Key Takeaways

• Defensive rewilding offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional military defenses by using natural landscapes to obstruct enemy movement.
• This approach not only enhances national security but also promotes environmental restoration, such as restoring peat bogs and wetlands.
• Countries exploring defensive rewilding could simultaneously meet carbon reduction goals while improving their military defense strategies.

Combining Defense and Nature: The Concept of Defensive Rewilding

Researchers are proposing a novel approach called “defensive rewilding,” which integrates national security with environmental benefits. By restoring natural landscapes such as forests, peat bogs, and wetlands along Europe’s borders, these areas could serve as effective barriers against enemy armored units at a fraction of the cost of traditional concrete fortifications.

The concept emphasizes creating long-lasting obstacles that could impede or redirect invading forces while simultaneously promoting carbon storage and biodiversity. Sam Jelliman, one of the researchers involved, highlighted that tactical obstacles like minefields are temporary, whereas rewilding initiatives would set up enduring defenses that redefine conflict zones before hostilities begin.

Historical examples, including the challenges faced by German forces in the Pripet Marshes during World War II, illustrate how natural terrain can hinder military operations. The researchers advocate for reestablishing natural hydrology in regions like the Belarus-Ukraine border, presenting it as a self-repairing alternative to concrete defenses.

The financial advantages of defensive rewilding are notable: restoring a kilometer of wetland would cost between £90,000 and £540,000 (approximately $120,000 to $724,000), compared to £1 million to £3 million for a concrete anti-tank ditch. Wetlands can create soft, unstable ground that hinders heavy vehicles while bogging down logistics for military operations.

Jelliman asserts the feasibility of rewetting dried peat bogs, which can be done by blocking drainage channels. Within a year, these areas can become impassable for even light armored vehicles, all while serving as crucial carbon sinks.

In addition to wetlands, dense forests can act as obstacles to tanks and anti-tank projectile systems. Historical military engagements, like the Battle of Hürtgen Forest, showcase how terrain can neutralize technological advantages. Mangrove forests could similarly protect coastlines against landings while offering biodiversity benefits and storm protection.

Furthermore, by restoring river systems to their natural states, military engineers would face increased difficulty in creating crossing points. The use of natural landscapes is not only strategic but could lead to cost reductions in defense spending, especially as nations plan to boost military budgets substantially in the coming years.

Eastern European nations like Finland, Estonia, and Poland are reportedly ahead in investigating these methods, aligning ecological restoration with defense strategies. The dual benefits of defensive rewilding—enhanced security and moving toward net-zero carbon emissions—align well with current defense funding goals, potentially fulfilling NATO’s resilience benchmarks in a cost-effective manner.

As discussions continue around the implementation and research of defensive rewilding, Jelliman emphasizes its practicality for national security and environmental objectives. The integration of natural defenses could represent a groundbreaking shift in how countries approach both defense and ecological sustainability.

The content above is a summary. For more details, see the source article.