Here is something I keep thinking about. Russian military posture & troop movements increasingly point toward a major ground offensive into Ukraine. Geography, politics, operational reality all suggest that it will be hard to avoid urban warfare. This is a nightmare scenario.1/8
I want be clear here - if this happens, we are going to witness massive destruction, displacement and death. I say this for 3 reasons.
1. Urban warfare is devastatingly violent, resulting in very high numbers of casualties, especially among civilians. 2/8
2. Russia’s way of urban warfare—whether besieging Grozny or bombarding Aleppo—does not prioritize precision, differentiating between civilians & combatants, or protecting civilians & minimizing collateral damage. 3/8
In fact, depopulation by destruction is how Russia wins in cities. If you want to call that victory. 4/8
3. Defense has the advantage in urban warfare in general, and the Ukrainians are motivated to defend their homeland, so this could devolve into a battle of attrition, amplifying casualties and suffering. 5/8
4. If a large scale ground operation materializes, we are also going to see large scale internal displacement and potentially a refugee crisis heading toward neighbors who are not friendly toward refugees. 6/8
We can’t just keep talking about arms transfers, intel support, combat advisors, etc. We also have to plan for a massive humanitarian relief effort to deal with the effects of urban siege, explosive weapons in cities, infrastructure collapse, food shortages & displacement. 7/8
I hope more than anything this doesn’t happen, but if it does, we can’t pretend to be surprised. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's pump the breaks here for a minute. I've said this many times before, but as someone who focused on urban warfare before entering the tech/AI space, I have some reservations about what high tech can and cannot do in urban environments. Some thoughts:
1. Urban environments are both congested in communications signals and at times inaccessible/unreliable. So you have to think about how you're going to keep these systems communicating w/ operators AND each other WHILE accounting for enemy interference, electronic warfare, etc.
2. Before anything else, you gotta ask-what problem is the tech solving? So here its abt identifying & targeting enemy combatants under the assumption algorithms will improve to a point where they can do that reliably. That's a huge problem & a really hopeful assumption, imo.
Everyone is busy with budget stuff, but I have thoughts about the digital authoritarianism argument so you're gonna hear them:
1. The argument that technology is better for dictatorships than democracies is a hypothesis which remains empirically untested.
2. You can't claim that tech savvy dictatorships endure longer than their pre-tech predecessors and less tech savvy peers w/out showing me a regime survival analysis. Whats the cut-off point for pre and post tech? How do you define autocracy or dictatorship?
The longest ruling regimes are monarchies which obviously aren't democratic. Is their survival due to tech? Some of the other longest ruling dictators are in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, not areas know for their tech savvy.
This is a very interesting article and I'm excited to see more scholarly writing on urban warfare, especially work that challenges some conventional wisdom. I have some quick thoughts. 1/
The article argues that the urban environment, just like the jungle, is neutral - it's neither good nor bad, and it manifests differently, but with equal impact, upon all sides. I disagree. 2/
First of all, what is the urban environment? I didn't see a definition in the article, but by most accounts, we're talking people, structures, and infrastructure. 3/
I see a lot of smart people and esp my fellow political scientists are in search of strategy & reason behind this latest attack/detract Iran story. I feel your pain. But for the love of all that is holy, please stop trying to find sense where none exists. 1/
These are not strategically sophisticated people. They don’t understand or care about how signaling to foreign powers works, if they did, we’d see consistency, minimal uniformity of msg, resolve, and/or directionality of some kind. 2/
Instead, the only constant is the President’s fragile ego. This means decisions are made in line w/ who/what Trump likes/dislikes at any given moment, which shifts depending on who he last spoke with or watched on TV, and who was very nice or very unfair to him. 3/
This is wrong in an endless number of ways. Here are a few: 1. Political instability & regime transitions in non-democracies increase the chances of civil war, politicide, genocide, & severe state repression.
2. Iran's geography & demographic profile are a nightmare scenario for military operations; expect urban warfare in big, crowded cities to be MUCH WORSE than Mosul or Fallujah & a rural insurgency in mountains ala Afghanistan but with MANY more fighters
3. When countries experience political instability and conflict, violence & war spread across borders (b/c of refugee & weapon flows, cross-border co-ethnics, 3rd party interference, etc). Unstable Iran is VERY likely to destabilize MENA, central Asia, and beyond.