a former artisanal gold mine to fund its global ambitions. While both the United States and Canada have sought to target the Wagner Group through an aggressive sanctions campaign, their presence within a region which has become increasingly polarized between China, Russia, and the US highlights the war’s ramifications for a series of exposed fault lines within the global security landscape.
As the world marks the one-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine, the fate of both belligerents remains uncertain. While Kyiv has received fresh assurances of Washington’s support for the war effort, Russia’s behaviour remains difficult to predict and will likely remain so for the duration of the conflict. However, the war has demonstrated the importance of maintaining a well-trained, well-staffed professional military force, prompted Europe to develop its capabilities within the confines of NATO, and highlighted the importance of Africa within an era of great power conflict. Although the prospect of a lasting peace remains distant, the prospect of victory after so long at war remains bright.
Jack Burnham is a candidate in the Masters of Public Policy program with the Max Bell School at McGill University. He has an interest in international defence and security and hopes to continue with his research into power transitions within the international system and great power competition.