No images? Click here [link removed]

Peter Rough and Tod Wolters (in person) with Wesley Clark, Curtis Scaparrotti, and Phil Breedlove (virtual) on June 4, 2024, at Hudson Institute. (Photo by Madeline Yarbrough)

Since the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s last major land operation, the nature of warfare has changed dramatically. To examine how the United States and its allies can harness emerging technologies to succeed in future warfare, Hudson hosted four former supreme allied commanders Europe (SACEURs): Generals Wesley Clark, Phil Breedlove, Curtis Scaparrotti, and Tod Wolters.

Read their insights [[link removed]] on innovation, hybrid and grey-zone operations, and cyber warfare below.

Also, read, watch, or listen to [[link removed]] NATO Military Committee Chair Admiral Rob Bauer’s discussion with Nadia Schadlow [[link removed]] on the future of collective defense.

Read, watch, or listen to the SACEURs’ comments. [[link removed]]

Key Insights

1. NATO needs to learn the right lessons to implement emerging technologies and evolve at the pace of modern warfare.

“Every war is unique, so you have to be careful about not relearning the lessons of the past war. But if you look at what’s going on in Ukraine today, a couple of things are obvious. . . . During the earlier conflicts—in the Gulf War—I didn’t see much innovation. . . . We did bring the M1A1 tank in, and we used airpower in a unique way for the first 40 days in the Gulf War. When we went into Kosovo, it was with the same air power approach. . . . But as you look at where we are today, software modifications are rolling out very, very quickly, and we’ve got to be able to match the pace of innovation that the Ukrainians have shown if we want to stay ahead on the battlefield.”

— General Wesley Clark

“[Regarding electronic warfare], I agree that the United States, as well, has a long way to go here. And there’s a lot being learned on the battlefield today about that. You have [artificial intelligence] in play as well, autonomous systems in a large way. For instance, Ukraine has done some very serious degradation of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russians, primarily through autonomous systems and long-range fires. Pretty remarkable, actually, for a small force. . . . The innovation there is happening very quickly. There’s action and counteraction. I’m told in a general way it’s about a six-week cycle, but for some technologies it’s day-to-day. And so those kinds of things are a part, I think, of future of warfare.”

— General Curtis Scaparrotti

2. NATO needs a new framework to address Russia’s hybrid warfare operations.

“Talking with a very close Georgian colleague, the hybrid fight going on in Georgia is palpable and measurable, and he believes that they are losing that fight in his country. I was with the interior minister of Moldova the other day. She is brilliant. She can walk you through basically very minor kinetic things that are passing in a hybrid manner inside her country and how the garrisons east of the Dniester River, [in] Transnistria, are taking actions, moving people through and doing physical things as a part of their hybrid act, and how little Moldova can counter these things. . . . I believe that we are so focused on the kinetic fight in Ukraine . . . we are unaware at a level of decision that we’re also going to have to start taking on this hybrid business.”

— General Phil Breedlove

“At what point is a threshold crossed to where this is an activity in that domain that constitutes conflict [or] war? . . . We’ve made some significant gains in the United States from a space and cyber and nuclear perspective, from a policy perspective, applying a whole of government approach all the way down to the youngest soldier being able to implement so that everyone in that chain is aware of the practice that has to be executed in order to embrace an activity that we would say constitutes a conflict. We’ve improved in the US that that policy is better than it was in the past, but it still has a long ways to go.”

— General Tod Wolters

3. NATO’s cyber policy has evolved, but still needs significant improvement.

“These are relatively new domains for NATO, but you can see the play and the importance of them in Ukraine. In fact, Russia started with cyberattacks before they ever did the physical attack. Fortunately, because there had been some work done, Ukraine was relatively well prepared and reacted pretty well to that. But it continues to be a part of the fight today and a very important one. And as far as NATO goes, they’ve begun now, obviously, to restructure and to add those capabilities. But I believe that they and the United States still have a good deal of work to do.”

— General Curtis Scaparrotti

Quotes may be edited for clarity and length.

Read, watch, or listen to the SACEURs’ comments. [[link removed]] Go Deeper

AI and the Art of War in Ukraine [[link removed]]

Reflecting on his recent visit to Kharkiv amid Russian shelling, Walter Russell Mead [[link removed]] writes in the Wall Street Journal [[link removed]] that “with increasingly sophisticated weapons routing more-detailed performance information back to manufacturers, the tempo of weapons redesign and production is accelerating beyond anything seen in past wars.”

Read [[link removed]]

How the US Can Win the Cold War against China in the Twenty-First Century [[link removed]]

Dmitri Alperovitch joins Arsenal of Democracy [[link removed]] to explain the how and why behind America’s need to win the cold war with China—and how to keep it “cold.”

Listen [[link removed]]

The New Iron Triangle: Achieving Adaptability and Scale in Defense Acquisition [[link removed]]

In a future conflict, the US military and American industry, with Congress’s support, will need the ability to modify today’s weapons, produce them in volume, and integrate them into operations—then repeat the cycle in response to enemy countermeasures. Join Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA) at Hudson for a three-part live event on Wednesday, June 12, at 12:00 p.m. EDT, or watch online here. [[link removed]]

Watch [[link removed]] [[link removed]] Share [link removed] Tweet [link removed] Forward [link removed] Hudson Institute

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Fourth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20004 Preferences [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed]