Insider: Short of War

Combatting Russian Lawfare with a Cognitive Shield

https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/combatting-russian-lawfare-with-a-cognitive-shield/
June 13, 2024 by Armenak Ohanesian
On February 24, 2022, Putin formally announced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In his remarks, Putin attempted to justify his actions in part by citing the UN Charter and the right to self-defense. Putin’s argument was unpersuasive in a legal sense and widely condemned by the international legal community. Nonetheless, his attempt demonstrated Russia’s intent to present distorted interpretations of the law to create an illusion of legitimacy for the invasion. Since his speech, the Russian government has repeatedly abused and weaponized domestic and international law to support its war against Ukraine.
Russia’s weaponization of the law is part of its strategy to satisfy Russian domestic opinion, sow discord between Ukraine and its allies, and maintain international support for its activities. Perhaps most insidious, however, is that Russia’s disregard for the law is also malevolently anthropocentric, intended to both exploit and affect the most vulnerable target: the human being and its cognition. In this respect, Russia’s blatant abuse of the law is meant to degrade Ukraine’s will to fight by undermining justice and flouting accountability.
The essence of Russian lawfare is not the correctness of its legal arguments but how law and facts are used to shape the perception of its invasion of Ukraine among domestic, regional, and international audiences. When it comes to waging lawfare, Russia brazenly crafts and deploys malign narratives by manipulating facts, distorting the meaning of international obligations, passing nonsensical domestic legislation, and rendering ridiculous legal judgments. In this way, lawfare is just one part of Russia’s broader disinformation and propaganda efforts. The typology of Russian lawfare has been well-explored: some researchers distinguish up to 36 types of Russian lawfare, depending on the warfare domain and legal environment. These activities undermine the idea of justice and the rule of law and, in many cases, are presented as justifications for specific Russian military activities and objectives in Ukraine. 
Today, new technologies enhance the threat of Russian lawfare. Russia already abuses social media to spread disinformation about its invasion globally. New tools, such as large language models, make such campaigns easier, cheaper, and more effective. Disinformation campaigns can corrupt legal environments by undermining facts, biasing juries, or otherwise creating evidence-resistant beliefs and amplifying basic instincts like hatred. 
Consequently, effectively countering Russian lawfare requires recognizing human cognition as a battlefield and combatting Russian disinformation more broadly. Governments and the sources of international law—namely customary law, treaties, and statutes of international courts—should be designed to reflect a benevolently anthropocentric approach that prioritizes human cognitive resilience against lawfare and disinformation. Governments, militaries, and civil societies must erect a ‘cognitive shield’ to resist the Russian disinformation efforts that underpin its abuse of the law. This shield should focus on five pillars and be integrated into the grand strategy of multi-domain operations.
The cognitive shield includes the following:
Narrative Analysis: Governments should continuously monitor, gather, and organize sources of malevolent foreign narratives to track their activity and targets. For example, big data processing and sentiment analysis tools could do such monitoring. Indeed, such tools are already being developed, including several by Ukrainian experts directly responding to Russian disinformation campaigns. These tools have been successfully used in Ukraine to uncover and mitigate Russian attempts to promote pro-Moscow insurgencies in Ukraine. Debunking false narratives is central to combatting Russian lawfare, which frequently attempts to distort historical facts. Enhancing these capabilities would strengthen the international legal community’s ability to tell fact from fiction and blame Russia for employing such information campaigns. 
Proactive Information Campaigns, Educational Initiatives, and Civil-Military Cooperation: Governments should start or build upon existing efforts to promote ‘cognitive self-resilience skills’ like critical thinking and fact-checking techniques among all levels of society, cultivating media literacy and the ability to recognize disinformation on one’s own. This strategy paves the way for a pre-bunking approach, preemptively exposing weaponized narratives before they are deployed, including in legal environments. Several national governments and regional bodies are already working on these initiatives and should be considered models for other governments interested in doing the same.
Legislative Efforts to Protect Human Cognition: National and international legislative bodies should pass measures to protect mental health and the integrity of cognitive processes, including perception, memory, and decision-making. These functions should be considered fundamental human rights and principles protected by international humanitarian law. At the same time, legislative bodies must criminalize cyberattacks and AI-enabled disinformation campaigns. Indeed, implementing such protections in international law would require significant efforts within the United Nations, particularly the UN International Law Commission. This would include amendments to the Geneva Conventions and the Statute of the International Court of Justice or Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001). Similar provisions must also be reflected in international criminal law, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The goal of these efforts is significant: to introduce a new principle in the law of war that protects human cognition and to hold accountable the states that violate it.
Interdisciplinary Integration: New insights from neurosciences such as neurobiology, psychoneuroimmunology, and psychology will continue to help explain the specific neural mechanisms that must be protected from disinformation. Just as there are mechanisms capable of artificially inducing negative reactions like hatred, there are also mechanisms that can neutralize these reactions. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 42 studies found that psychological “inoculation” (e.g., teaching people about common misinformation strategies) can improve a person’s ability to assess the credibility of new information independently. Government and international legal bodies must maintain awareness of these scientific advances to create new means of protecting citizens against disinformation.
Military Cognitive Strategies: Besides building resilience among civilians, governments need to adopt strategies to combat disinformation in their militaries. A striking example of the importance of such strategies is the Russian attempt to exploit allegations of corruption at the highest levels of power in Ukraine to undermine Ukraine’s will to fight. Indeed, corruption in Ukraine is a long-standing and systemic issue. Many Ukrainians of military age who left the country after Russia’s invasion state that they do not want to fight for a corrupt government. 
From my personal experience—as both a lawyer and a combatant in Ukraine—I am disappointed about the absence of a robust justice system in Ukraine. However, it’s important not to overlook the paradox of ‘perverse transparency,’ when anti-corruption efforts expose previously unnoticed corruption, thereby creating a misleading impression of increasing corruption. Russian intelligence services have leveraged Ukrainian anti-corruption efforts to generate high-profile news stories, which Russian media channels further exploit to discredit Ukrainian authorities to Western and Ukrainian audiences, including Ukrainian soldiers. Military doctrines must account for information campaigns exploiting narratives designed specifically to undermine a population’s will to fight by emphasizing the importance of cognitive resilience among its troops and populations that may be called upon to serve in the future.
Notably, the pillars of the cognitive shield are mutually reinforcing. For example, narrative analysis tools developed by governments or private industry can be improved by incorporating new findings from neuroscience studies. These tools can then be better applied in resilience-building educational initiatives and inform the drafting of legislative and military doctrine.
Whether local or global, conflict remains fundamentally a clash of wills, making it inherently a cognitive battle. Russian attempts to legally justify its invasion of Ukraine are a stark reminder of the vital role of cognitive resilience. Indeed, proactive and creative strategies necessitate relentless political commitment, but they are essential to safeguard the cognitive integrity of individuals committed to the ideals of freedom.
Armenak Ohanesian is Ukrainian lawyer, practiced in litigation, international arbitration, and criminal law. Post-Russian invasion, he served in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including roles as an infantry soldier, combat medic, and artillery commander, notably in the Izium Counteroffensive and the Battle of Bakhmut. Decorated for his service, he now leads legal studies at IKAR, focusing on international law and cognitive warfare.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official position of the Irregular Warfare Initiative, Princeton University’s Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, the Modern War Institute at West Point, or the United States Government.
If you value reading the Irregular Warfare Initiative, please consider supporting our work. And for the best gear, check out the IWI store for mugs, coasters, apparel, and other items.

Secret Cyber Wars: Why States Are Increasingly Turning to Economic Espionage and How Cyber Proxies Play a Key Role

June 4, 2024 by William Akoto
Original article published on the Irregular Warfare Initiative's website.
Editor’s note: This article is part of Project Proxies and Partners, which explores the promises and pitfalls of security cooperation in war, at peace, and in between. We invite you to contribute to the discussion, explore the difficult questions, and help influence the future of proxies and partners. Please contact us if you would like to propose an article, podcast, or event.
In September 2001, operatives for Procter & Gamble were caught diving in dumpsters outside a Unilever facility in Chicago in search of documents and other discarded items containing confidential information about Unilever’s hair care products business. To avoid litigation and the negative publicity that often accompanies such disputes, the companies quietly reached a negotiated settlement where Procter & Gamble agreed to not use any of the information obtained. This early example illustrates the ongoing vulnerability companies face regarding data security. In today’s corporate environment where digital data storage is the norm, companies now have to be wary of not only paper documents but also discarded storage devices like hard drives, USBs, and even old office equipment that might store digital data. 
Companies also have to worry about the increasing trend of nation-state-backed hackers trying to infiltrate corporate networks. This is part of a worrying shift in state-sponsored espionage from traditional intelligence gathering primarily targeted toward military and political secrets to the targeting of information held by private firms and other commercial enterprises that perform research and produce innovation critical to national economic growth and prosperity. Perpetrators often aim to use this information to leapfrog rivals’ technological advancements and to gain a competitive edge in the global marketplace. This is emblematic of modern interstate conflict, where the lines between economic, military, and political rivalry are blurred. 
In this article, I aim to highlight the rising tendency of states to engage in cyber economic espionage and how cyber proxies—hackers for hire—are playing an increasingly central role in these efforts. Two brief examples illustrate this trend. 
In 2017, APT10—a Chinese state-sponsored cyber proxy group believed to be linked to China’s Ministry of State Security—conducted a massive espionage operation dubbed Operation Cloud Hopper. This group is an example of what are known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups—hackers that engage in prolonged and targeted cyber campaigns against specific entities such as government agencies, companies, or other strategically important targets to steal information, disrupt operations, or spy on activities. In the Cloud Hopper operation, the group targeted managed service providers (MSPs)—companies that manage IT services for multiple businesses. The techniques used included spear-phishing to gain initial access, followed by the deployment of various malware tools to establish persistence and facilitate the exploration and extraction of valuable data.
The operation, distinctive in its scale and focus on commercial secrets rather than traditional military or political intelligence, was global, affecting countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. It spanned a wide range of industries including technology, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical companies. Targeting such a diverse array of industries highlights the strategic nature of the campaign and its aim to gain economic advantages through the theft of trade secrets and other sensitive corporate information.
The SolarWinds hack, identified in late 2020, is another significant incident that, although primarily seen as an intelligence-gathering operation, had substantial implications for economic espionage. This sophisticated attack involved the insertion of malicious code into the software updates of SolarWinds’ Orion platform, a widely used network management tool. Believed to be conducted by Russian intelligence services, this campaign compromised the systems of numerous US government agencies, top enterprises, and technology firms, allowing the attackers to spy on business activities and potentially steal valuable corporate and technology secrets. The breach not only exposed vast amounts of sensitive information but also revealed vulnerabilities in the software supply chain.
The Strategic Use of Cyber Proxies
These high-profile incidents raise important questions about why states choose to use proxy hackers for such operations. Academic researchers who have wrestled with this question suggest that states often use cyber proxies because it allows them to leverage specialized skills, expertise, tools, and capabilities that the proxies have but which might be missing from state intelligence agencies or are prohibitively expensive to develop in-house. The activities of cyber proxies tend to fall in the gray areas of international law and politics, which makes them very appealing to states that want to reap the benefits of the proxy’s activities while avoiding responsibility if the activities are discovered. 
For instance, despite suspicions and probable cause, the lack of concrete, publicly-disclosed evidence explicitly linking China and Russia to the Cloud Hopper and SolarWinds operations respectively allowed them to deny involvement, thereby avoiding international sanctions, retaliatory cyberattacks, and other diplomatic consequences. Even when criminal indictments are issued for cyber espionage operations, they typically target individual hackers or the organizations directly involved, rather than the states that sponsor them. This separation enables the state sponsors to maintain a façade of non-involvement and continue their cyber operations under the veil of secrecy.
Proxies also serve another very important function: they can help states hide their true cyber capabilities from their adversaries. Even if state intelligence agencies have the necessary tools, capabilities, and personnel to successfully execute a cyber operation, it might still be beneficial to use cyber proxies so that adversaries do not become aware of these capabilities. 
This is an important benefit for states that wish to maintain strategic ambiguity in cyberspace as norms in the cyber realm continue to develop. For example, Fancy Bear—a cyber proxy affiliated with Russian military intelligence (GRU) that uses sophisticated tactics and techniques—has been concretely linked to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 US presidential election. However, direct attribution to the GRU remains circumstantial rather than definitive. This potentially allows the GRU to mask its true cyber capabilities.
How States Manage Their Cyber Proxies
States employ a variety of models in their relations with their cyber proxies. For example, the United States uses nontraditional cyber proxies such as defense contractors and security companies like Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems, whose software products, personnel, and services are often employed in the infiltration, degradation, or destruction of adversary computer systems. It maintains a close relationship with these proxies, allowing for strict oversight and control over their targeting choices and operational techniques. Conversely, countries like Iran and Syria tend to maintain more operational distance from their proxies, offering material and ideological backing in exchange for the proxies’ commitment to targeting designated firms, political foes, and other entities. 
Russia maintains an even larger separation from its proxies, often refraining from direct guidance and allowing them free rein regarding targets and methods. In many cases, the only link between the proxy and Russian authorities is that they willingly turn a blind eye to the activities of the proxy despite having the capacity to crack down. This raises the intriguing possibility that some of these hacker groups may be acting as proxies of the Russian state without even being aware of it.
Putin and senior Kremlin officials frequently express admiration for these “patriotic” hackers while denying any knowledge of their activities. Putin has asserted that “Hackers are free people, like artists … ” so if they are patriotically minded will “ … do what they see as their part to fight Russia’s enemies.” In this way, the Russian government can deny knowledge of these proxies while reaping the benefits of their activities without admitting the involvement of government agencies.
Traditional Intelligence vs Economic Espionage
Regardless of whether states use government agents or proxy hackers for cyber operations, the logic that once guided traditional espionage—where information flowed from those who had it to those who needed it—does not appear to apply when it comes to economic espionage. In a recently published research paper, I show that contrary to earlier beliefs, countries with similar economic structures and technological capabilities are more likely to engage in economic espionage against each other (as opposed to those with dissimilar structures and capabilities). The reason? The stolen information is more applicable and immediately beneficial to the perpetrator. For example, it is of little use to steal technology to manufacture solar panels if you do not have factories and a technically capable workforce that can profitably leverage that information.
By focusing on rivals with similar economic structures and technological capabilities, perpetrators can refine their competitive strategies and enhance their own industrial and technological bases. Importantly, this strategy is less about filling gaps in knowledge and more about advancing in an already closely contested field. This dynamic has a profound policy implication for the likely future of interstate conflict: as states continue to develop and closely guard their technological innovations, the arena of interstate rivalry is likely to shift increasingly towards more covert forms of conflict. 
This evolution suggests that except in a few instances, traditional forms of diplomacy and military confrontation may give way to an irregular warfare landscape where subterfuge and indirect aggression increasingly become the norm. In particular, states with similar economic and technological capabilities will increasingly find themselves not only competitors in the global marketplace but also clandestine rivals in a continuous struggle for technological supremacy. This scenario necessitates a reevaluation of national security strategies to prioritize cybersecurity and intelligence in anticipation of these less overt, but equally impactful forms of conflict.
In addition, diplomatic relations will likely become more complicated, as states may publicly adhere to norms of peaceful coexistence and cooperation while privately engaging in aggressive cyber operations. This combination of open cooperation with covert aggressive cyber tactics can strain international trust and cooperation, potentially leading to a more fragmented international system where states are increasingly wary of their counterparts’ intentions.
Confronting Economic Espionage and the Use of Cyber Proxies
If the United States is to respond effectively to the emerging risk posed by the use of state-sponsored cyber proxies, it needs a better understanding of how to mitigate their use and activities. In a research paper, I gathered new data on over 100 hacker groups around the world and their state sponsors to examine which accountability mechanisms are effective in mitigating the use of cyber proxies. My research indicates that the use of proxies is rare in states that have robust domestic accountability mechanisms. This is particularly true in countries where citizens can hold their elected leaders accountable for actions carried out by cyber proxies through vertical accountability mechanisms such as elections and other democratic practices. In contrast, trying to curb the use of cyber proxies using horizontal accountability mechanisms such as congressional and regulatory oversight bodies is significantly less effective. 
These insights have important policy implications aimed at addressing the issue of cyber proxies. Firstly, they suggest that pressure from citizens and civil society organizations could be effective in reducing reliance on cyber proxies in countries where vertical accountability structures are effective. One practical way to implement this is to increase the number of attributions of cyber operations to proxies and their state sponsors. The act of attributing cyber attacks to state sponsors, even when the evidence is not concrete, could prompt pressure from citizens and civil society groups for governments to desist from such operations, potentially deterring future attacks. 
Additionally, my findings imply that reliance on policies that predominantly aim to combat the use of cyber proxies through regulatory and other state oversight mechanisms are ineffective. For instance, despite numerous international agreements aimed at curbing state-sponsored cyber activities like the 2015 agreement between the United States and China to refrain from cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property for commercial advantages, activities attributed to Chinese state-sponsored actors have continued unabated.
With regard to economic espionage, my research holds important lessons for US national cybersecurity policy. For example, the current US National Cyber Strategy emphasizes building a resilient cyber infrastructure, deterring adversaries, and promoting American prosperity by fostering a secure cyberspace that supports US national interests and economic growth. While the strategy recognizes the importance of international cooperation, it primarily focuses on deterring adversarial actions through strength. It does not sufficiently capitalize on the important finding that the primary economic espionage threats are likely to come from nations with similar technological advancements and economic profiles. This includes perennial rivals China and Russia but also allies like France, Germany, and Britain. Given the tendency for similar economies to target each other in economic espionage activities, the US could refine its strategy by fostering deeper, more targeted intelligence-sharing partnerships with countries that are at similar levels of technological and economic development.
As technological advancements reshape the contours of international relations, understanding the strategic calculations that drive states to engage in cyber economic espionage and to use proxies is increasingly crucial. This is important not only to secure states’ economic interests but also to preserve international peace and stability in an increasingly interconnected world.
William Akoto is an Assistant Professor of Global Security in the Department of Foreign Policy & Global Security at American University’s School of International Service. His research is primarily focused on examining how states leverage cyber and other emerging technologies in the pursuit of national security objectives. Details of his past, current, and forthcoming research projects are available on his website at willakoto.com.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official position of the Irregular Warfare Initiative, Princeton University’s Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, the Modern War Institute at West Point, or the United States Government.
If you value reading the Irregular Warfare Initiative, please consider supporting our work. And for the best gear, check out the IWI store for mugs, coasters, apparel, and other items.

D-Day’s Bodyguard of Lies: Intelligence and Deception in Normandy

June 6, 2024 by Jacob Ware, Sam Rosenberg
https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/d-days-bodyguard-of-lies-intelligence-and-deception-in-normandy/
The heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, eighty years ago today, faced a rainstorm of gunfire as they disembarked from their landing crafts. Over 4,000 lost their lives in the initial landings, which nevertheless succeeded in establishing an Allied beachhead in Adolf Hitler’s Atlantic Wall.
The toll could have been even worse had safer passage not been ensured by a secretive army of spies and decoys that, beginning in 1943, wove an elaborate deception to convince their Axis adversaries that the landing would be later and further north. In the words of Winston Churchill, the front-line soldiers were protected by a “Bodyguard of Lies” that carefully protected the true location and intentions of the landings at five beaches in Normandy.
The D-Day deception operation stands as a powerful example of the essential blend of irregular warfare methods with conventional tactics. As we witness brutal combat in Ukraine and anticipate potential future conflict in the Indo-Pacific, the lessons from June 1944 are more pertinent than ever. Integrating tactical and strategic deception to support traditional warfare, involving civilians alongside the military, and the critical importance of avoiding large-scale conventional war due to its immense costs are lessons that continue to resonate today. 
The D-Day Deception
As the Second World War approached its turning point, an inevitable Allied assault on occupied Europe, Allied leaders gathered at Tehran to devise their strategy. The odds appeared against them: despite Germany’s forces being spread thin across 2,600 kilometers of Atlantic coastline, the Axis held a force advantage, outmanning the landing force in France by an estimated 60 divisions to 37. Cunning and misdirection would need to complement the brute force of men and armor that would be hurled against Hitler’s European fortress. In the words of Jon Latimer, “Deception would play a crucial role in producing a ratio of forces necessary for Allied victory in the battle of the build-up and permitting a break-out.”
Operation Bodyguard was established in 1943 as the overall deception strategy to mislead the German High Command about the timing and location of the inevitable Allied invasion of Europe. Under this overarching plan, the main thrust was Operation Fortitude, which was itself divided into two smaller campaigns: Fortitude North, which would feint at Norway, and Fortitude South, which promised an attack at the Pas-de-Calais in northern France. Fortitude combined both physical deception and signals intelligence to construct the ruse. For example, the Allies invented out of thin air the United States First Army Group, commanded by General Patton, and mustered the paper command in southeast England, supporting the idea that the invasion would strike directly across the English Channel at Calais. Dummy inflatable military hardware was spread across the area, hoping to attract spy planes, while the infamous Ghost Army created fake shoulder patches to accompany and announce the arrival of the phantom units.
The deception was furthered by British intelligence’s exemplary Double Cross system, masterfully recounted in Ben MacIntyre’s Double Cross: The True Story of the D-Day Spies. By 1944, British counterintelligence confidently believed it controlled every German spy in the United Kingdom. Fortitude put this network of double agents to work, steadily feeding handlers in Berlin a diet of false reports that contributed to incorrect beliefs about the Allied order of battle. In one case, double agents “Mutt” and “Jeff” transmitted false reports about a fictitious British Army amassing in Scotland to join the Soviets in an invasion of Norway. The trick worked, with Hitler sending one of his divisions to Scandinavia just weeks before D-Day. The intelligence network was so extensive that stories still emerge today—like the women codebreakers stationed at the US Foreign Service Institute, who stole Japanese diplomatic messages describing German defenses on the French coast, further contributing to the deception’s success. 
The deception plans were joint operations involving multiple branches of the Allies’ armed forces. Operation Glimmer, Taxable, and Big Drum formed the naval component of Operation Bodyguard. Like Fortitude South and the Double Cross system, these efforts aimed to deceive the German forces about the invasion beaches in France. Small fleets, equipped with radar-reflecting balloons and devices simulating large convoys, maneuvered off Cap d’Antifer and Pas-de-Calais to create the illusion of impending naval assaults northeast of Normandy. Confused by the feint, the Germans in Calais reported an invasion fleet and even sent airplanes to investigate. 
Civilians also played a significant role in Allied deception and intelligence operations. By 1944, the French Resistance numbered an estimated 500,000 members in many different groups, most of whom came under the umbrella of the French Forces of the Interior (FFI). Operating in small groups called Maquis, resistance fighters engaged in sabotage, targeting Nazi supply routes and reinforcements. The FFI’s intelligence-gathering efforts also provided the Allies with invaluable information about German troop movements and fortifications, directly supporting the impending landings. In one case, as recounted in Cornelius Ryan’s classic The Longest Day, an FFI sector chief identified an artillery piece sited for Utah Beach and managed to transmit a message to London about the potential threat. On the morning of D-Day, he was overjoyed when an Allied destroyer arrived off the coast and blasted the artillery piece with a precise bombardment. “They got the message!” he cried. 
The Maquis’ coordinated closely with Allied strategy. On June 5, the BBC broadcasted coded messages to alert the French Resistance about the imminent invasion, setting off plans to sabotage railways (the Green Plan), main roads (the Tortoise Plan), and telecommunication networks (the Purple Plan), along with launching guerilla attacks against German troops. More than 90 three-man Jedburgh teams, comprising American, British, and Free French operatives, parachuted into France throughout 1944 to facilitate this coordination on the ground. The first team, codenamed “Hugh” dropped in on the evening of 5/6 June and linked up with the head of the resistance in the Indre area, near Châteauroux. In June and July, the “Jeds” helped disrupt German communications in Normandy. By August, teams worked with the British Special Air Service in Brittany, orchestrating guerrilla attacks and providing intelligence that hastened the Allied advance. These Jedburgh teams, the forerunners of modern special operations forces, provided leadership, training, and communications support, amplifying the impact of the Resistance’s efforts. 
Once the invasion began, the Allies relied on tactical deception to further confuse the German defenders. As part of Operation Titanic, another subcomponent of Operation Bodyguard, the British Royal Air Force and Special Air Service dropped hundreds of dummy parachutists far from the actual landing areas in Normandy. Known as “Ruperts” to the British and “Oscars” to the Americans, these decoys were equipped with noise makers and explosives to simulate an actual airborne assault. British commandos even jumped with some of the dummies and played recordings of gunfire and men shouting to sell the ruse further. The plan had the intended effect, with the Germans sending a division reserve away from Omaha and Gold beaches and the 101st drop zones to search for the suspected paratroopers. When members of the German 7th Army discovered the dummies, General Hans Speidel ordered a decreased level of alert for his soldiers, leaving them less prepared for the actual invasion.
Perhaps the most challenging—and, in turn, impressive—aspect was that the deception could not end when the invasion began. It had to continue, convincing the enemy the true invasion was, in fact, a feint and the initial (deceptive) intelligence remained accurate. Three days after the invasion, Spaniard Juan Pujol García (Agent Garbo) transmitted to his handlers that most companies had stayed behind in England, expanding upon the lie that the main thrust of the assault would cross the Strait of Dover and hit Calais. The Ultra intercepts, made possible by the codebreakers at Bletchley Park breaking the Enigma code, offered invaluable proof that the Germans continued to believe the Fortitude ruse instead of the catastrophic and physical evidence that the invasion was already underway. It would take seven weeks for the German High Command to redeploy resources from Calais to Normandy. By then, the Allied beachhead was secure. Germany’s delay was the ultimate success of Operation Bodyguard. If the element of surprise is essential in war, then the ability to maintain and even extend the element of surprise is perhaps the most impressive triumph. 
Although debates endure about the importance of Bodyguard and Fortitude, largely over skepticism that the inflatable hardware was ever actually seen and insistence that German espionage incompetence was the ultimate culprit, there is little doubt that the deception at least contributed to the tremendous success of the D-Day landings. In the immediate aftermath of Fortitude, the German High Command awarded (Double) Agent Garbo the Iron Cross for his efforts. If nothing else, as Lt. Jason Carminati writes, “Although the Nazi regime had unique institutions that contributed to the operation’s success, the Allies’ planning and execution of various deception techniques were more impactful to the success at Normandy because German weaknesses were discovered and exploited.”
Deception Today and Tomorrow
Deception, of course, remains an integral part of warfare, deployed by both friends and foes. During the first months of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, echoing the Rupert dolls of World War II, Ukrainian defenders employed mannequins from local stores to confuse Russian forces. Drone footage captured Russians wasting valuable artillery on a trench system manned only by these decoys. As the war progressed, Kyiv expanded its deception efforts, with civilian companies like Inflatech and Metinvest creating realistic decoys of Ukrainian weapons and vehicles, complete with multispectral signatures, causing further Russian munitions to be squandered on fake targets. 
When preparing for the initial counteroffensive in Kharkiv in September 2022, Kyiv aimed to convince its adversaries that the counteroffensive would target Kherson in the south. Using media leaks, encouraging popular resistance as “shaping” operations, and amassing troops in the south, Ukrainian military planners succeeded in drawing Russian forces to defend Kherson, leaving the Kharkiv salient largely unprotected. The eventual offensive shattered Russian lines, liberating some 12,000 square kilometers, including the strategic crossroads at Izium. (Impressively, Ukrainian forces also liberated Kherson two months later.) 
In contrast, the failed Ukrainian offensive in the summer of 2023 highlighted the challenges of deception. The Ukrainian military failed to mislead Moscow about their intention to penetrate Russian lines protecting Melitopol and the Azov coast. Despite shaping operations along the Russian defensive line, particularly in Bakhmut, the Ukrainian government’s insistence in early June that “Plans love silence” and warnings against rumors did not materially weaken the entrenched Russian defenses.
Just as the French Resistance played a central role in the success of D-Day through deception and intelligence operations, Ukrainian citizens have become crucial to their country’s current conflict. Early in the war, the Territorial Defense Forces, made up of citizen volunteers, were instrumental in repelling the initial Russian assault on Kyiv. As the war progressed, Ukrainian civilians took on various wartime responsibilities, from raising funds for the Ministry of Defense to crowdsourcing military gear and weapons to developing targeting and intelligence for the armed forces. Remarkably, the Ukrainian government even launched an app, Diia, allowing citizens to report on Russian troop movements and defenses directly.  
Deception can also be deployed at the strategic level and is often weaponized by non-state actors. Just four months before Hamas’s October 7 Einsatzgruppen-like thunder run across the Gaza border, a former Knesset member had written that Hamas and Israel enjoyed a “strategic détente” and that “Hamas doesn’t seem to be eager to change the existing equation in order to challenge Israel.” Hamas’s strategic deception contributed to the total failure of the Israel Defense Forces to protect the borderlands near the Gaza strip—they were unable to access many of the kibbutzim until hours after the initial attack. After the fact, deception can reveal not just cunning and secrecy on the part of the deceiver but also complacency and ineptitude among the deceived.
However, the lessons for modern warfare might apply even more strongly to strategic competition. As the US escalates its saber-rattling with China, it fences with an enemy that makes deception a core concept of its strategy, using tactics such as decoy targets and disguising military equipment as civilian vehicles to mislead adversaries and protect assets.  Beijing even employs local militia forces to provide camouflage support for important potential targets.  And yet, ironically, “American dominance in conventional warfare has contributed to perceptions that deception is unnecessary, or is a technique for weaker powers,” as Fabian Villalobos and Scott Savitz observe. “But successful deception activities enhance force protection, preserve combat power, and add complexity for the adversary—facts that are often underappreciated.”
D-Day stands as a stark reminder of the cost of traditional warfare and the importance of avoiding it whenever possible. As the US inevitably ramps up its industrial capability to prepare for total warfare with China, it should also pay equal attention to the range of irregular capabilities—from espionage and intelligence to information warfare and cyberoperations—that will better prepare it to deceive and avoid being deceived by the enemy. As Seth Jones writes in Three Dangerous Men, “Chinese military strategy generally aims to avoid a conventional war. China’s goal is to weaken and surpass the United States without fighting.” 
US success in the coming years will not be defined by victories in conventional military battles with China, Russia, or any other adversary but by avoiding such confrontations through cunning, creativity, and deception.
 
Correction (June 7, 2024): In the article, it was previously stated that more than 90 three-man Jedburgh teams parachuted into France on the night of June 5/6. The correct information is that these teams parachuted into France throughout 1944. The corrected sentences now read: “More than 90 three-man Jedburgh teams, comprising American, British, and Free French operatives, parachuted into France throughout 1944 to facilitate this coordination on the ground. The first team, codenamed ‘Hugh,’ dropped in on the evening of 5/6 June and linked up with the head of the resistance in the Indre area, near Châteauroux.”
Jacob Ware is a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service and DeSales University. He is also a visiting fellow at the University of Oslo’s Center for Research on Extremism, and the co-deputy editorial director of the Irregular Warfare Initiative. With Bruce Hoffman, he is the co-author of God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America.
Sam Rosenberg is an Army Strategist preparing for an assignment to US Army Europe and Africa in Wiesbaden, Germany, and the co-deputy editorial director of the Irregular Warfare Initiative. Commissioned as an infantry officer in 2006 from West Point, Sam has served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe. He holds a master’s degree in Security Studies from Georgetown University and a PhD in Public Policy from the University of Texas at Austin. 
Views expressed in this article solely reflect those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Irregular Warfare Initiative, Princeton University’s Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, the Modern War Institute at West Point, or the United States Government.