IN-DEPTH BRIEFING // #40 // NOVEMBER 22
AUTHOR James Sladden is a former Royal Marine, former RAND Corporation researcher, and a current PhD candidate in History at the University of Cambridge. In his capacity as a marine, a researcher, a high-risk advisor to news organizations, and as an OSCE and UN conflict monitor, he has deployed to Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh, Afghanistan, and Yemen. James received an M.A. with distinction in Applied Security Strategy from the University of Exeter.
The Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research is the British Army’s think tank and tasked with enhancing the conceptual component of its fighting power. The views expressed in this In Depth Briefing are those of the author, and not of the CHACR, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Ministry of Defence or the British Army. The aim of the briefing is to provide a neutral platform for external researchers and experts to offer their views on critical issues. This document cannot be reproduced or used in part or whole without the permission of the CHACR. www.chacr.org.uk
ON THE GROUND:
FIELD RESEARCH IN UKRAINE “It was difficult to calm down soldiers during the massive air and artillery strikes... sometimes it was hard to explain that we need to keep this position, however hard it was. Mine and my friend’s weight was very important at that time. We had to be an example for our soldiers. I was scared too. But I said to my soldiers that Russians are also flesh and blood... and your families are behind you, the enemy is cruel and has no mercy. I was convincing myself not to leave the position. Nobody left their positions. Neither my guys, nor those from other groups.” – A Ukrainian section commander’s account of holding a trench position on the banks of the river Iprin, the frontline in the defence of Kyiv1
I
N July 2022 I co-authored Battle studies: The need for primary source research, making the case for primary-source field research of conflicts, during conflicts. We argued that primary source field research, as soon after the battle is as reasonably practicable, and based on participant interviews and battlefield visits, is essential to close gaps in the understanding of the reality of modern combat. Remote observation and research, largely based on open sources, has become one of the predominant means of understanding contemporary conflict. While remote and open-
source research is important, we argue that it is insufficient for military learning. Field research provides necessary context for the detailed analysis of combat, complementary to other forms of evidence and research methods. In late August 2022, with the support of the Madison Policy Forum and several research partners, I spent two weeks in Ukraine with a Ukrainian research partner conducting field research on the early-2022 defence of Kyiv. I interviewed Ukrainian officers, noncommissioned officers and soldiers who fought in the battle for Kyiv and I walked the
1 // IN-DEPTH BRIEFING // CHACR
battlefields. Our field research in Ukraine follows from our belief in the importance of this approach and its relevance to military practitioners in learning lessons from contemporary combat. This is planned to be the first of several research trips, all of which will be necessary to produce a credible history. We will publish a report on this first phase of research in the coming months. This essay offers some initial reflections from this field research trip, focusing on the challenges and practicalities of conducting field research while a conflict is Interview with Ukrainian Solider, No. 11.
1