“The Ukraine and Gaza Wars: Lessons for NATO and Europe”
Zagreb Security Forum Webinar, 26th of June 2025 via Webex

First Panel
Prof. Shlomo Shpiro (Bar Ilan University, Israel) opened the event, followed by a panel chaired by Prof. Gordan Akrap (Dr. Franjo Tuđman Defence and Security University, Croatia), featuring:
• Assist. Prof. Daria Vilkova (Taras Schevchenko National University, Ukraine)
• Gen. Dr. Ephraim Lapid (Bar Ilan University, Israel)
• Prof. Dr. Jan Goldman (The Citadel, Military College of South Carolina, USA)
Second Panel
Chaired by Prof. Darko Trifunović (Institute for International and National Security, Serbia), this panel featured:
• Prof. Dr. Jian Junbo (Fudan University, China)
• Prof. Dr. Omar Oscar Ashour (University of Exeter, UK)
• Dr. Barak Bouks (Bar Ilan University, Israel)
Each contribution offered deep insights into global security trends, making this an enriching and collaborative experience.

In his introduction, Professor Shlomo Shpiro welcomed participants to the 2025 strategic conference, highlighting it as a joint initiative involving multiple institutions focused on security and intelligence. He emphasized the current global context marked by large-scale wars in Europe and the Middle East, noting that the notion of a “dividend of peace” after the Cold War has proven to be unrealistic. Shpiro pointed out NATO’s historic decision to significantly increase defense spending to five percent of GDP, raising questions about how this funding will be utilized. He stressed the importance of examining the lessons learned from Russia’s war on Ukraine and recent conflicts in the Middle East, aiming to explore their implications for NATO, Europe, and Mediterranean countries. He concluded by inviting experts to discuss these pressing issues during the conference.

Daria Vilkova’s speech focused on the ongoing Russian Ukrainian war, which she divided into two stages: the first beginning in 2014 and the second starting in February 2022. She expressed that Ukraine currently finds itself in a precarious international situation, feeling isolated with only a few countries providing generous support.
Vilova highlighted NATO’s recent commitment to increase defense spending to five percent, emphasizing the need for this funding to be effectively allocated. She noted the lack of a clear commitment to European-Atlantic unity in NATO’s final documents and pointed out the absence of defined security spheres, which complicates the situation.
She criticized the ongoing negotiations with Russia, stating that they are not genuine and that Russia’s leadership has made it clear they aim to control all of Ukraine. Vilkova warned against falling for disinformation and propaganda, asserting that Ukraine must remain strong and prepared for continued conflict.
She concluded by stressing that for Europe and NATO to maintain their freedoms, they must be willing to invest in security, and she shared her skepticism about the existence of a rules-based international order in Ukraine. Overall, her speech underscored the challenges Ukraine faces and the broader implications for European security.

Jan Goldman delivered a comprehensive analysis of the lessons learned from the conflicts involving Ukraine, Russia, and Israel, particularly focusing on the strategic and tactical levels of warfare.
At the **tactical level**, he highlighted three key lessons:
1. **Adaptation to Electronic Warfare and Drone Threats**: The extensive use of drones and electronic warfare has transformed battlefield strategies. Small drones, once seen as low-tech, are now critical offensive assets. European defense plans should prioritize the development of advanced drone systems and resilient communication networks.
2. **Leveraging Open Source Intelligence**: The conflicts have shown the importance of open source intelligence, particularly from social media, which rivals traditional classified methods. European military and intelligence communities are investing in technologies to harness this information for improved situational awareness and decision-making.
3. **Urban Warfare Preparedness**: The urban environments of conflicts, especially in Gaza, present unique challenges. The need for specialized training and equipment for urban warfare has become evident, emphasizing the importance of civil-military coordination in densely populated areas.
At the **strategic level**, Goldman outlined four salient lessons:
1. **Multi-Domain Operations**: Modern warfare extends beyond conventional battlefields, requiring integrated operations across land, sea, air, cyberspace, and electromagnetic domains. The Ukraine conflict has underscored the need for agile and networked military capabilities.
2. **Defense Industry Resilience**: The war in Ukraine exposed vulnerabilities in Europe’s defense industrial base, highlighting the need for rapid production capabilities and robust supply chains to respond effectively to conflicts.
3. **Geopolitical Realignment**: The conflicts have reset alliance dynamics, prompting European nations to reassess their military strategies and decision-making processes. The necessity of stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions has also become more pressing.
4. **US-European Relations**: Goldman expressed concern over the US becoming a doubtful partner due to political shifts. He emphasized the need for European nations to work more closely together and develop independent defense capabilities, potentially limiting reliance on US intelligence.
Overall, Goldman stressed that resilience, technological innovation, and strategic partnerships are essential for Europe in the evolving nature of conflict, especially as the US undergoes its own foreign policy changes.

Ephraim Lapid’s speech focused on Israel’s unique security challenges and the concept of “soft power” in warfare. He began by highlighting the ongoing threats Israel faces from Iran and its proxies across seven arenas, emphasizing that these threats have persisted for over twenty years. He noted that Iran’s influence has grown, particularly through its support of militant groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza. Lapid outlined the importance of soft power, which he defined as the non-military aspects of warfare that influence public perception and international legitimacy. He identified three circles of activity for Israel’s soft power:
1. **Internal Circle**: Strengthening Israeli society and military morale. He emphasized the need for unity and resilience within the Israeli population, especially during times of conflict. He mentioned the mobilization of reservists and the importance of maintaining public trust in the military and government.
2. **Middle East Circle**: Deterring neighboring adversaries through a combination of military strength and information operations. He stressed the need to influence these countries to prevent attacks and to convey the potential consequences of aggression against Israel.
3. **International Legitimacy Circle**: Gaining political support from allies and maintaining a positive image in international forums. He pointed out that international backing is crucial for Israel’s military operations and overall security.
Lapid concluded by discussing the tools necessary to implement soft power strategies, including the use of social media, community engagement, and diplomatic efforts. He underscored the importance of being prepared for continuous challenges and the need for effective communication to bolster Israel’s standing both domestically and internationally.

Jan Goldman discussed the challenges of strengthening European intelligence capabilities independent of the United States. He emphasized the need for Europe to develop its own robust intelligence infrastructure to address security threats effectively. Goldman pointed out several key areas:
1. **Autonomy in Intelligence**: Europe must build independent intelligence capabilities to reduce reliance on the US. This includes developing advanced technologies, training personnel, and establishing secure communication channels.
2. **Collaboration Among European Nations**: He stressed the importance of collaboration and information sharing among European countries to enhance collective security. This involves creating unified protocols and systems for intelligence gathering and analysis.
3. **Investment in Resources**: Goldman highlighted the need for significant investment in resources, including funding for research and development, to keep pace with evolving threats. This also includes investing in cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information.
4. **Adapting to New Threats**: He discussed the necessity for European intelligence agencies to adapt to new and emerging threats, such as cyber-attacks and terrorism. This requires continuous monitoring and updating of strategies to stay ahead of adversaries.
5. **Political Will and Support**: Goldman underscored the importance of political will and support from European leaders to prioritize intelligence development. He noted that without strong political backing, efforts to enhance intelligence capabilities may falter.
Overall, Jan Goldman emphasized that for Europe to effectively address security challenges, it must develop independent, collaborative, and well-resourced intelligence capabilities, supported by strong political commitment.

The last speaker, Jan Goldman, emphasized the importance of understanding both capabilities and intentions when analyzing threats. He stated that while capabilities refer to the resources and power a threat may possess, intentions are crucial for understanding the actual threat level. He highlighted a common confusion between analysis and assessment, explaining that analysis is based on known facts, while assessment is based on beliefs. This distinction is vital, as misjudging intentions can lead to significant errors, such as the mistaken belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Coffee break

Second Panel
At the end of the first panel, Gordan Akrap expressed gratitude to the speakers—Daria Vilkova, Ephraim Lapid, and Jan Goldman—for their comprehensive presentations. He emphasized the importance of the lessons learned from their discussions, particularly in relation to the ongoing conflicts and the implications for security and intelligence. Akrap highlighted the need for these lessons to be applied in practice, especially in the context of the evolving geopolitical landscape.
Gordan Akrap mentioned a new cybersecurity study that will commence in the autumn in Zagreb. He highlighted the importance of this study in addressing the growing challenges in the field of cybersecurity. Akrap emphasized that the study aims to bring together experts and researchers to develop innovative solutions and strategies to enhance cybersecurity measures. He encouraged collaboration and participation from various stakeholders to ensure the study’s success and its contribution to improving cybersecurity on a broader scale.
In the introduction of the second panel, Gordan Akrap welcomed the participants and introduced the panelists, which included Professor Jian Bo from Fudan University, Professor Omar Ashour from the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, and Dr. Barak Bouks from Bar-Ilan University. He noted the significance of collaboration among experts from various countries, emphasizing that despite historical conflicts, they are now working together to address common security issues. Akrap reiterated the value of this cooperative effort in the fields of intelligence, security, and defense, highlighting the necessity of unity in tackling shared challenges.

Prof. Dr. Darko Trifunović opened the second panel by introducing the speakers and emphasizing the significance of the discussions surrounding the role of proxies in conflicts, particularly focusing on Iran and its influence in the region. He highlighted that Iran has become a master of proxy warfare, using groups like Hamas to further its interests, and noted the historical context of Russian involvement in the Balkans, including its actions during the Yugoslav wars and recent provocations in Montenegro and North Macedonia.
Trifunović expressed solidarity with Ukraine, acknowledging the shared experiences of aggression faced by both Ukraine and the Balkans. He raised critical questions about the future of drone warfare, emphasizing the need for effective counter-drone operations and the development of indigenous drone technology among smaller nations. He pointed out the importance of addressing ballistic missile threats and the necessity for advanced defense measures to intercept such threats before they reach their targets.
He concluded by mentioning the potential for future conflicts, particularly in Syria, where intelligence suggests that Islamic State members, supported by Turkey, are preparing for a significant battle. Trifunović stressed the importance of collaboration and intelligence sharing among allies to address these emerging threats effectively.

Jian Junbo provided a perspective on the geopolitical situation from a Chinese viewpoint, emphasizing China’s interest in maintaining stability in the Middle East and the importance of ending conflicts quickly. He suggested that the European Union (EU) should shift from a stance of geopolitical competition to one of geopolitical cooperation, as the EU currently lacks the military power necessary for effective competition. He highlighted that pursuing military independence could lead to increased spending and complicate the situation further, potentially making Europe more vulnerable to external threats. Jian also stressed the need for the EU to focus on economic globalization and cooperation with China, as both regions share interests in maintaining stability and addressing common challenges, particularly regarding Russia. He argued that fostering good relations among Southeast Asia, China, and Europe is crucial for economic collaboration and stability. Lastly, he pointed out the necessity of working together to ensure a stable multipolar world order, avoiding a return to power politics reminiscent of the 19th century. EU should not take the geopolitical competition policy to deal with foreign issues.
Because firstly geopolitical competition is based on existing military and defensive power of which the EU is short. Now the EU is seeking for military independence which is necessary for Europe, yet only after you have the truly military independence, you can take geopolitical competition. So nowadays, the EU should not take geopolitical competition, which will pose many challenges for Europe. Today’s military development should not be a tool for geopolitical competition. Secondly, it will decrease Europe’s economic and normative competition, because so much money would be used for the defense, yet it cannot produce profit. Without prosperity of economy and well-functioned well-being system, European stability and competition would be challenged. Thirdly and most importantly, geopolitical competition would make Europe face more complicated and difficult situation and more threat from the outside. Geopolitical competition means rivals, confrontation and even military conflict with other powers, when the EU is not a military power, which would make Europe fall into a dangerous situation. Yet at the same time, defensive autonomy should take very long time. Before the autonomy, Europe still relies on the US, and dependence does not lead to ability of geopolitical competition.
Because of upper-mentioned reasons, geopolitical competition is not a good way for Europe to realize peace and prosperity. So geopolitical competition should be replaced by geopolitical combination.The Europe is an open economy, it needs a stable international society in the multi-polarity. China is also an open economy. China and Europe share the similar vision regarding international order: a world with openness, free mobility, multilateralism, and sovereignty.
So to revive globalization and address to against protectionism, and jointly against geopolitical competition which causes more international conflict should be shared task for Europe and China. More cooperation and combination is better than more geopolitical competition.

Omar Ashour discussed the tactics and strategies employed by Hamas during their operations, particularly focusing on the events of October 7th. He highlighted that this operation was characterized by a multi-domain combined arms attack, which included various modes of warfare, such as terrorism, but was not limited to it.
1. **Combined Arms Attack**: He described how Hamas executed a sophisticated attack that involved multiple military domains—land, air, and sea—demonstrating a high level of coordination. The initial breach of defenses was supported by over 3,000 unguided rockets, which served to suppress enemy defenses.
2. **Use of Drones**: Commercial drones were weaponized and used to obscure the attack, while sniper fire was employed to secure the area. This combination of tactics allowed Hamas to breach Israeli defenses effectively.
3. **Urban Warfare**: Ashour emphasized the weaponization of urban environments, where Hamas utilized civilian infrastructure to their advantage. This included creating firing slits in buildings and establishing kill zones for artillery, which made it difficult for Israeli forces to operate effectively.
4. **Tactical Flexibility**: He noted that Hamas operated in small, highly mobile units, often below the squad level, using inexpensive precision weapons. This approach allowed them to sustain their operations over a longer period, despite being outgunned.
5. **Information Warfare**: The use of information operations was also a key component of their strategy. Hamas recorded their actions using GoPro cameras to control the narrative and mobilize support, showcasing the importance of information in modern warfare.
6. **Lessons for NATO**: Ashour concluded by outlining several lessons for NATO, including the need for investment in ground-penetrating sensors and robotic teams to counter underground operations, as well as the importance of adapting to urban warfare scenarios. He stressed that urban environments would increasingly become battlegrounds, necessitating pre-planned strategies for urban combat.
Overall, Ashour’s analysis provided insights into the innovative tactics used by Hamas and the implications for military strategy in the context of modern warfare.

Dr. Barak Bouks presented a detailed analysis of the media strategies employed during the recent conflict involving Israel and Iran, particularly focusing on the use of social media and broadcasting by Iranian entities. Here’s a detailed summary of his presentation:
1. **Media Strategies**: Dr. Bouks emphasized the principles of using media in warfare, particularly the use of live coverage from war zones and the employment of allegedly private stations to disseminate information. He highlighted how these strategies were utilized to shape narratives and influence public perception.
2. **Examples of Media Use**:
– He provided examples from the first day of the conflict, showcasing profiles that depicted the bombings in Iran, including claims from Iranian sources denying any attacks.
– He mentioned the Iranian radio broadcasting in Hebrew, which aimed to communicate directly with Israeli audiences, promoting narratives favorable to Iran.
3. **Iranian Broadcasting Authority**: Dr. Bouks discussed the transformation of the Iranian Broadcasting Authority, contrasting its earlier openness with the current propaganda efforts that threaten Israel. He noted that the authority now broadcasts messages that call for the destruction of Israel, using graphics and alarming language.
4. **Ceasefire Coverage**: He described how the Iranian media covered the ceasefire agreement, portraying it as a victory for Iran while simultaneously threatening retaliation against Israel and the United States. This included the use of social media to amplify these messages.
5. **Impact of Social Media**: Dr. Bouks pointed out that the use of social media platforms like Twitter and Telegram was crucial for Iran to spread its messages quickly and effectively. He noted that these platforms allowed for real-time updates and the ability to shape narratives in multiple languages, including Hebrew and Arabic.
6. **Lessons for Europe**: He concluded by drawing parallels between the media strategies used by Iran and those employed in the conflict in Ukraine. He warned that the techniques used by Iran could be adapted and used against European nations, emphasizing the need for awareness of these tactics.
7. **Technological and Linguistic Expertise**: Dr. Bouks highlighted that the effectiveness of these media strategies required advanced technology, such as satellite communications, and expertise in foreign languages to effectively communicate with target audiences.
Overall, Dr. Bouks’ presentation underscored the significant role of media in modern warfare, particularly how it can be used to manipulate public perception and influence the course of conflicts. He stressed the importance of understanding these strategies to prepare for potential future threats in Europe.

Q&A Session
In the meeting, Gordan Akrap posed a question to Dr. Barak Bouks regarding the potential impact of technology transfer and the exchange of experiences related to anti-aircraft defense systems used in Ukraine during the Russian aggression. He inquired whether this knowledge had helped Israel in enhancing its overall defensive capabilities, particularly in light of the recent conflict.
Dr. Barak Bouks responded by referencing his previous work on the Shahed-136 drones used by Iran, which had targeted Kiev prior to the October seventh conflict. He noted that while he did not have specific technical information about the activities, there were observable similarities in the drone technology and tactics employed in both the Ukraine conflict and Israel’s current situation. He mentioned that Iran was continuously improving its drone capabilities, including the development of a new version with artificial intelligence. Bouks suggested that by analyzing media reports and statistical data on drone strikes, one could draw conclusions about the effectiveness and evolution of these technologies in both contexts.

During the Q&A session between Shlomo Shpiro and Omar Ashour, Shlomo posed a question regarding the historical context of Israeli military operations, specifically referencing the rapid success of the Israeli army in the 1967 and 1982 conflicts when operating outside urban areas. He noted that once the Israeli forces entered urban environments, such as Gaza and Beirut, the situation became more complicated. Shlomo then asked Omar for advice on how NATO armies should prepare for potential urban combat scenarios, particularly if Russian aggression were to extend to Poland or the Baltic States.
In response, Omar emphasized that NATO is already taking steps to prepare for such scenarios by increasing manpower and smart mobilization efforts. He highlighted the importance of preparing urban infrastructure for potential conflicts, especially in border areas like Poland, where incursions could occur, similar to the situation in Ukraine. Omar also mentioned that subterranean complexes, which have been effective for groups like Hamas, could be relevant for NATO forces as well. He stressed the need for defensive lines and the significance of strategic communication, advising that NATO should tailor its messages to specific audiences and ensure effective relaying of information to counter Russian narratives. Omar concluded by indicating that there are additional lessons to be learned, which he could share in future articles.

In his conclusion, Shlomo Shpiro emphasized several key points regarding modern warfare and the lessons learned from recent conflicts:
1. **Complexity of Warfare**: He noted that modern warfare is incredibly complex, with blurred lines between state and non-state actors. The geographical borders that once defined conflicts are becoming less relevant, as demonstrated by the varied tactics employed by groups like Hamas and the responses from state militaries.

2. **Surprise and Preparedness**: Shpiro highlighted the importance of expecting the unexpected. He referenced the surprise attacks on Israel and Ukraine, indicating that intelligence agencies often fail to predict such events. He stressed the need for military forces to have contingency plans (Plan B) to address potential surprises.

3. **Technological Advancements vs. Human Factors**: While acknowledging the significant technological advancements in military capabilities, he cautioned that having superior technology does not guarantee victory. He pointed out that the effectiveness of military operations often depends on the human element—specifically, the willingness of soldiers to engage in combat and the morale of the forces involved.
4. **Lessons from Historical Conflicts**: Shpiro drew parallels between past conflicts, such as the 1967 and 1982 wars, and current military engagements. He noted that while Israel’s military was able to achieve rapid victories in open terrain, urban warfare presents unique challenges that require different strategies.
5. **NATO’s Challenges**: He warned NATO and European leaders about the challenges of relying solely on financial commitments to defense (referred to as “checkbook defense”). He emphasized that while it is easy to allocate funds for military equipment, the real challenge lies in recruiting and maintaining motivated personnel who are willing to fight.
6. **The Role of Public Sentiment**: Shpiro underscored the importance of public sentiment and national identity in warfare. He cited the example of a Ukrainian woman expressing her determination to fight against Russian tanks, illustrating that personal conviction can be a powerful motivator in conflict.

7. **Future Considerations**: He concluded by expressing hope that NATO would learn from these lessons and adapt to the evolving nature of warfare. He encouraged ongoing dialogue and collaboration among experts in the field to address the complexities of modern conflicts.
Overall, Shlomo Shpiro’s conclusion served as a call to action for military and political leaders to recognize the multifaceted nature of contemporary warfare and to prepare accordingly, balancing technological advancements with the human factors that ultimately determine success in conflict.