Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

The secret to Ukraine’s battlefield successes against Russia

Published

on

The secret to Ukraine’s battlefield successes against Russia – it knows wars are never won in the past

Matthew Sussex, Australian National University

The iconoclastic American general Douglas Macarthur once said that “wars are never won in the past”.

That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine’s recent audacious attack on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, using small, cheap drones housed in wooden pods and transported near Russian airfields in trucks.

The synchronised operation targeted Russian Air Force planes as far away as Irkutsk – more than 5,000 kilometres from Ukraine. Early reports suggest around a third of Russia’s long-range bombers were either destroyed or badly damaged. Russian military bloggers have put the estimated losses lower, but agree the attack was catastrophic for the Russian Air Force, which has struggled to adapt to Ukrainian tactics.

This particular attack was reportedly 18 months in the making. To keep it secret was an extraordinary feat. Notably, Kyiv did not inform the United States that the attack was in the offing. The Ukrainians judged – perhaps understandably – that sharing intelligence on their plans could have alerted the Kremlin in relatively short order.

Ukraine’s success once again demonstrates that its armed forces and intelligence services are the modern masters of battlefield innovation and operational security.

Finding new solutions

Western military planners have been carefully studying Ukraine’s successes ever since its forces managed to blunt Russia’s initial onslaught deep into its territory in early 2022, and then launched a stunning counteroffensive that drove the Russian invaders back towards their original starting positions.

There have been other lessons, too, about how the apparently weak can stand up to the strong. These include:

  • attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vanity project, the Kerch Bridge, linking the Russian mainland to occupied Crimea (the last assault occurred just days ago)
  • the relentless targeting of Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure with drones
  • attacks against targets in Moscow to remind the Russian populace about the war, and
  • its incursion into the Kursk region, which saw Ukrainian forces capture around 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory.

On each occasion, Western defence analysts have questioned the wisdom of Kyiv’s moves.

Why invade Russia using your best troops when Moscow’s forces continue laying waste to cities in Ukraine?

Why hit Russia’s energy infrastructure if it doesn’t markedly impede the battlefield mobility of Russian forces?

And why attack symbolic targets like bridges when it could provoke Putin into dangerous “escalation”?

The answer to this is the key to effective innovation during wartime. Ukraine’s defence and security planners have interpreted their missions – and their best possible outcomes – far more accurately than conventional wisdom would have thought.

Above all, they have focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past. This means:

  • using technological advancements to force the Russians to change their tactics
  • shaping the information environment to promote their narratives and keep vital Western aid flowing, and
  • deploying surprise attacks not just as ways to boost public morale, but also to impose disproportionate costs on the Russian state.

The impact of Ukraine’s drone attack

In doing so, Ukraine has had an eye for strategic effects. As the smaller nation reliant on international support, this has been the only logical choice.

Putin has been prepared to commit a virtually inexhaustible supply of expendable cannon fodder to continue his country’s war ad infinitum. Russia has typically won its wars this way – by attrition – albeit at a tremendous human and material cost.

That said, Ukraine’s most recent surprise attack does not change the overall contours of the war. The only person with the ability to end it is Putin himself.

That’s why Ukraine is putting as much pressure as possible on his regime, as well as domestic and international perceptions of it. It is key to Ukraine’s theory of victory.

This is also why the latest drone attack is so significant. Russia needs its long-range bomber fleet, not just to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets, but as aerial delivery systems for its strategic nuclear arsenal.

The destruction of even a small portion of Russia’s deterrence capability has the potential to affect its nuclear strategy. It has increasingly relied on this strategy to threaten the West.

A second impact of the attack is psychological. The drone attacks are more likely to enrage Putin than bring him to the bargaining table. However, they reinforce to the Russian military that there are few places – even on its own soil – that its air force can act with operational impunity.

The surprise attacks also provide a shot in the arm domestically, reminding Ukrainians they remain very much in the fight.

Finally, the drone attacks send a signal to Western leaders. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for instance, have gone to great lengths to tell the world that Ukraine is weak and has “no cards”. This action shows Kyiv does indeed have some powerful cards to play.

That may, of course, backfire: after all, Trump is acutely sensitive to being made to look a fool. He may look unkindly at resuming military aid to Ukraine after being shown up for saying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to capitulate without US support.

But Trump’s own hubris has already done that for him. His regular claims that a peace deal is just weeks away have gone beyond wishful thinking and are now monotonous.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s reluctance to put anything approaching serious pressure on Putin has merely incentivised the Russian leader to string the process along.

Indeed, Putin’s insistence on a maximalist victory, requiring Ukrainian demobilisation and disarmament without any security guarantees for Kyiv, is not diplomacy at all. It is merely the reiteration of the same unworkable demands he has made since even before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

However, Ukraine’s ability to smuggle drones undetected onto an opponent’s territory, and then unleash them all together, will pose headaches for Ukraine’s friends, as well as its enemies.

That’s because it makes domestic intelligence and policing part of any effective defence posture. It is a contingency democracies will have to plan for, just as much as authoritarian regimes, who are also learning from Ukraine’s lessons.

In other words, while the attack has shown up Russia’s domestic security services for failing to uncover the plan, Western security elites, as well as authoritarian ones, will now be wondering whether their own security apparatuses would be up to the job.

The drone strikes will also likely lead to questions about how useful it is to invest in high-end and extraordinarily expensive weapons systems when they can be vulnerable. The Security Service of Ukraine estimates the damage cost Russia US$7 billion (A$10.9 billion). Ukraine’s drones, by comparison, cost a couple of thousand dollars each.

At the very least, coming up with a suitable response to those challenges will require significant thought and effort. But as Ukraine has repeatedly shown us, you can’t win wars in the past.

Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Are business schools priming students for a world that no longer exists?

Published

on

Are business schools priming students for a world that no longer exists?

Carla Liuzzo, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Queensland University of Technology

Endless economic expansion isn’t sustainable. Scientists are telling us our planet is already beyond its limits, with the risks to communities and the economy made clear in the federal government’s recent climate risk assessment.

Sustainability is a hot topic in Australian business schools. However, teaching about the possible need to limit economic growth – whether directly or indirectly related to sustainability – is uncommon.

Typically, business school teaching is based on concepts of sustainable development and “green growth”.
Under these scenarios, we can continue to grow gross domestic product (GDP) globally without continuing to grow emissions – what is known as “decoupling”. It’s a “have your cake and eat it too” promise for sustainability.

Our new research published in the journal Futures shows business students themselves are interested in learning the skills they would need under an alternative post-growth future.

Emerging alternatives to ‘growth is good’

There is mounting evidence of the difficulty of “decoupling” economic growth from emissions growth. The United Nations goals of sustainable development are “in peril”.

This has led to increased interest in no-growth or post-growth economic models and to the movement towards degrowth. Degrowth means shrinking economic production to use less of the world’s resources and avoid climate crisis.

Explicit teaching of degrowth rejects the belief in endless growth. This presents a challenge to traditional concepts in business education, including profit maximisation, competition and the notion of “free markets”.

The issue, and one that degrowth invites students to consider, is that green growth and sustainable development are underpinned by the need for continued economic growth and development. This “growth obsession” is pushing the planet and society to its limits.

Students are keen

Our new study provides a snapshot of students’ interest in alternative systems. It reveals 90% of respondents are open to learning about different economic models.

The study found 96% of students believe business leaders must understand alternative models to continued economic growth. Yet only 15% were aware of any alternatives that may exist. Most (71%) believed viable alternatives exist, but they admitted to lacking sufficient knowledge.

The study had 61 participants currently studying a masters of business administration (MBA) in a top Australian institution.

The research raises the question: if future business leaders are not made aware of alternatives, won’t they continue to assume growth is “inherently good”, and perpetuate the business practices that have pushed humanity beyond planetary boundaries?

The trouble with endless growth

Advocates of the “beyond growth” agenda argue endless growth is not possible. They promote alternate measures of progress to GDP, such as the recent Measuring What Matters report.

Degrowth proposes scaling back the consumption of resources as part of a transition to post-growth economies. Their aim is what economist Tim Jackson calls prosperity without growth. This entails businesses sharing value with communities, and reducing production of things like fast fashion, fast food and fast tech.

It is a rejection of maximising profit in favour of maximising value, based around meeting real needs like housing, food and essential services. Some industries would grow, such as care, education, public transport and renewables. Others may shrink or vanish.

Degrowth and post-growth aren’t alien concepts. There are grassroots movements such as minimalism. Social media abounds with lists of “things I no longer buy”, social enterprises, the right-to-repair movement and community-supported agriculture.

Degrowth also invites students to debate concepts like modern monetary theory, income ratio limits and universal basic income.

The role of business schools

Business schools are doing great work teaching students about changing consumer preferences for green alternatives, new global standards for reporting environmental and social impact, and ways businesses can reduce their environmental impact.

The Australian Business Deans Council in March this year detailed these efforts in its Climate Capabilities Report. This highlighted the need for business schools to produce graduates capable of “balancing business and climate knowledge”.

Our study of Australian business school students shows they are open to learning about degrowth. It challenges the assumption that ideas critical of endless growth would be unwelcome in business schools in Australia.

There is an argument for making explicit degrowth teaching in business schools more accessible because business schools have been criticised for not doing enough to address climate change and social inequality.

Globally, degrowth is starting to be taught explicitly in business schools in Europe, the UK and even the US.

Business schools have long been criticised for a culture of greed and cutthroat competition. As one distinguished professor from the University of Michigan recently put it, “today’s business schools were designed for a world that no longer exists”.

The introduction of no growth or degrowth scenarios to business schools in Australia may go some way to ensuring they are preparing leaders for the future – not priming students for a world that no longer exists.The Conversation

Carla Liuzzo, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Taller, leaner, faster: the evolution of the ‘perfect’ AFL body

Published

on

Hunter Bennett, University of South Australia

Geelong champion Patrick Dangerfield wowed the AFL world during last week’s preliminary final win against Hawthorn, pushing his 35-year-old body to the limit to propel his team into this year’s Grand Final.

At an age when most AFL players have retired or are slowing down, Dangerfield showcased his immense physical attributes, even prompting Hawks coach Sam Mitchell to plead: “I’m certainly ready for Dangerfield to retire.”

Now Dangerfield and his Geelong teammates will take on Brisbane for the AFL premiership in a battle between the 2022 and 2024 winners, respectively.

It has taken these athletes more than 10 months of intense training and preparation to get there. They are finely tuned machines, built to meet the rigorous demands of elite Australian rules football.

But what exactly constitutes the “perfect” AFL body? And what qualities does an AFL athlete need to succeed?

The physical demands of AFL

Australian football is an intermittent contact sport made up of frequent bursts of high-intensity activity (such as sprinting, jumping and tackling) separated by brief periods of low-intensity activity (such as standing, walking and jogging).

With this in mind, it requires players to excel in multiple physical domains to be successful:

  • Aerobic fitness: research indicates the average AFL player covers around 13 kilometres during a match, with some players even getting close to 19km. As a result, having high aerobic fitness (the ability use oxygen to create energy for physical activity) is integral to ensure they can both cover these vast distances and maintain a high level of performance
  • Repeated sprint ability: in conjunction with the ability to run for a long time, AFL athletes also need to be able to perform repeated sprints without fatiguing and losing speed – something known as “repeated sprint ability”. This is what ensures they stay fast and powerful in the latter parts of games
  • Strength: AFL is a contested sport. Players need upper and lower body strength to lay tackles, stay strong in marking contests and hold their position under contact. To illustrate this, some older research indicates the average AFL player can bench press about 125 kilograms, although there are anecdotal reports of larger players benching more than 170kg
Athletes from all AFL clubs need to do serious gym work to add strength, power and more.

Power: in conjunction with brute strength, AFL athletes also need to be explosive. This is what allows them to jump high to take a mark or make a spoil, and is a defining characteristic of elite AFL athletes. Current Greater Western Sydney player Leek Aleer holds the record for the largest running jump height in the AFL, with a whopping 107 centimetres.

Speed and agility: being able to change direction and accelerate rapidly are essential for evading opponents and creating scoring opportunities. These are often considered to be some of the most important AFL attributes. In fact, some research suggests faster players are significantly more likely to get drafted than slower players.

Decision making: AFL athletes also need to be able to make good decisions when the ball is in their hands. Making good split-second decisions allows their team to maintain possession, which can have a major influence on the outcome of a game.

Evolution of the AFL athlete

Research on the fitness of elite AFL athletes is sparse (understandably so – clubs might want to keep this information private as a competitive edge).

But we do know the physical profile of the typical AFL player has evolved dramatically over time.

Historically, players were often shorter and stockier, with an average height of around 180cm in the 1940s, and then around 184cm in the 1990s.

However, there has been a noticeable shift over the past 30 years towards taller, leaner athletes. The average height of the modern-day player is currently edging closer to 190cm, with a notable number of key position players exceeding 200cm.

We have also seen the running demands of the game increase. Over the past 20 years, the total distance athletes are travelling has increased. They are also accelerating more often and spending more time running at faster speeds.

This change has been somewhat reflected in the athletic profiles of the elite young players hoping to get drafted, with a consistent increase in the aerobic fitness of draftees over the past 20 years.

AFL preseasons can last for five months and can push athletes to their limits.

Interestingly, it has been suggested this change may largely be the result of changes in game style, where teams are adopting a less contested, faster, more free-flowing game style.

Indeed, this is something we have seen happen in the AFLW over the past few seasons, which reinforces this suggestion.

The ideal AFL body depends on the player’s position

With all this in mind, it’s important to note it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to AFL athletes.

Different positions will have different requirements.

For example, you can expect midfielders to be fitter, more agile and physically smaller than full forwards and full backs. Conversely, you can almost guarantee key forwards and defenders will be bigger and stronger than midfielders.

The modern AFL athlete is a product of years of specific training and a deep understanding of the game’s evolving demands – and the Grand Final is the best opportunity to observe it all come to fruition.

And as the game continues to evolve, so will the ideal physical profile of its athletes.The Conversation

Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

The Optus brand is in tatters. How can it even begin to rebuild customers’ trust?

Published

on

The Optus brand is in tatters. How can it even begin to rebuild customers’ trust?

Cassandra France, The University of Queensland and Amanda Spry, RMIT University

Optus finds itself in a perilous situation once again. Last week’s 13-hour Triple Zero network outage left about 480 customers unable to call for emergency help. Three deaths linked to the outage are being investigated.

That outage wasn’t an isolated incident for Optus. Just this week, the Federal Court imposed a A$100 million penalty on the telco for “unconscionable conduct” involving predatory sales tactics toward customers in vulnerable situations, which went on for years.

Both those crises come on the back of a 2022 data breach and a 2023 major network outage, which also affected Triple Zero calls. Optus vowed then to “ensure it will not happen again”.

These repeated failures signal serious problems within, and for, Optus. As its chief executive Stephen Rue was repeatedly asked this week – how can Optus regain customers’ trust?

Building trust before the crisis

To shore up a brand against damage from potential crises, companies should proactively build a reservoir of goodwill with their customers and the wider public.

By engaging consumers in positive brand actions, such as genuine corporate social responsibility, brands can build a halo that buffers the brand during times of crisis.

Indeed, Optus spent decades cultivating a strong identity as a trusted, community-minded brand. This is exemplified by its long-running “Yes” tagline, which has been central to shaping an approachable and people-centred image, making it more than a faceless utilities provider.

An aerial view of Perth's Optus Stadium.
There have been calls to strip Optus of its naming rights to the Perth stadium.
Harrison Reilly/Unsplash, CC BY-NC

Optus has embedded its brand into Australia’s cultural life through sponsorship of major sporting events, from the Australian Open tennis to the naming rights to Perth’s Optus Stadium.

Yet, this image has been chipped away over recent years. In 2022, Optus experienced what has been deemed a “preventable” data hack, which leaked 9.5 million consumers’ private information. In 2024, Optus was the most distrusted brand in Australia, according to Roy Morgan. But it managed some improvement in 2025, moving to the 4th most distrusted brand – though that was before this latest outage.

The recurrence of crises for Optus, year after year, dismantles the accumulated brand image and intensifies negative responses from a range of stakeholders.

How to respond during a crisis

Effective brand response to a crisis is dependent on the nature of the crisis itself, meaning that there is no one single strategy suited to all circumstances. In the case of Optus, we see an incredibly severe case of harm arising from failures to deliver on a telecommunications company’s key purpose: making phone calls.

Previously, Optus has proudly shared stories of how they keep “the community connected” and provide “the backing of a strong network”.

Yet these recent events undermine these claims and demonstrate process and performance deficiencies which can be incredibly difficult to recover from, especially in light of the severity of consequences for some customers.

So far, Optus’ crisis response has shown it understands the importance of owning their accountability and expressing remorse for what happened as a consequence of its mistakes. (Though some have questioned why it took Singapore-based parent company Singtel nearly a week to issue its own “deeply sorry” statement.)

But taking responsibility is the only first step in the process. It also requires real commitment and action to effect change and avoid recurrence.

Optus are taking steps, announcing an independent review, which it says will be made public. But as governance expert Helen Bird pointed out this week, the company promised the same thing about its November 2023 Triple Zero outage – but didn’t follow through.

Even if it’s different this time, with experienced business and government leader Kerry Schott conducting the new investigation, Optus still needs to follow through with clear actions and real evidence of change.

How can Optus start to rebuild?

Brands can take many years to recover from major crises. The ongoing nature of crises at Optus make that road to recovery even more challenging. Yet, if Optus and its parent company Singtel are committed, there are certainly many actions they can pursue.

For Optus, transparency in action will be critical.

Optus needs to show not just accountability for failure but corrective action for resolution.

It cannot correct the dire consequences of its multiple previous missteps. But the company can seek to avoid repeating those mistakes again.

As others have pointed out, there are measurable ways to judge Optus’ ongoing response – which could involve the federal communications minister imposing new conditions on Optus’ licence to operate.

Beyond the immediate investigations and responses to the latest Triple Zero outage, Optus could also reinvest in winning back public goodwill, such as potentially exploring opportunities to donate and support emergency services and local communities.

Importantly, these cannot be simple, short-term fixes, but must involve long-term commitments.

Through frequent, public progress updates and evidence of investment in action which leads to substantiated outcomes, the brand may be able to rebuild some of the damage done to Australians’ trust – especially its customers’.The Conversation

Cassandra France, Lecturer in Marketing, The University of Queensland and Amanda Spry, Senior Lecturer of Marketing, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trending Now