Changing Character of War

Maria de Goeij provides a brilliant introduction to reflexive control theory, a Soviet theory of influence. Listen to learn more and appreciate how it can help us better understand today's world, including strategic decision making in hybrid warfare. Reflexive control theory is a theory of influence that was developed in the 1960s, in Soviet Russia. During this lecture Maria will talk about the cybernetic origins of the theory, what we know about reflexive control, and what we do not know about it. She’ll then talk about why this under-researched theory from Soviet times is important to take into account in the todays world and how it can help us think about strategic decision making in hybrid warfare. Maria works as an analyst for Thomson Reuters Special Services International and is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Changing Character of War Centre. Before joining TRSSI, Maria has worked for several think tanks in the Netherlands, the UK, and Montenegro. In addition to this, she has been working for several organisations as an analyst and advisor, and has considerable experience of all issues relating to hybrid and grey zone warfare. Throughout her career, Maria specialised in the analysis of military thought and grand strategy, and strategic influence and statecraft. Her specific interest has been focused on improving contextual situational awareness, finding (qualitative and quantitative) patterns in conflict, including patterns of state and non-state actor behaviour, and the development of early warning systems. Together with the foregoing, her academic interests include the modelling of reflexive control theory. Maria has a BA degree in European Studies, with a specialism in diplomacy, from The Hague University and an MSc degree in Crisis and Security Management from Leiden University.

Dr Marnie Howlett presents an engaging and thought-provoking look at the cartographical causes and consequences of the war. She looks at Ukraine's position between East and West and the implications of its long history of shifting borders with Russia. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, much attention within political and military circles has been devoted to examining the origins of the seemingly unexpected war. However, these analyses have primarily explored the foreign policy objectives of Russia and the motivations of its president. This talk will instead consider the cartographical causes and consequences of the conflict. In drawing on cartographical material gathered through ethnographic fieldwork in three Ukrainian regions between 2018-2022, this talk will show how the war is connected to Ukraine’s position between the East and West. In particular, the ways its borderland status has been utilised throughout history by both neighbouring Russia and the European Union will be considered, especially how it has complicated processes of state- and nation-building since the state’s independence in 1991. Finally, the talk will argue for the importance of realising the nuances at the grassroots in Ukraine for understanding both the Russia-Ukraine war and the future direction of the country. Dr Marnie Howlett is a Departmental Lecturer in Politics (Qualitative Methods) in the Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR) at the University of Oxford. She holds a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), as well as a BA (High Honours) in International Studies and MA in Political Science from the University of Saskatchewan. Dr Howlett’s research centres on the intersection of cartography, nationalism, and geopolitics within the former Soviet Union, particularly Ukraine. Her interests also include research ethics, and the use of visual and spatial methods for political science research. Dr Howlett currently teaches on the postgraduate Qualitative Methods in Political Science, Research Design in Comparative Political Science, and Comparative Political Science courses in the DPIR. She is also working on a book monograph, Imagined Borderlands, which explores the intersection and overlap of imagined and territorial cartographies to better explain contemporary nationalism and politics in Ukraine. Her research has appeared in The Conversation and on media channels in Canada, the UK, Europe, and Asia. Prior to pursuing her PhD, Dr Howlett served as a legislative intern and policy analyst with the Saskatchewan Legislature in Regina, Canada. She has volunteered extensively in Canada and Ukraine with the non-governmental organisation, Help Us Help The Children, which works with Ukrainian orphans and families of war. Dr Howlett also served as an international electoral observer on three missions with CANADEM during Ukraine’s presidential and parliamentary elections in 2019.

Dr Walter Ladwig III presents on his excellent research project which seeks to explain India's foreign policy orientation by analysing the foreign travel patterns of Indian government leaders. Will a rising India seek to uphold the existing conventions and standards that regulate the international system or is it likely to challenge an international order which is seen to have been constructed by the West in general and the United States in particular? This question has recently taken on increased salience in light of the Indian government’s multiple abstentions on UN votes censuring Russia over its invasion of the Ukraine. This talk—based on a study undertaken with Sumitha Narayanan Kutty—will shed light on India’s foreign policy priorities as well as the country’s orientation towards the international system since the end of the Cold War by assessing the patterns of high-level diplomatic travel undertaken by the Indian Prime Minister, External Affairs Minister and President between 1992-2019. In the face of arguments that India’s foreign policy has lacked coherence over the past three decades, the personal diplomacy undertaken by Indian VIPs indicates consistent drivers of foreign engagement and an identifiable orientation toward the present international system. Dr. Walter C. Ladwig III is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London and an Associate Fellow in the Indo-Pacific Program at the Royal United Services Institution. His research interests include South Asian security, U.S. foreign policy, and irregular warfare. Walter’s scholarly work has been published in a number of academic journals including International Security, the Journal of Strategic Studies, and Asian Survey, among others. His first book, The Forgotten Front: Patron-Client Relationships in Counter Insurgency (Cambridge 2017), examines the often-difficult relations between the U.S. and local governments it is supporting in counterinsurgency. He is currently writing a book on Indian defense policy. Walter has given evidence to Parliamentary committees and commented on international affairs for the Economist, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, and the BBC. His opinion pieces have appeared in a number of newspapers including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. He has held fellowships at the University of Virginia and the University of Pennsylvania, and previously taught courses on insurgency, terrorism, and Cold War history at the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. He received a B.A. from the University of Southern California, an M.P.A. from Princeton University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Oxford.

Dr Iacovos Kareklas, Visiting Fellow at the Changing Character of War Centre (CCW), presents a strongly argued thesis that there is a legal and moral right to unilateral humanitarian intervention which dates back to the Peloponnesian War. The presented paper adopts a fresh approach on unilateral humanitarian intervention, and purports to demonstrate that, in certain cases, not only is permissible, but also legally and morally imperative. This academic venture is predominantly based on authoritative state practice, which in the view of the author should constitute reliable international legal custom, as well as theoretical groundwork; namely the well-established notion that violation of human rights necessitates intervention for the restoration of moral order, and applicable theories of deterrence (and just retribution) rendering humanitarian military intervention unobjectionable on grounds of the possibility of imminent humanitarian catastrophes. Iacovos Kareklas got his B.A. and M.A. Degrees (Honours) in Law from Cambridge University, Magdalene College. He holds a Ph.D. in International Law from London University (London School of Economics and Political Science). He specialized in all fields of Public International Law and every aspect of the Cyprus problem. He conducted sustained and in depth research in the United Kingdom Foreign Office Archives with regard to the critical phases of the Cyprus Question. In the academic year 2003-2004 he was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Government, Harvard University. He did postdoctoral studies in International Relations Theory with special reference to the Use of Military Force under the worldwide distinguished political scientist, Professor Stanley Hoffmann. At Harvard, he also taught the course Classical Theories of International Relations. In the year 2004-2005, Dr. Kareklas was appointed Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies. In 2006 and 2007 he was elected Fellow of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford, where he specialized in the Philosophy of Law. From 2013 to 2020 he was Associate Professor at the European University Cyprus, where he taught Public International Law, Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, and International Politics. He spent a year as researcher in the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICS) of London (2001-2002), the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2003), the Oxford Centre for Criminology (2006), and has been a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Iacovos is the author of numerous books and articles in the fields of his specialization. His latest book entitled Thucydides on International Law and Political Theory was published in New York by Rowman and Littlefield: Lexington Books, in 2020. As a Visiting Research Fellow at CCW, he is conducting further research on the Law of War with emphasis on military humanitarian intervention.

Dr Hillary Briffa looks at what characterises small states, their challenges, and the strategies they utilise to overcome these. She argues that small states can very successfully protect their autonomy and security, and exert considerable influence. When major powers clash, or grow more competitive, the historical record shows that small states are the first to be buffeted by the actions of their larger counterparts. Small states do not set the international agenda. This means that if the fears of a breakdown of the rules-based order are well-founded, it will have profound implications for their security. Thus, these actors must look within their own armoury – at the tactics and strategies available to them, within certain bounds – and consider how much leverage they can exert within the context in which they operate. Can small states do anything more than move swiftly to avoid being trampled when elephants collide? This talk will examine the strategies pursued by small states to safeguard their autonomy (including ‘strategic hedging’ and ‘seeking shelter’); as well as innovative means of projecting influence (ranging from the harnessing of multilateralism to bind great power behaviour, to serving as ‘smart states’ in the international system). Today, increasing antagonism between great powers is already creating serious dilemmas for smaller international actors, and this is likely to intensify in the near future. However, the ability of small states to strategically navigate risk and influence the behaviour of Great Powers means that they can be expected to adapt to these changes. As small states navigate a fading rules-based order, this talk will argue that they have several time-tested strategies in reserve. Dr Hillary Briffa is a Lecturer in National Security Studies and the Assistant Director of the Centre for Defence Studies in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, where she read for her Ph.D, asking whether small states can have a grand strategy. She is also a founding member of the Centre for Grand Strategy at King’s, where she serves as the research lead for the Climate Change and International Order portfolio. Previously, she has taught courses across the spectrum of global politics, international relations, defence, foreign policy, security and strategy at the Royal College of Defence Studies, the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, University College London, Birkbeck University of London, and Queen Mary University of London. Beyond academia, she served as Malta’s official Youth Ambassador to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for three years, and worked at the Malta High Commission to the UK throughout Malta’s tenure as Commonwealth Chair-in-Office. After running peace-building projects in Eastern and Central Europe, in 2015 she was appointed an Associate Fellow of the Royal Commonwealth Society, and in 2016 became a recipient of the U.S. State Department’s inaugural Emerging Young Leaders award.

Mark Galeotti discusses Russian perceptions of war and conflict. The differences between what is considered "war" vs "conflict" and how this changes between the military and civilian security establishments. In addition, the war in Ukraine is discussed. Discussion of Russian notions of future warfare tend, for understandable reasons, to focus on the debates within the military, which are then embodied in doctrine, tactics and procurement decisions. These debates are important, but also much more accessible, given the degree to which they are played out and arbitrated within the military press. However, there is an intertwined, if much less accessible debate within the civilian national security establishment – notably the intelligence services and the Security Council secretariat – which is at least of equal importance. While informed by the defence establishment’s debate and sharing many of its assumptions, it is different, not least in its greater willingness to think in terms of open-ended and non-military conflicts, in which over warfighting may play a limited, episodic or essentially theatrical role. In this presentation, Dr Galeotti will address both sets of perceptions and consider the practical and political implications of this divide within Kremlin thinking on warfare. In light of current events, the original planned lecture was amended to include coverage of the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russian thinking about it, and potential outcomes. Dr Mark Galeotti is CEO of the consultancy Mayak Intelligence as well as an Honorary Professor at University College London School of Slavonic and East European Studies. He is also a senior research associate with RUSI, the Council on Geostrategy and the Institute of International Relations Prague. A widely published specialist on Russian security issues, Dr Galeotti has taught, researched, and written in the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, the Czech Republic and Italy. Educated at Cambridge University and the London School of Economics, he has been a senior research fellow at the FCO, head of the history department at Keele University, professor of global affairs at New York University, head of the IIR Prague’s Centre for European Security, and a visiting faculty member at Rutgers-Newark (USA), MGIMO (Russia), and Charles University (Czech Republic). His most recent books include The Weaponisation of Everything (Yale, 2022), Russian Political War (Routledge, 2020) and The Vory (Yale, 2018).

A discussion on the need for the UN to refocus its mission and retool itself to address increased incidence of intra-State conflict. Raja Karthikeya is a Political Affairs Officer in the United Nations Secretariat supporting the General Assembly's deliberations on the Middle East. He has previously served with UN special political missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and led the Global Programme on Preventing Violent Extremism at the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism where he supported governments across Asia and Africa in developing inclusive policies to counter violent extremism. His work has included engaging civil society and youth to ensure inclusive political negotiations, facilitation of national unity government formation efforts, and design of transitional justice mechanisms. As part of his personal efforts to raise awareness about the peace & security dimension of climate adaptation, he crossed the Arctic and Antarctic circles in 2018. Prior to the UN, he has worked with international affairs thinktanks and has published widely on public policy challenges. Please note that Raja was speaking in his personal capacity as a visiting fellow at CCW and his comments do not reflect any position of the UN.

How would Europe fare if the United States completely withdrew its security assurances and assistance? Dr Hugo Meijer argues that Europe would struggle to mount a collective, autonomous defence capacity vis-a-vis a resurgent Russia. Europe’s security landscape has changed dramatically in the past decade amid Russia’s resurgence, mounting European doubts about the long-term reliability of the U.S. security commitment, and Europe’s growing aspiration for strategic autonomy. Could Europeans develop an autonomous defense capacity if the United States withdrew completely from Europe? If the United States were to do so, any European effort to develop an autonomous defense capacity would be fundamentally hampered by profoundly diverging threat perceptions and severe military capacity shortfalls that would be very costly and time-consuming to close. Hugo Meijer is CNRS Research Fellow at Sciences Po, Center for International Studies (CERI, Paris) and the Founding Director of The European Initiative for Security Studies (EISS), a multidisciplinary network of scholars that share the goal of consolidating security studies in Europe. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy (CSDS), in Brussels, and an Honorary Researcher at the Centre for War and Diplomacy, Lancaster University. Recent and forthcoming books: Awakening to China’s Rise. European Foreign and Security Policies toward the People’s Republic of China (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2022); The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed Forces (Oxford University Press, 2018), co-edited with Marco Wyss. For more details, see: https://www.hugomeijer.com/

What strategies do states and nonstate actors use when engaging in disinformation and malign manipulation of the information environment? What do they do and why, and how successful is it? And what can be done to combat it? Malign manipulation of the information environment is an urgent security threat facing western democracies. This talk examines why and how state and nonstate actors have harnessed emerging technologies – social media platforms in particular – to shape the information environment for strategic ends. Weaponization of disinformation is neither new nor warfare in the traditional sense, but digital aspects in particular have confounded western efforts to manage it. This talk is based on interdisciplinary British Academy project that applies intelligence history, strategic studies, and technological perspectives to evaluate and counter influence operations that seek to advance strategic aims in an asymmetric manner short of war. Dr. David V. Gioe is a British Academy Global Professor and Visiting Professor of Intelligence and International Security in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London (KCL). Prior to joining KCL David was Associate Professor of History at the US Military Academy at West Point and History Fellow for the Army Cyber Institute. David is Director of Studies for the Cambridge Security Initiative and is co-convener of its International Security and Intelligence program. He is a former CIA analyst and operations officer; he remains a senior officer in the US Navy Reserve.

Hear from Professor Janne Matlary, co-editor of this recent publication, as well as two contributing authors: Steiner Torset and Anders Sookermany Dr Rob Johnson will chair a panel discussion with contributors to Military Strategy in the 21St Century What is military strategy today? In an era when European states seek to de-escalate and avoid armed conflict, and where politicians fear the consequences of protracted operations or tactical hazards, does military strategy have any relevance? This is the first volume to examine current military risks and threats for NATO from a military strategy vantage point. Which strategies are needed? Is ways—ends—means thinking possible as a strategic template today? The contributors probe the relative importance, utility and options of military strategy across NATO as it confronts a variety of challenges old and new, as hybrid threats, new nuclear risks and conventional force combine in complex ways. They also examine what military strategy and military integration really mean, when NATO’s multilateral framework is being weakened by degrees of self-interest. They analyse the USA’s political and military role in Europe, and assess military strategic responses to Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Middle East. Moreover, they study the role of member states’ military strategy set against Article 5 and non-Article 5 risks and threats, and explore how European states devise and implement military strategic options.

In light of the Integrated Review this year, what other military reviews have there been and what was their impact? Peter Watkins (former Director General in the UK MoD) looks back at previous military reviews and discusses continuing themes. Peter Watkins became an associate fellow for Chatham House in June 2019. Before that, from 2014 to 2018, he was Director General (DG) in the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) responsible for strategic defence policy, including key multilateral and bilateral relationships (such as NATO), nuclear, cyber, space and prosperity (latterly this post was known as the DG Strategy and International). Previously he served as DG of the Defence Academy, Director of Operational Policy, Director responsible for the UK share of the multinational Typhoon combat aircraft programme and as Defence Counsellor in the UK Embassy in Berlin. He is a frequent participant in conferences on defence and security in the UK and overseas. He was awarded the CB (2019) and CBE (2004) for services to defence. He has an MA from Cambridge University.

How are new technologies impacting the conduct of war? And what will be the impact more broadly on our societies and, in particular, our understandings of time, space, and self. “Military revolutions” refer to major changes in the technologies required for prosecuting wars, which in turn fundamentally alter the organization and functioning of human societies. This phenomenon has been observed for the Napoleonic wars, the industrial age, and the nuclear age. The 4th industrial revolution (4IR), characterized by the fusion of the digital, biological, and physical worlds through technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, genetic engineering and quantum computing (among others), is already profoundly changing the conduct of war (warfare). Yet, it also has the potential to simultaneously alter our perceptions of time (hyper-velocity weapons, speeding up of warfare), of space (militarization of new domains such as cyber and extra-atmospheric space), and of self (transformed human bodies through “augmented soldiers”, robotization of the battlefield). Combined, 4IR military technologies may trigger a new “military revolution” with far-reaching consequences not only for warfare but also for the politics, self-understanding and functioning of human societies. This talk will discuss how 4IR technologies may transform our understanding of war and affect our societies. Dr Schmitt is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the Center for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark. He also currently serves as Vice-president and Scientific Director of the French Association for War and Strategic Studies (AEGES).Before joining CWS in 2015, he obtained his PhD from the department of War Studies, King’s College London, and was a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Montreal Center for International Studies (CÉRIUM). He holds MA degrees from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva) and Sciences Po Aix. A reserve officer in the French navy, De Schmitt has policy experience at the French MoD and NATO. He also worked for two think-tanks: the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He conducts research in two broad fields. First, he is interested in security and strategic studies, in particular multilateral military cooperation, comparative defence policies, arms control, military transformation and the changing character of warfare. Second, he looks at the role of ideas and norms in world politics, with research on strategic narratives, influence and propaganda, but also far-right ideologies. His current research project, entitled “Transforming Armed Forces in the 21st Century“, is founded by the Carlsberg Foundation (“Distinguished Associate Professor Fellowship“), the Independent Research Fund Denmark (“Research Project 1“) and the Gerda Henkel Foundation (special programme “Security, Society and the State“).

As space becomes increasingly central in military planning and strategy development, what is the current situation and what capabilities (and weaknesses) currently exist? Since the start of the Space Age, the orbital domain has always been used for military purposes; but in recent times there has been an increasing focus on tactical rather than strategic satellite applications. There has been a shift in military emphasis towards systems that provide wider coverage, more timely information, increased data capacity, and lower latency communications. Nevertheless, these novel military capabilities are now being surpassed by commercial mega-constellations, some of which are providing services that were once exclusively military functions. For these reasons, space assets have now become targets; a number of nations have demonstrated anti-satellite (ASAT) systems in multiple orbital regimes. In a hostile military environment, both offensive and defensive space operations require highly detailed space domain awareness (SDA) information. This level of SDA is currently in relatively short supply, and as satellite systems start to develop SDA countermeasures, it will become increasingly difficult to acquire. The lecture will explain the ongoing technical evolution in space systems that will, inevitably, influence future conflicts, and the increasing threats that such systems face. It will make the case that the outcome of future military engagements in orbit will be reliant on SDA which needs to be far better than the limited information that is available today, especially if satellite system designers start to protect their assets by conducting “SDA Warfare”. In 2018, Stuart Eves founded his own space consultancy company, SJE Space Ltd, after spending 16 years with the UK Ministry Of Defence, and 14 years with Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL). He has been involved with a wide variety of space missions, including TopSat, which set a satellite world record for “resolution per mass” when it was launched in 2005, and which was featured in the Space Gallery at the Science Museum in London. Stuart’s recent book “Space Traffic Control”, describes the measures needed to maintain the space environment and protect satellites from both natural hazards and man-made threats. He serves on the Advisory Panel for the ESA Space Safety Programme, and is a founder of the GNOSIS network on sustainability in space. He has been involved in a diverse range of media activities on all aspects of space, (including most recently on “SSA Warfare”), and has previously been a recipient of an Arthur Clarke Award for space education and outreach. Stuart has an MSc in Astrophysics, a PhD in satellite constellation design, and has been a fellow of both the Royal Astronomical Society and the British Interplanetary Society for more than 25 years.

What is better integration? More integration may not be the simple answer for militaries like the US and UK. The Integrated Review, Multi-Domain Integration, The Integrated Operating Concept, Multi-Domain Battle,, the list goes on. These concepts define US and UK ideas of how to fight and win in the future, and they all have a common underpinning premise: integrate better. But what is ‘better’ integration? Counter-intuitively to many, better integration is not as simple as more integration. ‘Better’ integration doesn’t just enable efficient communications, it enables systemic learning and memory, collective intelligence, speed of response, and effective adaption. Increased integration, but done badly, induces blindness, slower responses, bloat, and systemic stupidity. In an era where how data flows across a military system is going to matter more, what are the lessons from DeepMind’s research, paper plates, cats, the P-38 Lightning, the biggest theoretical artificial intelligence, the disaster that is the human eyeball, and even how you are sitting in that chair. Lieutenant Colonel Al Brown is a Visiting Research Fellow at Oxford. In addition to all the things one might expect in a twenty-year military career in the post-9/11 era, Al was previously the lead for Defence on the study of global trends in robotics and artificial intelligence and their impacts on conflict. He has been one of the group of government experts providing advice to and speaking at the United Nations, and an occasional guest lecturer at various universities, the Royal United Services Institute, and the Alan Turing Institute.

Ricardo Nogales gives a talk for the Changing Character of War seminar series.

Sara Polo, University of Essex, gives a talk for the Changing Character of War seminar series.

Oscar Jonsson, Stockholm Free World Forum, gives a talk for the Changing Character of War Programme.

Lord John Alderdice gives a talk for the Changing Character of War seminar series.

This talk will discuss the parallels between the Thirty Years War and today’s Middle East and suggest ways in which lessons drawn from the congress and treaties of Westphalia. It was the original forever war, which went on interminably, fuelled by religious and constitutional disputes, personal ambition, fear of hegemony, and communal suspicion. It dragged in all the neighbouring powers. It was punctuated by repeated failed ceasefires. It inflicted suffering beyond belief and generated waves of refugees. This description could apply to Syria today, but actually refers to the Thirty Years War (1618-48), which turned much of central Europe into a disaster zone. The Thirty Years War is often cited as a parallel in discussions of current conflict in the Middle East. The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the war in Europe in 1648, has featured strongly in such discussions, usually with the observation that recent events in some parts of the region have seen the collapse of ideas of state sovereignty -ideas that supposedly originated with the 1648 settlement. This talk will discuss the parallels between the Thirty Years War and today’s Middle East and suggest ways in which lessons drawn from the congress and treaties of Westphalia might provide inspirations for a peace settlement for the Middle East’s new long wars. The talk is based on a recent book and ongoing collaborative project. Patrick Milton was born in Zimbabwe and is a German-British research fellow at Peterhouse, Cambridge, and an affiliated lecturer at the Dept of Politics and International Studies, Cambridge. He was previously a postdoc at Freie Universitaet Berlin and has been working on the ‘Westphalia for the Middle East’ project since 2016.

Using longitudinal data from Burundi collected in 2011 and 2015, this paper explores the consequences of repatriation for stayee households i.e. those who never left the country during the conflict Large-scale refugee repatriation is sometimes considered a threat to stability and sustainable development because of the burden it could impose on receiving communities. Yet the empirical evidence on the impacts of refugee return is limited. Using longitudinal data from Burundi collected in 2011 and 2015, this paper explores the consequences of repatriation for stayee households (i.e. those who never left the country during the conflict). Burundi experienced large-scale repatriation during the 2000s, with the returning refugees unevenly spread across the country. We use geographical features of the communities of origin, including altitude and proximity to the border, for identification purposes. The results suggest that a higher share of returnees in a community is associated with less livestock ownership, the principal form of capital accumulation in the country, and worse subjective economic conditions for stayee households. Additional analysis suggests that refugee return had a negative impact on food security and land access for stayees. The negative impact on food security largely disappears between rounds of the survey. Refugee return had no significant effect on the health outcomes of stayees. The article finishes with a discussion of the implications of the results for policies that aim to support refugee repatriation and long-term sustainable development in post conflict societies. Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva is Research Director and Associate Professor at COMPAS. He is also the Director of the DPhil in Migration Studies and a member of Kellogg College. Carlos is also co-founder and current Associate Editor of the journal Migration Studies. He was also one of the researchers that developed the Migration Observatory in 2010, and acted as Director of the Observatory in 2014 and 2017.