Scenario development: using geopolitical wargames and strategic simulations

Abstract

The art of scenario development is the core of successful and effective wargaming and conflict simulation which includes some fairly scientific aspects combined to form a proving ground for decision making, leadership and public policy. Paying attention to situational detail, estimating the relative strength, disposition, leadership and logistic determinants of contending opponents is key. Military wargames, in particular, have been effective in developing future leaders, assessing critical decisions, analyzing tactical pitfalls and helping to devise strategy for many centuries. The value of geopolitical wargames and strategic simulations is profoundly influential and valuable in helping aspiring leaders, executives and military commanders understand the obvious and hidden dynamics of contending armies and contextual influences. Likewise, the principles involved include substantial insights and benefits to those wishing to know more about the power of scenarios and wargaming on the development of leaders, the assessment of challenging pressures and the resolution of complex problems.

Appendix: Scenario draft—example for analysis and discussion (McCreight)

Date: April 13, 2017 (future time)

Time: 9 am EST: 5 pm Warsaw Time

Weather: cold rain 37 degrees Fahrenheit—thick cloud cover

Allies/Neighbors—Belarus is sympathetic with Moscow

Ukraine has chosen to be neutral

Latvia and Estonia have not declared their position

Czech Republic has weighed in on behalf of Poland

1.1 Situation

Russian SVR elements and approximately 4,000 paratroops have deployed into the ethnic enclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea to protect ‘ethnic Russians’ and preserve ‘Russian traditions and society’ which the Russian President says have been compromised by ‘flagrant and provocative operations’ and other alleged covert actions by both Polish and Lithuanian underground elements to break away from Moscow and join the Polish state. Russian leaders have warned Poland and Lithuania not to interfere and Russian claims over the sovereignty of Kaliningrad is in stark contrast to Poland and Lithuania both staunch NATO members who are typically hostile to Russia.

Russia has also deployed two nuclear guided missile frigates to the coast of Kaliningrad the Neustrashimy and the Yaroslav Mudryy from the Baltic Fleet. Russia also imposed a 24-h no-fly zone over the enclave. Poland has requested an emergency meeting of NATO on April 15 to determine courses of action. Poland and Lithuania favor a military expulsion of Russian troops from the area. Both Poland and Lithuania cite many reasons for intervening on behalf of the beleaguered member of the very unique Kaliningrad community. Moscow has also cut off natural gas, fuel and food shipments into Kaliningrad for an unspecified period of time. In addition, Kaliningrad’s main airport and train station have been closed, and the borders have been sealed.

They cite uprisings of the people there in January 2010, where widespread and massive protests erupted in Kaliningrad, unnerving the country’s Russian puppet-led political establishment. Despite bitter winter weather, an estimated 10,000 people took to the streets to denounce both the local governor and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, ostensibly for raising utility prices and transport taxes during a time of economic crisis. They also demanded the direct election of regional governors, who have been appointed by the central government in Moscow since 2004. Similar protests and eruptions of popular discontent have caused many inside Kaliningrad to assume this is the time to work for independence and freedom. Russian leaders are embarrassed and annoyed by this development and have vowed to keep the city under Russian control.

As members of NATO both Poland and Lithuania see this recent incursion by Russian troops as a throwback to Soviet repression and signals a return to cold war tensions. They both argue this is an intervention that NATO cannot afford to tolerate. Some members of NATO cannot accept the possibility that anything more than sheer diplomatic pressure is best to alter the situation. A few others are committed to backing up recent NATO members Poland and Lithuania because armed intervention and repression of free people are repugnant to NATO traditions and principles.

Russia has sent in troops to quell rioting and restore order as some elements of civilian police have evidenced mixed loyalties. They wish to exercise their sovereign rights, and a show of military force demonstrates their resolve. Political leaders on all sides reflect a spectrum of opinions ranging from shock to passivity, aggressiveness to neutrality but the general trend seems to be ‘wait and see.’ Global political leaders may have controlling influence—not guaranteed. NATO states are completely divided on the issue but recognize that a fragmented posture would weaken and undermine the alliance at a critical time. With about 50 % of NATO supporting the requests for armed response to Russian behavior to use alongside any genuine diplomatic gestures, NATO leaders are conflicted about the best strategic avenue to pursue.

1.2 Central Scenario issue

NATO has to consider its Article V obligations to a fellow NATO member which appears to be under a very real threat. Russia has to save face and enforce its sovereign prerogatives over an enclave they claim has historically been theirs and protect ethnic Russians. Options for both sides include these approaches:

• Diplomatic

• Diplomatic and economic

• Diplomatic and military

• Military and economic

• Military

• Another different tactic and strategy?

Strategic game continues for 3/24 h days until one clear outcome or another is seen.

Controller guidance

push for military–civilian leader collaboration on options—decisions must be made and strategic options identified; alternate outcomes specified as—peaceful, UN intervention, some urban combat, limited warfare, all out warfare

Hotwash

review basis for options selected; their effects; assess basis for rejected options; determine whether opponent actions matched expectations, identify any surprises; insights gained; perspectives reinforced or challenged; degree to which simulation matched reality; extent of strategic stress and fears of escalation, overall comments