Military intelligence needs an overhaul because the threats are becoming more complex
Russian threat and NATO image: ANP
Many intelligence services have an outdated view of the world while the threats they should protect us from are becoming more complex. Serviceman and researcher Bram Spoor warns that NATO and member state intelligence organisations cannot always predict the dangers.
These intelligence services had it very wrong when Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, for example. The Ukrainian army offered much more resistance than expected, says Spoor. ‘The strength of the Russian army was overestimated and the Ukrainian army was massively underestimated. The Russian advance was much slower than the intelligence services had expected.’
Bean counting
The intelligence gathered beforehand was not so much incorrect as incomplete, he says. Intelligence services still rely on bean counting. How many units are at the front? What kind of weapons are they using? And what support (tanks, artillery, air force) do they have? In short, counting beans on both sides of the conflict and estimating who is better off.
‘Traditional intelligence still looks too often at tangibles but these alone are not enough. In this particular case they should have also looked at Ukrainian unity. Ukrainian troops have been receiving combat training from NATO member states and intelligence from the United Kingdom and the United States since Crimea was annexed in 2014. This made the Ukrainian army much more resilient than the numbers would lead you to expect.’
Human factors in intelligence
So the start of the war was more complex than expected. Spoor calls for principles from complexity theory to be integrated into intelligence work. ‘You don’t just count beans in your intelligence work but include human factors such as battle motivation, resilience, morale and combat training. This intelligence is often difficult to gather, so it’s important to state what you don’t know.’
Complexity theory
Complexity theory aims to understand complex systems that do not always have the same result. Spoor gives the example of starlings in flight. They fly in geometrical patterns but these patterns are never the same. We cannot explain why the pattern is round one time and wave-like the next but we can explain why these shapes occur. The starlings stick to four simple rules: 1) they focus solely on the seven starlings around them, 2) they try to fly at the same speed, 3) they fly in the same direction to prevent collisions and 4) they always try to fly in the middle of the group.
Interviews with intelligence officers
To collect data for his PhD research, Spoor spoke to 56 intelligence officers from the Multinational Corps Northeast. This NATO corps protects the northeastern borders of Europe and thus the borders with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
‘I wasn’t looking forward to it because it all had to be done at secret locations. Recordings weren’t allowed, so I had to write everything down and quickly return to my hotel room to write up the interviews. After a week of interviews, I was knackered but it was well worth it. I often saw the penny drop in my interviewee. Such conversations alone led to new insights about NATO and people’s everyday work’, Spoor says proudly.
Samen aan tafel
He hopes these new insights will also end up ‘higher’ in NATO because it is clear to him that complexity theory should be used in intelligence work. This can be easily achieved by bringing the person with the questions (often someone high up in the organisation) together with various analysts. Both sides can then ask: Why do you want to know this? What is your aim? And even if they can’t say exactly what their goal is they can still look together at how to achieve this. ‘Now politicians’ questions often pass through a long pipeline before reaching the people who have to do the intelligence work and then the answers have to pass back through that same pipeline. That needs to change.’
‘AI will not be the silver bullet but it will help supplement human brainpower within intelligence work’
Spoor is pinning his hopes on AI, which can help create much more complex models. These models can include ‘softer’ intelligence such as combat experience, motivation and thousands of other parameters. ‘You then press play so to speak and you see the battle develop in a simulated environment. That can offer insights that you would not have considered otherwise. AI will not be the silver bullet but it will help supplement human brainpower within intelligence work.’
Move with the times
If intelligence services do not move with the times, he predicts more intelligence failures such as the Ukrainian invasion. ‘It’s a bit unfair because intelligence successes can never be celebrated. But if things don’t change, we will hear more often about things going wrong or events that we did not see coming.’
Bram Spoor will defend his PhD dissertation Intelligence for a Complex Environment on 15 January.