tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35495975293002254992024-03-16T19:51:55.949+01:00THE LINDLEY-FRENCH ANALYSIS: SPEAKING TRUTH UNTO POWERA Regular Commentary on Strategic Affairs from a Leading Commentator and Analyst<br>
2023 Book: NATO - THE ENDURING ALLIANCE (London: Routledge)
2024 Book: THE RETREAT FROM STRATEGY with General Lord Richards (London: Hurst)Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.comBlogger994125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-9980227811342275102024-02-28T09:55:00.007+01:002024-02-28T09:57:17.422+01:00Masters of Hot Air?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYvpUEhjM31cTKL550_lVPcQCJyzWQ7xlexl3hSEH-EemMhhhYYMVL-WdNl36koW8rGETY-8opBjU_2F2wzHzaeMplCfbo9ujoeFTesIkT2YFGvjS0eMO1bVVrkW3nIiZ4uEgRVvdxmu8UDrCTDyPMLnwiAQxK_vcyZfS23zARPXATI95pYV7owjEw/s240/Lanc.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="240" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYvpUEhjM31cTKL550_lVPcQCJyzWQ7xlexl3hSEH-EemMhhhYYMVL-WdNl36koW8rGETY-8opBjU_2F2wzHzaeMplCfbo9ujoeFTesIkT2YFGvjS0eMO1bVVrkW3nIiZ4uEgRVvdxmu8UDrCTDyPMLnwiAQxK_vcyZfS23zARPXATI95pYV7owjEw/s1600/Lanc.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>February 28th, 2024 My favourite TV series is the brilliant Hanks/Spielberg 2001 "Band of Brothers". It tells the story of Easy Company of the magnificent US Army 101st Airborne Division. It is a very human story of ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things in war to defeat Nazism and liberate Western Europe between 1943 and 1944. We Brits do not figure much in it, but then it is a story of brave, young Americans and fair enough. Still, Tom Hanks does appear briefly as a British paratrooper. You can then imagine my disappointment watching the new Hanks/Spielberg "Masters of the Air". It is still a story of brave, young and terrified Americans (even though many of the actors are strangely British) carrying out their duty in B-17 Flying Fortresses or Forts as they were known by their crews, and paying for it with their lives and liberty. <p></p><p>Unlike "Band of Brothers" the new series is brash and too often inaccurate and treats their RAF allies with contempt. They present the RAF as a bunch of arrogant aristocratic 'toffs'. There were a few such in Bomber Command's aircrew, but the massive majority were ordinary Aussies, Brits, Canucks, Czechs, Kiwis, Poles and from a host of other nationalities and from a host of ordinary backgrounds. They were also all volunteers and they all paid a terrible price either with their lives or with their minds or both. Many felt conflicted about the area bombing of German cities and people but this was Total War. If you asked my grandmother who was bombed out by the Nazis in Plymouth and Sheffield what see thought about the RAF striking back she would have echoed the words of Air Marshal Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris: "The Germans have sowed the wind, they will now reap the whirlwind". </p><p>What saddens me about the latest Hanks/Spielberg World War Two epic is what it says about contemporary, angry America. An America that needs to tell itself that it is alone and that all of its friends and allies are useless and untrustworthy. That is simply not the case. The experience of my family in World War Two and my many American, German and other friends, is why I am a committed Atlanticist, why I am a committed European, why I am honoured to call Luftwaffe officers my friends, and why I will always defend freedom from those who threaten it -physically if called upon. </p><p>So, as an antidote to "Masters of the Air" let me share with you another movie, "Lancaster". It captures in thirteen minutes what my forebear in the RAF went through and what "Masters" fails to capture in several hours Enjoy, as my American friends would say. </p><p>https://youtu.be/sSXiny5mEpg </p><p>Just for the record, the USAAF 8th Air Force lost 26,000 aircrew during the campaign, whilst RAF Bomber Command and the Royal Canadian Air Force lost 55,000 of 126,000 aircrew. Whose counting? I am, because I honour every single bloody one of them American, British and the rest. </p><p><b>Julian Lindley-French</b></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-30027906426085912592024-02-10T13:11:00.001+01:002024-02-10T13:11:27.404+01:00No Way Norway!<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhhNEeCbi2Dy706H0TRYTJpVk729nLWfTlbRUtBNsb-9mfQe8lsMyMexayrgrApNnn10fJxXtV_JOi7ycQ0xiRG3DB_C4o8dUtnoyp0IaMeyDaD6C5KWB9oA1zQAnQHJbwPZEJgu_zv65AYuU94hvJqw5NKIb7Vwu_Q_Q4XjGnGzJpFu7WlN9EngWPp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="653" data-original-width="745" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhhNEeCbi2Dy706H0TRYTJpVk729nLWfTlbRUtBNsb-9mfQe8lsMyMexayrgrApNnn10fJxXtV_JOi7ycQ0xiRG3DB_C4o8dUtnoyp0IaMeyDaD6C5KWB9oA1zQAnQHJbwPZEJgu_zv65AYuU94hvJqw5NKIb7Vwu_Q_Q4XjGnGzJpFu7WlN9EngWPp" width="274" /></a></div><br /><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">“Castles in the air – they are so easy to take refuge in. And so easy to
build”.</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: center;"><i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Henrik
Ibsen</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">February
10<sup>th</sup>, 2024. Just back from the Norwegian Atlantic Committee’s superb
annual Leangkollen Conference. The conference was great, the debate less so with
a lack of urgency, realism, solidarity, but above all self-deceit permeated the
debate. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">First,
it is ridiculous, almost morally repugnant, that Norway with its enormous
sovereign wealth fund does not spend 2% GDP on defence. At the conference
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store made all the right noises but… One only
must watch Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson and the lecture he gave the
world on fantasy Russian history to understand NATO must confront an
increasingly unstable megalomaniac with Norway on the front line (look at a map). about
the growing Russian threat to Europe’s richest country with its enormous
sovereign wealth fund. And yet, Store said he ‘hoped’ Norway might spend
2% of GDP on defence by 2026 but that we all have domestic politics. Yes,
Prime Minister, we in Britain also have domestic politics and yet we spend 2%
partly to defend you! Just for the record was it not Norwegian NATO Secretary
General Jens Stoltenberg who said 2% was the baseline not the goal of Allied
defence expenditure. Oslo expects America and Britain to play a crucial
role in Norwegian defence and deterrence. If Norway is not prepared to
spend the minimum agreed on defence NOW why the Hell should we bother?
All rich Norway is doing is transferring the cost of Norway’s defence onto
broke Britain. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Second,
no more NATO defence pretence, please. Admiral Rob Bauer, the Dutch Chairman of
the NATO Military Committee, made an excellent speech about the vital need for
a close relationship between NATO defence, deterrence and enhanced societal
resilience. There was also a joke doing the rounds of the Conference. The next
NATO Secretary-General must be a woman from central or eastern Europe and from
a country that spends 2% GDP on defence…so it will be Dutch Prime Minister Marc
Rutte. Rutte would make an excellent NATO ‘Sec-Gen’ apart from the minor fact
that whilst he has been Dutch Prime Minister, he has done very little to
strengthen the Dutch armed forces. The NATO Defence Planning Process is
in danger of becoming one of the great works of European fiction because of
countries like Norway and the Netherlands. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Third, we
must face reality with at least some urgency. There was agreement at the
conference over the need to strengthen deterrence because Russia is committed
to confrontation so long as Putin lives, and Moscow is learning lessons from
its failures in Ukraine. There was also agreement that whilst Russia
might take 3 to 5 years the Russians will reconstitute their forces, they now
have the war economy to do it. In other words, the Alliance has that time
to really strengthen its eastern and northern flanks. And yet, there was
little or no sense of urgency in Oslo. Worse, whilst the eastern
Europeans, Finns and Swedes understand the need for strengthened deterrence,
Western European powers including Norway do not really feel threatened by
Russia or anyone else for that matter except perhaps, Donald J. Trump. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Fourth, just
tell Ukrainians the truth. The debate on Ukraine went something like this: “We
are all very concerned by what could happen in Ukraine in the spring, and we
all want to Ukrainians to win and push all Russian forces out of their
country. However, we have either given Ukraine most of what we can give
them or we do not want to, we cannot expand military production quickly, and in
any case, we need to re-equip our own forces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Oh, and by the way, we will probably not offer Ukraine NATO membership
at the NATO 75 Washington Summit, or even the road to NATO membership.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But don’t worry, some of us will offer Ukraine
bilateral security guarantees just like the ones we gave Poland before World
War Two”. In other words, despite what Allies are saying in public whilst
preserving the independence of what is left of Ukraine is sort of important
(have a look at another map), as far as the rest of us are concerned Russia can have Crimea
and Donbas. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Deploy
the Trolls!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Julian
Lindley-French<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-43474758375399896972024-01-18T11:36:00.001+01:002024-01-18T11:36:14.117+01:00Escalation by Proxy?<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifKwRzBV29JT0No4_T_P8LJVPvbQDJru8ZSRAYOACoSqAb96BLhAqRG6Qj1QtPqk5lnCtbzCzmoOaFj47qfRDdwnWJb4osIHjf6RawH0YHc1nuQGy_VV-bwBhxZX0ss47QBC0IqLrr7q8rWsy8GaH9O-TlreQ9ZaZPo0WwJEaY0oCU6gxiHJdDiQjO/s720/domino-theory_orig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="720" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifKwRzBV29JT0No4_T_P8LJVPvbQDJru8ZSRAYOACoSqAb96BLhAqRG6Qj1QtPqk5lnCtbzCzmoOaFj47qfRDdwnWJb4osIHjf6RawH0YHc1nuQGy_VV-bwBhxZX0ss47QBC0IqLrr7q8rWsy8GaH9O-TlreQ9ZaZPo0WwJEaY0oCU6gxiHJdDiQjO/s320/domino-theory_orig.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>“Finally,
you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the
‘falling domino’ principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over
the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it
will go over very quickly. So, you could have a beginning of a disintegration
that would have profound influences”.</i></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: center;"><i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Dwight
D. Eisenhower, April 1954</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Dominoes</span></u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">January
18, 2024. Much is being made in some Western media about apparent connections
between the war in Gaza, missile strikes in the Red Sea, global supply chains
and geopolitics. It is as though the world is again the same row of dominoes
that so exercised the late Henry Kissinger between 1955 and 1976. Does
such a simplistic analysis stand up to scrutiny or by making connections where
none really exist does the world appear more dangerous than it really is?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The
world today is clearly more dangerous than it was twenty-five years ago.
That was the message both British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron and Defence
Secretary, Grant Shapps gave during their respective speeches over the past
week with the Middle East the apparent crucible where local, regional, and
geopolitical conflict meet. What is clear is that whilst all the world’s most
powerful states are in some way involved, they are being equally careful to
avoid escalating the conflict in Gaza to the point they go to war with each
other. Iran clearly does not want a war with either Israel or the US.
Russia is focussed on Ukraine, whilst China seems primarily concerned about
preserving the global supply chains that have made it rich and powerful, whilst
Europeans simply want to remain comfortable and dependent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Escalation
by Proxy</span></u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">There is
a systemic war underway, but it is not being fought directly but rather
escalation by proxy. It is almost a systemic war, a world war in the grey zone,
and stretches from Europe through the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. It
is a war in which state and non-state threats to the West merge into a form of
grand strategic asymmetry and in which the great powers use smaller ‘powers’ to
probe for chronic vulnerabilities in the societies and systems of their
enemies. It is also a war of technology. Fake news and cyber-attacks are
the short-of-war weapons of grand asymmetry designed to exploit weaknesses in
democracies caused by increasingly atomistic societies. Using the latest
cyberware deniable troll factories constantly seek to disrupt and distract
powerful adversaries and threaten the critical digital nodes and
infrastructures open societies rely on. Consequently, deterring such threats is
no longer simply about the demonstrable capability of conventional and nuclear
armed forces, but also a proven capacity to respond to the information and
cyber domains, much of which is dependent on space-based systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Phoney
war?</span></u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">It would
also be easy to suggest this is a phoney war between autocracies and
democracies. That, indeed, is one of the many layers of conflict implicit
in this war, but a better characterisation would be to see this struggle as
between those who benefit from the current status quo and those that believe
they have lost out to it. This is leading to a host of coalitions and ententes
none of which are particularly stable. In the Middle East, through the
Abraham Accords Israel is in an anti-Iran accord with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and
the Gulf States. Russia and Iran are in an anti-Israeli and by extension
anti-American coalition and trying to use that to weaken US resolve in Ukraine
and wider Europe. Iran is using proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the
Houthis in Yemen to force Israel into a two-front war. China is tacitly
supporting Western efforts to keep global supply chains through the Red Sea
even as it seeks top keep the US out of the South China Sea to isolate Taiwan.
Europeans are simply hoping it does not bother them too much even as the EU’s
Frontex announced this week that there was a 17% increase in the flow of
irregular migrants into Europe in 2022-2023, the highest number since 2016 with
many saying that their ultimate destination is Britain. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Grey
asymmetry and Western strategy</span></u><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Three
things are clear: grand asymmetry is morphing into a systemic grey war;
that said war is making the international system ever more fragile; and the
shape of the future will depend on whether the US can escape from its domestic
political psychodrama, Europeans can climb down from Euro-utopia; and to what
extent control freak Beijing continues to see globalisation as an instrument of
Chinese grand strategy; and whether or not Moscow and Tehran can be put back in
their respective nonsense boxes. Given the world-wide forces at play it
would be easy to make the same mistake made by Kissinger and others back in the
1950s and 1960s and see connections and dominoes where none really exist.
There are other lessons from the past which should rather be heeded such as 19<sup>th</sup> century
British diplomacy which took a very pragmatic view of threats and dealt with
each one iteratively by applying specific knowledge to specific cases. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">What is
needed, and as always, is a coherent Western strategy in the face of such
complexity to preserve the rules-based order which is now under attack and
detach one conflict from another. Any such strategy would in turn need
resilient solidarity (at best partial), sustained engagement to resolve each
conflict (no evidence as yet), the replacing of highly efficient but fragile
supply chains with more resilient and redundant trade networks (no evidence as
yet), assured Western access to micro-chips and rare Earth minerals (no
evidence as yet), supported by greater economic resilience (no evidence as
yet), military capability relevant to the threats at hand (some increases in
European defence expenditure but, for example, the British have a £16.9 billion
shortfall between states ends, ways and means), and a European willingness to
once and for all get their hands dirty in the messy mire that is contemporary
geopolitics (no evidence beyond the rhetorical).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Ultimately,
the worldview of falling dominoes was not only lazy analysis, but it was also
ideological and dangerous. Therefore, the West should be seeking to
divide China from Russia, isolate Iran from its region, and contain Russia by
exploiting its many weaknesses. Then if one domino falls it will not trigger a
cataclysm. After all, that is the very purpose of grand diplomacy in
grand strategy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Julian
Lindley-French <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-51000109840874942232024-01-03T12:02:00.006+01:002024-01-03T12:16:37.826+01:002024 or 1848?<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyBkLpYFRmXnCdu-6IeSHy8k-l0AQylu4LlUUKyxllIxnV-hJGdJwxZZ149kz6bHVQfZVtUzNW1ixghMELaEG0xUE5bb0ic5DBk-f7PFPyrZCw-NQU2dq6AjzRyLBNJPdXymZSDIevgtHXmV7UGYbKCMi-mNfLyVQLf4WrzRFbCQhsetdvOlAQXEp6/s240/1848.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="240" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyBkLpYFRmXnCdu-6IeSHy8k-l0AQylu4LlUUKyxllIxnV-hJGdJwxZZ149kz6bHVQfZVtUzNW1ixghMELaEG0xUE5bb0ic5DBk-f7PFPyrZCw-NQU2dq6AjzRyLBNJPdXymZSDIevgtHXmV7UGYbKCMi-mNfLyVQLf4WrzRFbCQhsetdvOlAQXEp6/s1600/1848.jpg" width="240" /></a></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i style="text-align: left;"><span style="background: white; line-height: 107%;">“Where nationalism means the lust for pride and power, the
craze for supreme domination by weight or force; where it is the senseless urge
to be the biggest in the world, it is a danger and a vice. Where it means love
of country and readiness to die for country; where it means love of tradition
and culture and the gradual building up across the centuries of a social entity
dignified by nationhood, then it is the first of virtues”.</span></i></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="background: white; color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Winston Churchill’s
Speech to the Dutch States-General, May 9, 1946</span></i><i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In 1848, a wave of revolutions
swept across fifty European countries. Whilst many insurrections were driven by
a liberal desire to overthrow aristocratic elites the underlying force was nationalism.
2024, I fear, will be 1848 redux: the year of nationalism, and not just in
Europe. It will have profound implications for the New Geopolitics. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">It is not often I disagree with
Churchill’s insights about power and identity, but on this occasion I do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is no such thing as good nationalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Churchill was referring to as “love of
country” was patriotism, not nationalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is a profound difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Nationalists tend to be large groups motivated by an extremist belief
that they and their respective countries are intrinsically superior to other
countries, normally driven by a false narrative of history. Nationalism is thus
the uncontrollable thin end of a very unpleasant political and geopolitical
wedge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also one step short of
fascism, the totalitarian control of a state by a relatively small and usually murderous
elite who not only believe they are superior to everyone else in their own
society who do not share their rigid views, but willing to impose their beliefs
on others beyond their borders, usually in the name of some past ‘glory’. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Fascism, Nazism and Communism also
have many similarities, especially for those on the wrong end of them, but
whereas the former is a murderous form of extreme nationalist government the
latter two are/were murderous ideologies involving racial and ethnic
superiority and hatred of ‘the other’, or class war. Historically, fascists and
aristocrats have also often made common cause but for very different reasons, for
whilst the former is populist the latter is anything but. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Today, fuelled by social media nationalism
is fast eroding the institutions set up in the wake of World War Two to prevent
the extreme state behaviour that twice led to war in Europe. That is what
institutions do, when they work – aggregate, legitimise and mitigate. It is not
without albeit understandable irony that it is the Germans who are most concerned
about this erosion. Once embedded state power is leaking out of institutions
and again becoming increasingly nationalistic in the relatively few states that
are the real competitors in geopolitics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The problem is that the response of
the European elite is not unlike that of their conservative forebears in 1848 which
is precisely what in 2024 makes Europe vulnerable to nationalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In June, elections to the European Parliament
will take place. The Brussels Eurocracy is profoundly concerned that their liberal,
‘ever more Europe’ parliamentary majority which has for decades rubber-stamped the
concentration of ever more unaccountable power in the hands of ever fewer elite
hands will be defeated by a rag-tag array of nationalists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They want power given back to Europe’s nation-states,
but only so long as they control it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Much like 1848 the drivers are mass migration, wars, poverty, fear of
the other, and a sense amongst many that the EU has taken power ever further from
the citizen to the benefit of a distant, out of touch and rich European elite
who look and behave ever more like an aristocracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Many readers of these missives
will recall that I was both tough on the EU and yet believed Britain should
have remained in it. The reason was simple: when the distance between the individual
and power in a democracy becomes ever greater, power by its very nature becomes
ever more unaccountable and those who wield it ever more a caste. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Europe is all too historically prone to the abuse
of power by those who rule it which Britain has always prevented.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These
days it is those who routinely ‘champion’ democracy even as the EU routinely
flouts it and it is the citizen who must be the voice of restraint, in much the
same way as a slave would stand behind a Roman general on his war chariot as he
entered the <i>Porta Triumphalis</i> whispering, “Remember, you are mortal”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><u>The Real Nationalists<o:p></o:p></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For all the self-regarding superiority
of the European elite I have seen at close quarters they simply think they know
best.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are not the real gilt-edged
nationalists who are already doing mortal damage. Xi Jinping is a Han nationalist
masquerading as a Communist, who has no need to concern himself with elections
as he has been made China’s President/Emperor-for-life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his New Year’s address Xi made it clear
Taiwan will be brought back into the fold one way or another. Putin, on the
other hand, is good old-fashioned Russian imperialist-nationalist masquerading
as an anti-fascist. In March, Putin will ‘face’ a presidential election but as
he is also president-for-life and thus ‘indispensable’ for a wartime Russia in
a war he started the ‘election’ will also be anything but as he endeavours to
rebuild the never built Novorossiya empire.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Whilst China and Russia are the ‘usual’
nationalist suspects they are not alone. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In May, the world’s largest democracy, India,
will elect members of Parliament, the Lok Sabha.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is almost certain that the current
nationalist BJP Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, will be returned to power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Modi is partly motivated by resentment at India’s
past treatment by a former colonial power, Britain, and partly by Hindu nationalism.
He has a willing victim in Britain which is kowtowing (Shabdkosh) to New Delhi
in the hope of a trade deal even as Modi moves closer to Russia and away from
Britain and West. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Humiliating the needy old
colonial master will do nothing to damage his electoral chances, which is helped
by useful idiots in London who have decided the British Empire was pretty much
the Original Sin and that the British should, therefore, prostrate themselves before
the likes of Xi and Modi for past imperial ‘crimes’. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><u>Not So Useful Idiots<o:p></o:p></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Talking of (not-so) useful idiots
the British will also hold a General Election in 2024 that could well see Britain
being Britain – perverse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is likely a
Labour Government will be elected even though the reasons it will be elected
will be because the country is moving to the nationalist Right on issues like
mass immigration upon which the Labour Party is traditionally soft.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reasons are twofold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, Nigel Farage, Mr Brexit, will return
to frontline politics by leading the Reform Party thus siphoning off many votes
to the right of the Tories.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, the
spectacular incompetence and weakness of the Conservative Party in government
means many True-Blue Tories will simply not bother to vote. They will thus wake
up to a Labour Government as split between the centrists and the hard Left as
the Tories are between the centrists and the Hard Right. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Then it is the turn of the
Yanks!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In November, the Americans go to
the polls in their quadrennial presidential elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My bet is that President Joe Biden will not
run, partly because he can hardly stand. His opponent? One Donald J. Trump, the
isolationist’s nationalist. If he regains the White House, and depending on
which way Congress will go, there is every reason to believe that a second term
Make America Great Again (Again) Trump will be a nationalist isolationist Trump
as his focus will be on the ‘war’ he will conduct on what he calls the Washington
swamp. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">There will be at least one
constant throughout 2024; efforts by both Putin and Xi to cyber-rig all and
every election of all and any geopolitical consequence. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">2024 or 1848? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Julian Lindley-French<o:p></o:p></b></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-8533593427267728332023-12-18T16:00:00.002+01:002023-12-18T16:00:46.875+01:00Ukraine: Why America MUST Lead<h2 style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"> <b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 16.0pt;">The Alphen
Group<br /></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #00b0f0;">Geopolitics, Strategy and Innovation </span></b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Mr Mitch McConnell, US Senate<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Mr Chuck Schumer, US Senate<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Mr Hakeem Jeffries, US House of Representatives<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Mr Steve
Scalise, US House of Representatives<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><b><span lang="EN-US">December 18<sup>th</sup>, 2023<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Sirs, <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Open letter to the Leaders of the United States Congress<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">The undersigned members of The Alphen Group (TAG) urge the United
States Congress to approve expeditiously the Administration’s request for
continuation of assistance to Ukraine, a sovereign nation that was attacked
without provocation by Russia and now is valiantly defending its territory,
democracy, and the rule of law. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Ukraine’s fight is not only in defense of its own sovereignty and
territory, but also on behalf of the West, its values and way of life, which
Russia seeks to replace with an international system more welcoming for
dictatorships. Russian President Vladimir Putin has no apparent intention to
reverse Russia’s aggression or to seek a negotiated settlement on any terms
other than complete victory. The United States and its allies must help Ukraine
prevent Russia from winning a victory that would both be disastrous for the
people and country of Ukraine and threatening the future security of the United
States and its allies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">We do not take this position lightly but rather following debate
among ourselves around the costs and benefits of a variety of US and NATO
policy approaches. This war is at a tipping point at which decisions made by
the United States and its NATO allies and partners will determine whether the
outcome is favorable to their interests or disastrous for Ukraine and the West.
The West must convince Putin that time is not on his side. American aid
combined with continued European assistance will do that. Failure of the United
States to lead would create conditions for a Russian victory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Strong action supporting Ukraine at this point would fundamentally
strengthen NATO cohesion. The European NATO allies have made important
contributions to Ukraine’s defenses and aspirations to become a member of the
European Union (EU) and NATO. The EU’s recent decision to open membership
negotiations with Ukraine was a major step forward toward Ukraine’s goal of
joining Europe and the West. We are urging European and Canadian leaders and
parliamentarians to continue their support.<b><i> </i></b>In many cases,
European allies have been the first to provide certain categories of weapons,
such as tanks and longer-range missiles. They have paid large costs
implementing sanctions against Russia and shifting away from dependence on
Russian energy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Ukraine is still resolute, but it lacks the means to achieve
decisive battlefield results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Accordingly, the United States needs to accelerate the delivery of
fighter aircraft and long-range artillery that Ukraine must have to succeed and
end the conflict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If implemented
beginning in early 2024, Ukraine can be equipped with the capabilities it needs
to succeed by year’s end. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Not continuing U.S. support for Ukraine would be a huge failure of
bipartisan foreign and defense policy and would weaken America’s leadership
internationally as well as in Europe. Importantly, reaffirmed U.S. and European
support would send a strong message to China, Iran and other authoritarian
regimes that aggression against their neighbors cannot succeed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">A Ukrainian success in 2024 would have far-reaching effects, not
only in Europe but globally. A defeated Russian military cannot pose a direct threat
to its neighbors for years to come. Aggressive and authoritarian regimes like
China, North Korea and Iran would be chastened, not encouraged. The stability
of the international system and the rule of law would be strengthened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Global food security and supply chain
disruptions would be eased. Most importantly, the prospects for direct conflict
with the Russian Federation would be greatly reduced with a Ukraine whole and
free.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">For these reasons, we urge Members of Congress of both parties to
recognize the critical importance of maintaining and increasing support for
Ukraine, on behalf of U.S. interests and those of the international system more
broadly. Any other choice would represent a failure of U.S. leadership, opening
the door to a much more dangerous world in the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Michal Baranowski,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Poland, Director,
German Marshall Fund of the United States<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Rob Bertholee,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> The Netherlands, former
Director-General Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">John Bruni,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Australia, Founder/CEO, Sage
International, Australia<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Paul Beaver,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom, former
Specialist Advisor to the House of Commons Defence Committee<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Robert Bell,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former NATO
Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment, and Defense Advisor, US
Mission to NATO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Hans Binnendijk,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former
Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Henrich Brauss,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Germany, former NATO
Assistant Secretary-General for Policy and Planning<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Jan Broeks,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> The Netherlands, former Director-General,
NATO Military Staff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Kerry Buck,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Canada, former Canadian
Ambassador to NATO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Vincenzo Camporini,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Italy, former Chief
of Defense Italian Armed Forces<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Ivo Daalder, </span></b><span lang="EN-US">United States, U.S.
Ambassador to NATO, 2009-2013<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Marta Dassù,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Italy, Senior Advisor for
European Affairs, Aspen Institute Italia <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Gordon B. Davis,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Jr. United States,
Major General, U.S. Army (ret), former NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Sławomir Dębski,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Poland, Director of the
Polish Institute of International Affairs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Camille Grand,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> (France), former NATO
Assistant Secretary-General for Defence Investment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Sir Christopher Harper,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom,
former Director-General, NATO International Military Staff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Ben Hodges,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former
Commander, United States Army Europe<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">James Holland,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom, Historian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">R.D. Hooker, Jr.,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia,
National Security Council<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> The Netherlands,
former NATO Secretary General<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Peter Hudson,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom, former
Commander, NATO Maritime Command<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Giedrimas Jeglinskas,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Lithuania, former
NATO Assistant Secretary General for Executive Management<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Karl-Heinz Kamp,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Germany, former President
of the Federal Academy for Security Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Sarah Kirchberger,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Germany, Director,
Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Thomas Kleine Brockhoff,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Germany,
Director, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Berlin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Imants Liegis,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Latvia, former Minister
of Defence and Ambassador<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Julian Lindley French,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom,
Chairman, The Alphen Group<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Stephen Neil MacFarlane, </span></b><span lang="EN-US">Canada, former
Lester B. Pearson Professor of International Relations, Oxford University<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Antonio Missiroli,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Italy, former NATO
Assistant Secretary-General for Emerging Security Challenges<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Zaneta Ozolina,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Latvia, Professor,
Chair, Latvian Foreign Affairs Council<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Giampaolo di Paola,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Italy, former
Chairman, NATO Military Committee and Minister of Defence of Italy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Jean-Paul Perruche,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> France, former Head
of the EU Military Staff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Eric Povel,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> The Netherlands, former NATO
Public Affairs Officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Sten Rynning,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Denmark, Professor of
Business and Social Sciences, University of Southern Denmark<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Diego Ruiz Palmer,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former
NATO Special Advisor for Net Assessment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Paul Schulte,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom, former
Director of Proliferation and Arms Control, UK Ministry of Defence<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Hanna Shelest,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Ukraine, Director of
Security Studies and Global Outreach, Foreign Policy Council, Ukrainian Prism<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Richard Shirreff,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom, former
NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Stanley R. Sloan,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former
Senior Specialist, International Security Policy, Congressional Research
Service<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Carsten Sondergaard,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Denmark, former
Ambassador to NATO and to Russia<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Stefano Stefanini,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Italy, former
Ambassador to NATO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Jim Townsend,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Patrick Turner,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom, former NATO
Assistant Secretary-General for Operations; Assistant Secretary-General for
Policy and Planning<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Sandy Vershbow,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United States, former
NATO Deputy Secretary General and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Peter Watkins,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> United Kingdom, former
Director General, Security Policy, Strategy & International, UK Ministry of
Defence<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Anna Wieslander,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Sweden, Chair of the
Board, Institute for Security and Development Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Rob de Wijk,</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> The Netherlands, Professor and Founder Hague Centre for Strategic
Studies<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">All signatories participate
in a personal capacity. <o:p></o:p></span></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-76215608877232919572023-11-27T11:39:00.001+01:002023-11-27T11:39:48.157+01:00Is This Ukraine’s Munich Moment?<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTUf-5_qlh3ZIt7JWb6Oa8W3a0-m2TD4avRq5hvWls2azLxBXSIYkQ20wFAY7OCRK6n-gi0TY93AJgQlnDnbhAfQGRNpShGI5tz0plQzK6UdAtKHnUcNRz9sriTH26_bjfEjz79enbByWKrWXFv0YIptewhaV51iJHYP9KtcFUF9mUY6gKxjaavM0D/s600/NC%20PIOT%20271123.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="449" data-original-width="600" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTUf-5_qlh3ZIt7JWb6Oa8W3a0-m2TD4avRq5hvWls2azLxBXSIYkQ20wFAY7OCRK6n-gi0TY93AJgQlnDnbhAfQGRNpShGI5tz0plQzK6UdAtKHnUcNRz9sriTH26_bjfEjz79enbByWKrWXFv0YIptewhaV51iJHYP9KtcFUF9mUY6gKxjaavM0D/s320/NC%20PIOT%20271123.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: center;"><i><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">“The settlement <span style="color: #202122;">of
the </span>Ukrainian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view,
only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace.
This morning I had another talk with the Russian President, Mr Putin, and here
is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you,
perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it
to you: " ... We regard the agreement signed last night and
the Western-brokered Russo-Ukrainian Peace Agreement<span style="color: #202122;"> as symbolic of the desire of our peoples never to go to
war with one another again”.</span></span></i><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: center;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">What Neville Chamberlain might say about a possible
Russo-Ukrainian ‘peace’ agreement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">November 28<sup>th</sup>. Is this Ukraine’s Munich
moment? It certainly looks that way. News that the Americans and
Germans (ironically) are pressuring the Ukrainians to negotiate with the
Russians looks to any historian of any worth like a prelude to a very European
‘peace’ deal in which the aggressor gets rewarded and the victim
compensated. The flurry of visits to Kyiv last week by US Secretary of
State Tony Blinken and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austen, not to mention the
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius were for a reason. Naturally, the
visits were given political top cover by announcements of increased support for
Ukraine’s hard pressed armed forces but that was not the real aim. Word
is that President Biden does not want the war hanging over him during the US
presidential election campaign or the NATO 75 summit in Washington in
July. The mercantilist Germans simply feel very uncomfortable being at
loggerheads with the Russians, which explains why so many of the European
companies who have set up in Turkey and other places to get around EU sanctions
on Russia are German. For once, at least the appeasers are
not British. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">In 1938, as part of the settlement of the
“Czechoslovak problem” Chamberlain negotiated away 20% of the then
Czechoslovakia. Any such deal would doubtless require Ukraine to hand over 20%
of its territory to the Russians who would get to keep much of the Donbas and
Crimea it has taken illegally by force, as well as Mariupol, a major Ukrainian
grain port on the Black Sea. I do not want to say I told you so, but I
told you so. Back in August I wrote, “…it will also become apparent that the
Allies have already given 90% of what they are going to give Ukraine, whether
it is delivered as promised or not.” I also wrote that in May that the 28
Western-trained and equipped Ukrainian brigades lacked the military weight to
break through the Russian defensive lines in the south and east of
Ukraine. This was partly because the Russian General Staff had learned
some painful lessons, but also because the West took so long to deliver the
relatively limited supplies of arms it had promised. Artillery is the
defining feature of this very Russian war and it now transpires that the EU
will fail to deliver the promised 1 million artillery shells by next March
mainly due to an inability to upscale rapidly European arms production.
Meanwhile, Russia has received over 1 million artillery shells since early
August from North Korea, and clearly with Chinese backing. In other words,
Russia is winning the artillery war. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Why is this demarche happening now? Keeping
Ukraine alive IS a vital Western interest, restoring Ukraine’s 2014 borders,
let alone its 1991 borders, is not. There are several other factors, the
most salient of which is the lack of a coherent Western strategy since the
February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The West has got into a habit
of giving Ukraine just enough weapons to prevent Russia from conquering the
whole country, but never signed up to Ukraine’s war aim of recapturing all the
territory the Russians had taken. Frankly, the risk of a wider war with
the Russians over the Donbas and Crimea has self-deterred the West, which
several European countries see as Ukraine having only borrowed from Russia,
whilst for many Americans Ukraine is a large country faraway about which they
know little. Hard but true. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">How would the West justify such a retreat (and it
would be)? First, should there be negotiations (there are already extensive
contacts with the Russians) the Americans and the Germans would play up the
‘victory’ of a rump Ukraine. Second, Berlin and Washington, and no doubt
Brussels and Paris (not to mention in time London) would say that by simply
surviving as an independent country the sacrifice of so many brave Ukrainians
was worth it. Third, they would hint how much cheaper it would be for the
West, with Europeans to the fore, to rebuild Ukraine if they do not have to pay
for the war-torn Donbas and occupied Crimea. Fourth, they would have
secured an end to the killing by sacrificing some Ukrainian territory in
support of Ukrainian sovereignty. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">How would Moscow and Beijing see such a Russian
victory for that is how Putin would present it? They would doubtless
point again to the lack of Western resolve and the wide gap between Western
rhetoric about values at the beginning of the war and the West’s interests
during it. They would also point again to the West’s lack of collective
strategic patience evident in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria and may well
be shaping the response to Gaza’s 7/10 attack on Israel and Tel Aviv’s
response. They would cite further proof that the West, Western Europeans in
particular, are profoundly risk averse to the point of appeasement and all
Moscow and Beijing must do is to out-wait them. They would also highlight
the seemingly eternal lack of Western cohesion and any really meaningful
relationship between the ends the West claims to believe in, and the ways,
means and risks the West is willing to invest to realise them - action without
strategy. Above all, Moscow and Beijing would suggest that if the Americans and
Germans acquiesced in such a ‘peace’ it would be little different from that
imposed on Afghanistan, although its consequence for NATO and Europeans would
be far more immediate and more dangerous. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Putin would see his vision of a Novorossiya and the
rebuilding of a Russian Empire vindicated and doubtless believe he had
successfully completed phases one and two. Phase one was the seizing of Crimea.
Phase two, the successful if costly occupation of Donbas and Mariupol.
Phase 3? After he had rebuilt Russian forces, say 2030, he would move to seize
Odessa and cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea. He would also seize all of
Ukraine east of the River Dnieper, including the bread-basket. Phase 4 would
take a tad longer, the timing of which would depend on the extent to which the
Americans were preoccupied with the Indo-Pacific and the extent to which Putin
could lure the Germans back into strategic somnolence and energy
dependency. The target? Well, that is fairly obvious. The Baltic
States. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">In other words, the Americans and Germans had
better understand the longer-term geopolitical consequences of any fix they
impose on Ukraine for short-term political relief. If they fail to learn the
real lesson from the Russo-Ukraine War that Putin really is a militarist and an
adventurer and if Europeans again fail to properly rearm then all Europe would
have gained is a strategic pause. It is also hard to believe Kyiv could
possibly accept such a deal unless what is left of Ukraine is offered NATO membership
the moment any such agreement comes into force. That begs a further
question: would all NATO members sign up to Ukrainian membership? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The Munich Agreement is a warning. In March
1939, Hitler broke the agreement and occupied Prague and the rest of
Czechoslovakia made defenceless by Munich. The irony was that
Neville Chamberlain did understand the consequences and I should know. I wrote
my Oxford thesis on British rearmament in the 1930s. Britain
brought time to further repair its defences by selling Czech sovereignty.
Are ‘we’ about to do the same thing to Ukraine? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Julian Lindley-French
</span></b><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><o:p> </o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-89149589752343127172023-11-16T12:59:00.017+01:002023-11-16T19:59:29.402+01:00What Jinping Really Said to Joe<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGi_c38-GtRl1QAtgul30aDaIbGCx6fowjwvqPnshWtd3M8ld9_v4lphjWobTSvac24RuzGhNV1BvTgQd4npzLP6WxwrkOrNNVYBcof61JA4wRPm_h4GVjzb789vJuBGsAht8Y6vtsr3F6dj_B8u15Nk8_30iqSNvUbki0MY5mbH_LSEYje8HynItQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="267" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGi_c38-GtRl1QAtgul30aDaIbGCx6fowjwvqPnshWtd3M8ld9_v4lphjWobTSvac24RuzGhNV1BvTgQd4npzLP6WxwrkOrNNVYBcof61JA4wRPm_h4GVjzb789vJuBGsAht8Y6vtsr3F6dj_B8u15Nk8_30iqSNvUbki0MY5mbH_LSEYje8HynItQ" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">November 16<sup>th</sup>.
Understandably focused on the grief, death and mire of Israel, Gaza, and Ukraine
there has been little coverage in much of the media of yesterday’s ‘walk in the
woods’ by US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (first given
name Jinping). And yet, historians might look back on their stroll through the
carefully coiffured gardens of a Californian estate as one of the most important
moments in what President Xi rightly calls the “most important bilateral
relationship in the world”. So, how did the
conversation go?</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Joe:</i></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Things have gotten pretty testy between us of
late, Jinping.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We don’t want a war any
more than you do but sometimes you make it very hard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need each other if we are going to survive
politically, even you, Mr Dictator. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Jinping:</i></b> Agreed,
Joe, and thanks for the compliment. Why don’t you try dictatorship? Still, you also
fail to understand that my position as President-for-Life is not as easy as you
may think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are a host of factions
defying me within the Chinese Communist Party and all of which are more not
less nationalistic than I am.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you want
a war then let those morons replace me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
see, as ever you Americans cannot be bothered to learn anybody else’s history
but your own much-exaggerated greatness. The world looks very different from
where I sit given what those imperialistic bastards the British did to us a few
years ago back in the 1840s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Chinese
people want payback and at the very least some contrition from you arrogant, ever
weaker and not to mention very ugly Westerners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A bit of kow-towing would not go amiss either. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Joe:</i></b> Look, Jinping,
we are not the British.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, not
even the British are any longer the British, just an irrelevant and utterly chaotic
little island off Europe led by a bunch of inbred aristocratic buttheads. In other
words, get over it!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The real problem is
you Chinese and your enormous historical chip on your shoulders. Sure, we’ll show
you respect, but we will never kowtow before you because we know the price we would
pay. We also know you are facing your own self-inflicted economic time-bomb
caused by your imploding property bubble.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Your aggressive regional policies and restrictive corporate policies
have also seen many Western companies flee China just at the moment you need
them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, knock yourself out. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Jinping:</i></b> You
over-state our problems, Joe. Our economy is sound, tremendously resilient and
has great potential. My problem is not economic at all but political.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the wake of a little local difficulty in
1989…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Joe:</i></b> You mean the 1989
Tiananmen Square massacre…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Jinping:</i></b> …our little
local difficulty in 1989, Joe, we promised the Chinese people the Party would
improve their living standards year on year so long as they NEVER contested our
authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sadly, COVID and some other minor
difficulties mean that we can no longer offer that deal and the people are
getting a little uppity. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Joe:</i></b> So, what do
you plan to do about it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Jinping:</i></b> Well,
that’s what I here to tell you about so we can avoid any further unnecessary
friction. First, do a deal with you to dial down your anti-Chinese rhetoric so
that you Westerners calm down as we go back to what you call ‘globalisation’,
but what we call ‘China-isation” and return to making us rich and powerful by buying
what we make. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, do what we must do to steal from you
what you want and then simply sell it back to you more cheaply.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Third, use the money to continue investing in
the People’s Liberation Army to shore up the position of the Party domestically
and project our, erm, peaceful influence internationally. Fourth, mire your in
any case useless European allies in debt thus weakening the Western
Alliance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will even give them some
money so that can pretend to share the burdens of NATO. Fifth, and above all, reunite
the breakaway province of Taiwan with the Chinese fatherland which you must
understand is “unstoppable”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of what
I have said is in the least anti-American.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In fact, if you let us do what we need to do in our sphere of influence,
we will let you do what you need to do in your own. No names, no pack drill. What
possible problem could you have with that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You get rich, we get rich, and the rest simply don't matter. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Joe:</i></b> Well, hold on
there a moment, Jinping. We may have a few minor concerns. Is it really in the
American interest to make you so strong that in time you force us out of East Asia?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fool you support in Russia has already revealed
to us your global dominance strategy by trashing international law by invading
Ukraine with his two-bit military.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even
though most Americans don’t give a damn, just a few of us do!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We also know that your whole PLA gig is to
make our already complicated lives in DC even more complicated by stretching US
forces globally so that when you do decide to act against Taiwan you will
ensure we are busy in places like Ukraine and the Middle East. The kind of investments
you are making in the PLA, your so-called String of Pearls, not to mention your
support for Pyongyang are very clearly designed force us out of the
Indo-Pacific and subjugate our fellow democracies in the region.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Then there is Taiwan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Good luck with that. Your military men might
have noticed that the shortest distance between mainland China and Taiwan is
just about the same as the shortest distance between England and Normandy. When
we and the Brits did D-Day we had already practiced such operations several
times elsewhere, we were already the world’s leading maritime-amphibious powers,
and we enjoyed complete air superiority. What you really want is for us
Americans to turn a blind eye whilst you use whatever means necessary to
subjugate the Taiwanese, as you did in Hong Kong, and as you are doing against the
Uighur people. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">By the way, it’s your wife’s
birthday next Monday. My intelligence people tell me you have forgotten. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Jinping:</i></b> Joe, its
none of your bloody business. You accept that Taiwan is legally part of the People’s
Republic of China.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, you accept
our sovereignty over Taiwan and all you are doing is quibbling over how we do
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do you really want to go to war over
a small island faraway about which you know nothing? Your Allies?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They cannot even defeat my useful idiot in Moscow.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, I think not. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The bottom-line is this, Joe: I have
come all this way for a four hour meeting as a courtesy to tell you we ARE
going to bring Taiwan back into the Chinese family. We would prefer you
accepted that reality and we both got back to mutually enriching ourselves. If
you do not, then we have a REAL problem and much sooner than you think because
I must do this. You Americans really must wake up and smell your own appalling
coffee… you really are not the power you used to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We, on the other hand…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">In any case, there is always
President Trump for us to deal with when we have arranged his re-election…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Julian Lindley-French <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></b></p><br /><p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-33291202566709066612023-10-13T11:08:00.001+02:002023-10-13T11:08:39.984+02:00Israel, Hamas, and the Iran Trap<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKdAZy4KMzeZobmvpq-w0oA6skfkP-3oS8H4dtYJCBlbaeL3JkYvCT0kU6PI1o059Dunyxns0CUCgjv86VU5u8pMowdRrdujHAAThmqn316wZWPLo6D-_nWHOBB9VkwQcnO413M_hz86trynTsGrhkIr3ppmn1yFH9eqqCAyaGALIsV0IdwW2Qk5mQ/s640/skynews-hamas-israel-festival_6315832.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="640" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKdAZy4KMzeZobmvpq-w0oA6skfkP-3oS8H4dtYJCBlbaeL3JkYvCT0kU6PI1o059Dunyxns0CUCgjv86VU5u8pMowdRrdujHAAThmqn316wZWPLo6D-_nWHOBB9VkwQcnO413M_hz86trynTsGrhkIr3ppmn1yFH9eqqCAyaGALIsV0IdwW2Qk5mQ/s320/skynews-hamas-israel-festival_6315832.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><i>“There
is nothing so likely to succeed as what the enemy believes you cannot attempt”.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><i>Nicolo
Machiavelli, The Art of War<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Friday, October 13<sup>th</sup>.
Do what your enemy least wants! That is the first dictum of war that has
endured from Lao Tzu and Sun Tzu to Machiavelli and Clausewitz. My silence in
the wake of the ‘710’ Hamas terrorist atrocity carried out by their Iranian-trained
Nukhba commando-style force and which saw the murder of over 1000 Israeli was
not in any way due to some moral equivalency on my part.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hamas are as much a curse for the Palestinian
people of Gaza as they are for Israel. First, I was directing a major
conference on future war at which we discussed what had happened in Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, I always take time to consider the
geopolitical and strategic implications of such an atrocity, which are profound.
Israel, Hamas, and the regime in Tehran are all engaged in a war of existence,
even if it is often a proxy war of existence. That is why the US and Britain
have moved to support Israel to stop any temptation the Iranians may have to attempt
to widen this war. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Israel is also in the same place
the Americans were in the immediate aftermath of 911 – trapped between anger
and strategy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My fear is that over the next
24 hours Israel will launch something like Operation Protective Edge. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2014, Israel invaded Gaza, one of the most
densely packed urban environments on Earth, with a range of armoured vehicles including
<i>Merkava</i> main battle tanks, armoured personnel carriers and D9
bulldozers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea was to minimise casualties
amongst the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) but not only were over 500 Israelis
killed, civilian casualties were horrendous. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This time most of Israel’s armoured
vehicles will be protected against anti-armour weapons with the advanced Trophy
Active Protection System (APS) which can defend a vehicle autonomously from its
crew against shoulder-launched anti-armour systems. Together with lighter versions
of the system called indicatively “Iron Fist” Israeli commanders will be
confident that they can limit Israeli casualties but the likelihood they will “cut
off the head of the Hamas snake”, is small.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The likelihood they will destroy Nukhba and its commanders is also small,
whilst the casualties amongst ordinary Palestinians, which is already climbing,
will be appalling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">What then is in Israel’s interests
to do? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A massive Israeli attack which
kills potentially thousands of Palestinians will thus play directly into Tehran’s
hands and destroy any chance of a strategic working relationship with the Saudis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will also turn much of the world against
Israel. As with the Americans post 911 the Israeli need for vengeance will be overwhelming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When British cities were bombed by the
Luftwaffe in 1940 and 1941 few in Britain questioned the RAF striking back at
German cities and civilians, but neither response made for great warfighting strategy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, the reason for the 710 attacks on
Israel is different to previous attacks by both Hamas and Hezbollah.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel already has an effective working relationship
with Egypt which has also closed its border with Gaza in the wake of the attacks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel is also close to a regional-strategic rapprochement
with the Saudis with profound implications for Israelis and the wider Middle
East.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If such a relationship can be secured
it will further isolate Iran and by extension Hamas and Hezbollah. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">There is little question the
Iranians are behind this attack.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the
conference I spoke with a senior practitioners who believe several elements of
the attacks are becoming clear. First, the planning for the land, sea and air
attack was so sophisticated it was clearly carried out in Tehran and bears all
the hallmarks of the Quds Force.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second,
Israel’s normally effective Shin Bet and Mossad intelligence services
completely missed the preparations for the attack.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Third, Iran provides Hamas with $100 million
every year and Iranian engineers have been training Hamas in the construction
of missiles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fourth, Quds keeps an
increasingly tight control over proxies such as Hamas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is another reason, increased Israeli
pressure on Hezbollah in the north of Lebanon. For Iran it is vital that
Hezbollah is preserved as a force in being and the best way to achieve this is
to force the Israelis to move the bulk of their effort southwards. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Apologists for the Nukhba attack are
suggesting the highly trained commandos were not responsible for the attack on Israeli
civilians but by others who swept over the security fence when they realised
there was little Israeli military presence. This is nonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Footage from the <i>Supernova</i> music
festival clearly shows an aerial and ground assault by men wearing the same distinctive
military uniforms. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">However, despite Israel’s
understandable anger, the political damage done to Prime Minister Netanyahu,
and the Israeli tradition of an ‘iron fist’ response to all and any such
attacks it is not in Israel’s interest to again kill large numbers of Palestinians
or to deny them food, water, and medical treatment. That is precisely what Iran
and Hamas want them to do. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, Israel
should rebuild the defences on its southern border with Gaza and go after the
Hamas leadership over time and space in that time-honoured and highly effective
Israeli way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The best way to defy Iran and Hamas
is to build on Tel Aviv’s relationships with Riyadh and Cairo (and listen to Egyptian
intelligence), and by so doing preserve the sympathy of those who support Israel’s
right to exist and defend itself proportionately.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, Israel will succeed in this
struggle if it does what Hamas and Iran do not believe Tel Aviv will or can
attempt: a proportionate and merciful response that respects the constraints of
international humanitarian law. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Julian Lindley-French<o:p></o:p></b></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-31552702786682832962023-09-26T08:51:00.000+02:002023-09-26T08:51:00.111+02:00Diego Garcia and Britain’s Virtue Imperialism<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdTzA6h0dH20N277YezoXPSpFHsyriLGaYmsaLfW3nRoaewtbAYsreFdi1rIwdD_kfoTDuIw9zSUu_ZMKJ-EndhzoowsLmWbMn2R3Nmd09ZaNyHJsplZdpnMq9tOyb3g013u8rwRdsCHHotrEmBc_DYZbjjm2XtUOcW5R3Jki8dZ3I-VpXxLFu3aUL/s1295/Map%20Indian%20Ocean.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1007" data-original-width="1295" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdTzA6h0dH20N277YezoXPSpFHsyriLGaYmsaLfW3nRoaewtbAYsreFdi1rIwdD_kfoTDuIw9zSUu_ZMKJ-EndhzoowsLmWbMn2R3Nmd09ZaNyHJsplZdpnMq9tOyb3g013u8rwRdsCHHotrEmBc_DYZbjjm2XtUOcW5R3Jki8dZ3I-VpXxLFu3aUL/s320/Map%20Indian%20Ocean.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="color: #0b0c0c; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">"Systemic competition: the intensification of competition between states
and with non-state actors, manifested in: a growing contest over international
rules and norms; the formation of competing geopolitical and economic blocs of
influence and values that cut across our security, economy and the institutions
that underpin our way of life; the deliberate targeting of the vulnerabilities
within democratic systems by authoritarian states and malign actors; and the
testing of the boundary between war and peace, as states use a growing range of
instruments to undermine and coerce others”.</span></i></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">“Global Britain in a Competitive
Age”, Her Majesty’s Government 2021<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">September 26<sup>th</sup>, 2023. Britain’s
virtue imperialism is a declaratory end unsupported by either means nor ways in
the hope that the world will follow where London dares to tread precisely because
in so doing Britain is prepared to sacrifice its own vital interests. Virtue imperialism
is also strategically and geopolitically perverse because even if the British could
achieve its stated goal, such as resolving climate change, Britain’s contribution
would be next to zero. Or is that Net Zero.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Virtue imperialism is driven by historic guilt and is the last vestige
of British imperialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Guilt is also
the main driver of British foreign and security policy these days at the upper
levels of Britain’s political and bureaucratic establishment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Guilt in Whitehall about who the British are and who the British once were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Virtue imperialism is the only
way to explain London’s decision to negotiate with Chinese-aligned Mauritius to
hand over sovereignty of the strategically vital island Diego Garcia some 2152
kilometres distant. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has warned that any
such transfer of the Chagos Archipelago, which contains Diego Garcia, as a
“colossal mistake”. He is right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Diego
Garcia may be a tiny speck of an island in the Indian Ocean, but it also hosts
the most strategically important US air and logistics base in the Indian Ocean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The FCDO response has been to issue the usual
bromide that no decision is imminent and in any case were Diego Garcia to be
handed to the Mauritians the American base would not be threatened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Really? There can be little doubt the Chinese
are pushing Mauritius to claim Diego Garcia and that China would love to turn
Diego Garcia into another of its ever-extending ‘string of pearls’ island fortresses.
The depth of the Sino-Mauritius relationship is evident in the 47 official
Chinese development finance projects on the island. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The Integrated Review Refresh
2023 was sub-titled “Responding to a more contested and volatile world”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem is that much of Whitehall, with
the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to the fore, simply
does not want to respond, let alone contest anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the FCDO and their ‘right-on’ fellow
travellers if Britain should lead at all it should be through virtue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only is no-one else listening, by placing
values before interests Britain’s elite are both undermining core British
security interests, and threatening to undermine those of key allies, most
notably the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By agreeing
the very principle of a Mauritian claim over Diego Garcia they are also putting
at risk other British Overseas Territories. For example, there are strikingly
similar historical parallels between the claim by Mauritius for Diego Garcia
(2152 km shortest distance) and the Argentine claim on the Falkland Islands
(393 km shortest distance). Precedent matters in the sovereignty game!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">After a ten-year (China-backed?) campaign
by Mauritius London finally agreed last November to open negotiations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is hardly surprising given that the Sunak
Government is fast becoming the leitmotif for value imperialism with short-term
politics presented as long-term strategy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Britain’s acquiescence to talks is at the least bizarre given that the
claim by Mauritius is dubious at best. When in 1810 the British seized Diego
Garcia from the French there were no permanent settlements on Mauritius and
there had never been.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The country of
Mauritius simply did not exist. Rather, the Chagos Archipelago was simply a
part of the British colony of Mauritius for administrative convenience. If
there is any legitimate grievance it is on the part of the descendants of those
who were living on Diego Garcia at the time the joint UK/US air base was
established between 1968 and 1973 and who were forcibly expelled. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Unfortunately, the fact that
London is even talking to Mauritius about Diego Garcia fits a wider pattern of
contemporary British foreign policy – virtue imperialism. The Oxford Concise
Dictionary defines ‘imperialism’ as “acquiring colonies and dependencies, or
extending a country’s influence through trade, diplomacy, etc”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thankfully, the age of Britain seeking to acquire
territories is over, but not so China. The Integrated Review 2021 implied this
when it described “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”. Again, not only does
Whitehall reject ‘Global Britain’ it seems to be doing everything in its power
NOT to compete in what is a self-evidently geopolitically competitive age.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is as though those responsible do not
think Britain has a right to preserve its legitimate critical interests
necessary. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This tendency has been all too
evident in the Net Zero debate. Few would deny there is a climate change
challenge we all need to address, even if it is clouded in climate hysteria in Britain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, Whitehall has taken the view that Britain must be at the
forefront of efforts to cut carbon emissions even if the very process further impoverishes
Britons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only reason that such a
‘strategy’ (it is in fact the antithesis of strategy) is entertained by
Britain’s not-so-great and good is that it makes them feel better about
themselves. The only reason they believe the rest of the world will listen (as
opposed to laugh) is the arrogance of the virtue imperialist. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Britain’s retreat from realism as
a retreat from reality and it is time Britain got over its past. Most of us do
not feel any guilt about Britain’s past, far from it, and in any case that was
then, and this is now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We really do live
in a strategically competitive age, and it is high time Britain once again
competed rather than kow-towed because if the likes of Britain do not compete strategically freedom
will in time be lost. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thank the Republic
of Mauritius for its interest in Diego Garcia and bid them a good day. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">It is time to toughen up, London! <o:p></o:p>Diego Garcia must stay British!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Julian Lindley-French<o:p></o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-69222267165142846962023-09-12T15:01:00.028+02:002023-09-12T15:23:19.407+02:00War, Peace, and Power <p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC46wwMLqkqZLlMRIJECFI18OPzRX-ZJeMJPsKINr6SM87bCbfJh_I4XqCPPkxFL_KIhuQRy7SbyJmBwVnCj1SahyuaWdoNICKrD5W5YmcBofkQaoifak-BWERrlUYq-H9Z94-ZRZ2-G5fG1Ep57SLLWUpXb3Y5DkXJc234XpO8t860TodgzDBDWeA/s500/War%20and%20Peace%20Napoleon.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC46wwMLqkqZLlMRIJECFI18OPzRX-ZJeMJPsKINr6SM87bCbfJh_I4XqCPPkxFL_KIhuQRy7SbyJmBwVnCj1SahyuaWdoNICKrD5W5YmcBofkQaoifak-BWERrlUYq-H9Z94-ZRZ2-G5fG1Ep57SLLWUpXb3Y5DkXJc234XpO8t860TodgzDBDWeA/s320/War%20and%20Peace%20Napoleon.jpg" width="320" /></a></p><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #181818; line-height: 17.12px;"><b>“What is the cause of historical events? Power. What is power? Power is the sum total of wills transferred to one person. On what condition are the will of the masses transferred to one person? On condition that the person express the will of the whole people. That is, power is power. That is, power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand.”</b></span></i></p><div class="gmail-separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><p align="center" class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #181818; line-height: 17.12px;">Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace</span></i><i><span style="line-height: 17.12px;"></span></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><i style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">Abstract: War is a very, very, very, bad thing. One can, of course, prevent war by capitulating but given the nature of a regime like Putin’s that is close to being as bad as war itself. The alternative is to force the ‘other’ to avoid war. That can only happen if deterrence is credible which in turn needs coercive power in all its form and a demonstrable willingness to convince the threat that such power will be used irrespective of the risk.</span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">Deterrence is a ‘contract’ between friend and enemy that to work both sides must believe.</span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">Right now, Putin, Xi and others simply do not believe most Europeans mean what they say.</span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">However, strong NATO’s ‘family of plans’ at the end of the day there are two critical failings in Western deterrence: endemic short-termism allied to the hard truth that Putin wants to wipe Ukraine of the face of the European map far more than many Western leaders want to defend it by giving Kyiv NATO membership.</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;"><u style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">Hope over experience?</span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">How do democracies deal with autocratic regimes for which war is an end in itself? It is perhaps no surprise that it was a Russian, Leon Trotsky, who said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”. The war in Ukraine is the most dangerous single event to have taken place in Europe since World War Two and yet I am increasingly bemused by the wishful thinking of Western leaders.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Despite all of history’s eloquence, misplaced hope seems once again to be triumphing over bitter experience.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">A proper understanding of just how dangerous this war in Europe is would see a plan in place to end it on terms favourable to Ukraine and the West. There is no such plan. Just a vague hope the inadequately supported Ukrainian counter-offensive will prevail and then see…</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">Peace and war?</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">From my experience there are three kinds of politicians all of whom are by and large hard power illiterates.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">The first group is made up of idealists who go into politics to realise the ‘Europe’ or whatever Utopian dream they have.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Members of this group love the sound of their own voices which generate far more heat than light.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">They fail. The second group is political psychotics who are in politics for themselves but brilliant at pretending they are not. This group avoids any issue from which they cannot personally profit and tend to have far more ambition than either talent or principle. The third group is full of managers who lack both political vision and strategic ambition.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">These are the ‘short termers’ who see politics as little more than an extension of this week’s bureaucratic struggle and country’s as little more than health services with a state attached.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">All the above are abetted but rarely aided by high bureaucrats who prefer power without accountability and disparage the Great Unwashed because they are far more highly qualified than the average citizen even if they are far less qualified than me. Versed in cutting the shoddy day to day deals that is the stuff of contemporary European politics.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">It is these people we charge with crafting consistent strategy and conducting statecraft across soft and hard power in pursuit of grand strategic ends they simply do not understand.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Their very nature makes it impossible to see the viewpoint of the ‘other’ or ask the most important questions. What matters to them is to appear to us that they know what they are doing.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">In peacetime such a charade is not so important, at times of war and peace it is. </span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><u style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #222222;">Tipping points and bullet points</span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">The problem is that the geopolitical implications of the Russo-Ukraine War are enormous, but most Western leaders, particularly in Europe, are geopolitical pygmies simply unable to understand the dangerous situation into which they have led the democracies. All the above is evident at this tipping point in the European epoch-defining Russo-Ukraine War, although one would be hard pressed to realise that from the contemporary political discourse in Western Europe. First, Western European leaders only see power in terms of self and the short-term. The Russo-Ukraine War is part of a wider systemic struggle that is not unlike the interbellum between World War One and Two. Whilst the war in Ukraine could lead to World War Three the way we democrats conceive of both needs to stand alone and interact.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">One the one hand, a concerted response (yet to happen) to the war needs different approaches, solutions, and planning.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Equally, it is that very response will shape what happens after the Russo-Ukraine War and much of the geopolitics of the twenty-first century.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">We also need to separate Russia and Putin, at least to some extent and at least for now.</span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">This is because there is little worth discussing with Putin given that the very reason for his war on Ukraine is his warped worldview and his screwing up of Russia and its economy.</span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">There are a whole host of back-channel contacts between the West and the Putin regime to end the war and they all founder on the same rock: Whilst one day the West will need to find an accommodation with Russia if for no other reason than it is there, any such accommodation must be subject to its management.</span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">There can be no such accommodation with the current management because war is the very ethos of a militaristic Kremlin that NEEDS war and a narrative 'empire' to justify its failing domestic power.</span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; text-align: justify;">Having failed to grasp the opportunity for modernisation in the 1990s Putin and his cronies can only now double down on a fantastical past.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">If one concludes that the West is involved in two ‘wars’ at the same time even if its leaders are in denial about it that begs a series of further questions. First, what is the balance those of us backing Ukraine must strike between enabling Ukraine to achieve its legitimate war aims (which Ukrainians agree on but which the rest of us do not) AND defending ourselves against the developing pan-spectrum of information, digital, technology, and fighting war? Second, and even more importantly, what are the criteria for making such an assessment?</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Third, how can we in the West plan to prevent such wars when the very reason many in the West are supporting Ukraine is so that we can continue to deny we are at war?</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Ukrainians fighting the war that our leaders prefer not to think about.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="color: #222222;">The incapable in pursuit of the indefensible?</span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">The essential dilemma is thus: what actions would end the war equitably without the West fighting Russia and prevent future war without bankrupting the West.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">It is precisely for such challenges that statecraft exists. Statecraft is the judicious and considered application of power over time and space and in all forms.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">It is not science; it is art, and it is precisely what the West needs today.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Our leaders, as ever, have focussed on an entirely different question: what can we agree on?</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">In other words, the focus of statecraft has been on cohesion rather than effect even if the preservation of such cohesion comes at the expense of desired effect. The gap between the two is about as wide as the River Dnieper at its widest. Closing that gap will, as ever, rely first and foremost on what an increasingly irresolute and capricious US first decides what it is 'we' want. The rest of us? We have become the incapable in pursuit of the indefensible using our own self-willed weakness as an alibi for the very failure we claim to lament.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">The Russo-Ukraine War has revealed the dangerous split in the West between two groups.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Those in power across much of Western Europe in particular who cling to the false belief that the 'old' European security order must be rescued, and that this Russia can still be accommodated within it.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">They see such ‘strategy’ as the rational consequence of managing decline rather than delaying oblivion. The other group, of which I am a member, comprises those of us who believe the very purpose of Russia's aggression is to bring a wrecking ball to the entire institutional structure underpinning peace and order in Europe. They wish to return Europe to the anarchy that is a balance of power.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">It was the Europe of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Stalin, and Hitler.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">It is also the Europe of Putin. </span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">So, what does Putin want? Putin has a deranged vision of Mother Russia which in his mind is full of the romantic but dangerous nationalism Tolstoy wrote. It is a vision underpinned by a warped sense of glory built on a mythical past that never happened.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> The </span><span style="color: #222222;">contrast with many Western leaders is striking. Several of them seem not to like their countries, are ashamed of them, or simply believe them to be doomed and thus all that can be done is to manage their decline. The one thing both Putin and such Western political and bureaucratic elites can agree upon is the vital need to ignore the views of the frightful irrational people they rule over. Rationality is the great gate keeper to power in European democracies, but it is defined by the economists and lawyers who dominate European governments in particular. Economists are incapable of understanding why human beings do things, whilst lawyers simply believe law is power. It is not. Neither economists nor lawyers understand the power of geopolitics. One reason for the mess Britain is in is the naiveté of economists and their misplaced belief that globalisation would ensure peace.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">The only thing that it ensured was Chinese enrichment at the expense of the West, and London’s kowtowing to Beijing given China’s hold over many of Britain’s institutions.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="color: #222222;">War, Peace, Power…and Risk</span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">Consequently, there is a dangerous flaw at the heart of the entire Ukraine-enabling 'Western' strategy - Western leaders do not believe Ukraine can win. For that reason what passes for 'strategy' is not linked to any form of applied statecraft. Much of this is due to the utter risk aversion of a pacifistic decadent elite cowed by their failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. Putin is a product of Western pacifism and failure and only possible because these same leaders now believe they can take no action that involves risk.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">Most strategy and all action involve risk for without it there is not the slightest chance of realising aims for which 'strategy' or rather change is 'designed'. Statecraft is about the effective management of strategy, actions and risk over time and space in such a way that one’s interests are realised without undue cost.</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">For statecraft to succeed there must first be a clear understanding about the desired goal. What is now clear is that a new European security order will be needed, and that 'we' in the West will at some point need to impose it and manage it. Only then can we in the West pose THE war and peace question Moscow too must sooner or later confront: does Russia wish to be part of Europe, distinct from it, or a danger to it?</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="color: #222222;">If Putin does indeed want to play the role of strategic hooligan, he must be made to understand there can be no conceivable action or risk the Kremlin could take from which Russia or the Kremlin could possibly benefit.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">In essence, what these leaders are doing is purposely but dangerously de-linking the war in Ukraine from the wider war even if a Ukrainian defeat would not only make the wider war more likely but also hasten it. The reason they are doing this is because they still lack a firm understanding of the consequences of a Ukrainian defeat. This in turn reveals a profoundly dangerous managerial approach to geopolitics bereft of the very thing that defines it – hard military </span>power!</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #222222;">It is true that Western leaders are not interested in war, but war is already taking an ever-closer interest in them, their people, and their countries.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b style="text-align: left;">Julian Lindley-French</b></p></div><p><br /></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-5069689283722458792023-08-23T10:42:00.008+02:002023-08-24T09:31:00.260+02:00Ukraine Peace by Peace<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-bstg14OUTxIns06WLZiqLdogniFXh8VEnbGVC3Olbe3oRlQLd4SuLGWNzEqIY8QUGqRBfX268MzOnDHdqT_ZcGZVJnqD8zjwZKgBg8KqFihTLvlmlosrcKer05WNHyMY5bPWYLXL3DT0Q9Xzw7ib-nx4gLJfyMYgqGwzYGRqWbl1jZTaMOdzk3PY/s474/ukr%20MAP.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="334" data-original-width="474" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-bstg14OUTxIns06WLZiqLdogniFXh8VEnbGVC3Olbe3oRlQLd4SuLGWNzEqIY8QUGqRBfX268MzOnDHdqT_ZcGZVJnqD8zjwZKgBg8KqFihTLvlmlosrcKer05WNHyMY5bPWYLXL3DT0Q9Xzw7ib-nx4gLJfyMYgqGwzYGRqWbl1jZTaMOdzk3PY/s320/ukr%20MAP.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: center;"> “Hypocrisy
is a tribute vice pays to virtue”.</p><p style="text-align: center;">Francois, Duc de la
Rochefoucauld</p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">August 23rd. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On this day in 1939 Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia signed the Non-<span style="text-align: justify;">Aggression Pact”
which not only paved the way for Hitler’s September 1st </span><span style="text-align: justify;">invasion of
Poland but also set the scene for the most climactic event of the twentieth
century – the June 22</span><sup style="text-align: justify;">nd</sup><span style="text-align: justify;">, 1941 Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="text-align: justify;">It was as cold and calculated an exercise in
cynicism and hypocrisy as any in Europe’s long and undistinguished history of hypocrisy.</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="text-align: justify;">The Pact gave time to both Berlin and Moscow
in return for Poland’s land. Is something similar about to happen in Ukraine?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">There is a phrase
that always raises my concerns: “The official policy is…”. It normally means
there is an unofficial policy which is pretty much the opposite of that stated
in public. That is precisely why last week there was a micro-frenzy when a
senior NATO official appeared to suggest that Ukraine might have to accept the
loss of land to Russia in return for membership of the Alliance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the record, he did not say that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The official in question is known to me and
he is the consummate professional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
person chairing the meeting at which he is alleged to have suggested is also
one of my closest friends.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The suggestion,
such as it was, took place as part of a two-hour panel discussion as one of
many scenarios that might transpire given the nature, scope, and levels of
support for Ukraine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What the reaction
did reveal is how many governments are indeed thinking along those lines. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">There are certain
realities that Ukraine and its Western partners must now confront.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I suggested in May, and despite the heroic
efforts of Ukrainian forces, the Ukrainian counter-offensive is stalling because
it never had the necessary military weight to break the Russian land bridge in
eastern and southern Ukraine, let alone re-take Crimea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the forthcoming meeting of NATO defence ministers
in October it will also become apparent that the Allies have already given 90%
of what they are going to give Ukraine, whether it is delivered as promised or
not. As the Rasputitsa or General Mud begins to impose itself the war will become
a stalemate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question will then
become what the Alliance and its fellow travellers can do for Ukraine come the
spring and the new campaign season.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
season, I might add, that will coincide with NATO’s 75<sup>th</sup> anniversary
celebrations in Washington. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">The stalemate
is about more than two exhausted armies stuck in the Ukrainian mud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Russo-Ukraine War is also geopolitical
Rasputitsa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>China is determined that Russia
will not lose and is supplying Moscow directly with helicopters and other vital
materiel, and indirectly using North Korea as a conduit for other materiel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today, a “Crimea Summit” is taking place in Kyiv
with President Zelensky talking about preparations for re-taking Crimea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the West, for all its verbal and
actual support of Ukraine, has not and is not doing enough to ensure Ukraine
has any chance of reclaiming its pre-2014 borders, let alone its pre-1991 borders.
The news that the Danish and Dutch will send ‘dozens’ of F-16s to Ukraine with
American approval is to be welcomed, but it will not be a war game-changer. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">Worse, there are
countries inside the Alliance, with Belgium and Italy to the fore, who are
suggesting that the war has proven Russia to be a paper tiger and that there is
little urgency to fulfil the goals set out in the 2022 NATO Strategic Concept. Any
strategy pause, for that is what this stalemate will amount to, will thus give
Russia the time and space it needs to learn the lessons of its own incompetence
and rebuild its armed forces, whatever the economic consequences. That is
precisely what former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meant when in May he suggested
the war could last for decades. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">There are several
peace initiatives/peace feelers underway, most notably that being proposed by
the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What strikes me about all these peace initiatives is how very European
they are. The history of European peace treaties are traditionally built on a
celebrated lack of principle by which the aggressor is partially rewarded for
its aggression in return for the aggressed being partially compensated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even the Congress of Vienna and the treatment
of defeated Nazi Germany by the Western Allies fitted that pattern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only ‘peace’ treaty that did not was the
1919 Treaty of Versailles and that simply created the conditions for World War
Two. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">Therefore, the
governments saying that, “The official policy is…” are looking at alternatives.
This is because Ukraine’s backers are not going to step up further which means
that when they say it is up to Ukraine to decide when the war ends, it isn’t. At some
point there will be a ceasefire, that will turn into some form of typically
European ‘peace’ by which Russia gets to hold on to some of the Ukrainian land
it has conquered in return for what is left of Ukraine being offered NATO membership.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">And, if Ukraine
does not get NATO membership? It will be conquered peace by peace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is as clear as mud!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><b>Julian
Lindley-French <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Addenda</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">1. My sources are impeccable and extremely well-placed. However, after I posted this piece a very senior Italian official said Italy was absolutely not retreating from its commitments to the goals set out in the NATO Strategic Concept 2022. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">2. The assassination of Yevgeny Prigozhin yesterday tells one everything one needs to know about the Russia and its dangerous elite. It also explains why Ukraine is fighting for its life and all and any democrat must support it. </span></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-3607144368110438082023-08-04T11:43:00.002+02:002023-08-04T11:43:25.494+02:00Emperor Xi<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLUlrnZsHBWWDabpKw6sLLg36GzMK-dUT9LOt0n8HwfPOnDcyGv73UpGClPyyAe5P8IGS0s2U95l2ZWhKOONwCOIlYcSEr9pU2FY8R63u1ZvlJkhbjIf7xh4JZSTH89gQcTZF8O38XOb73X406FfyptJV0LvMFcr_gZ26yPKdcD4ilS07TGW9hKypt/s320/Global%20Xi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="320" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLUlrnZsHBWWDabpKw6sLLg36GzMK-dUT9LOt0n8HwfPOnDcyGv73UpGClPyyAe5P8IGS0s2U95l2ZWhKOONwCOIlYcSEr9pU2FY8R63u1ZvlJkhbjIf7xh4JZSTH89gQcTZF8O38XOb73X406FfyptJV0LvMFcr_gZ26yPKdcD4ilS07TGW9hKypt/s1600/Global%20Xi.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <i>“Woe
and death to all who resist my will”.</i><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><i>Kaiser Wilhelm II<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">August 4<sup>th</sup>, 2023. On
this day in 1914 World War One broke out. It was caused by the insane imperial ambitions
of a deluded ultra-nationalist German emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II. In September
1939 World War Two was caused by the insane ultra-nationalist ambitions of Chancellor-for-Life
Adolf Hitler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, almost all
systemic wars have been caused by ultra-nationalists in power for life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Russo-Ukraine War was launched by the Russian
ultra-nationalist President-for-Life Vladimir Putin in thrall to the even more
extreme nationalists with whom he has surrounded himself. And now in Beijing
there is a new Chinese ‘Emperor’, President-for-Life Xi Jingping who is showing
all the signs of the same mix of absolute domestic power, insane ambition and
deluded ultra-nationalism. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The first signs of Xi’s growing
megalomania were the October 2022 humiliation of his predecessor Hu Jintao, by
having him forcibly ejected from the Great Hall of the People. Like all
ultra-nationalists Xi’s power base is the military, the burgeoning People’s Liberation
Army (PLA). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And, like all past emperors he is
moving first to quell any dissent within the Chinese Communist Party, whilst weakening
adversaries abroad. Over the past month Xi has ‘vanished’ China’s erstwhile Foreign
Minister Qin Gang and purged almost all the senior officers of the PLA Rocket Force.
Abroad, China is engaged daily in industrial levels of cyber attacks and espionage,
with the US now trying to eradicate malware Washington believes the Chinese
have inserted into critical national infrastructure upon which the American
armed forces depend. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">There was one other thing the
ultra-nationalists of the past have with the ultra-nationalists of the present –
a distracted free world in denial about the systemic threat they pose. Xi has
made the aims of his ambition clear: the forced reintegration of Taiwan into
the Chinese state, the forced subjugation of states around the South China Sea
into a Chinese sphere of influence, the expulsion of the United States from
East Asia, the use of Chinese money to push the West out of the Middle East and
beyond, and debt traps to create de facto Trojan Horses within both NATO and
the EU. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">European states are belatedly
awakening to the threat. This week the Italian Defence Minister warned about
the threat posed by Italy’s membership of Beijing’s Belt and Chains Initiative.
At the July 2022 NATO Madrid Summit, the Alliance finally confirmed that “the
PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric
and disinformation target allies and harm Alliance security”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In July 2023, a report by the UK’s House of
Commons Intelligence and Security Committee said that China had penetrated
almost all levels of British society and government whilst London’s response was
fragmented and disjointed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As ever, the
British cannot decide which is more important: Chinese money or the threat China
poses. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Whilst it is vital the West
continues to talk to China and avoids ‘war is inevitable’ syndrome it is also
now vital that China is made to realise the costs it would incur if Xi were
ever to go for broke (for that is what it would mean) and attempt to realise
his ultra-nationalist ambitions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">When will we the West ever learn?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Julian Lindley-French </b><o:p></o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-29465457962715426392023-07-14T09:36:00.010+02:002023-07-14T10:22:10.549+02:00The NATO Shadow Plan?<p style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">“Give us the tools and we will
finish the job” </span></i></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><i>Winston Churchill</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><u></u></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><u><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzblIjqJjtmOlcBZWpxu-uSxWcMcvP2q8QAq3DKzotffEA5J5ChOH345ff8uYaQ-63j1gp5yLbMPkY0C1BGB8D5-6IZps6OfsoT49EmJNmJGcxY_6CnF324rkLytXw5VsYyC0MvGnDiWqfDjy3AREGA8nFmtwVtQs8kC9oNpQHJBzeWNstb3KYfb3z/s1024/3e4c9540d92d900530_longbridgetunnel.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="1024" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzblIjqJjtmOlcBZWpxu-uSxWcMcvP2q8QAq3DKzotffEA5J5ChOH345ff8uYaQ-63j1gp5yLbMPkY0C1BGB8D5-6IZps6OfsoT49EmJNmJGcxY_6CnF324rkLytXw5VsYyC0MvGnDiWqfDjy3AREGA8nFmtwVtQs8kC9oNpQHJBzeWNstb3KYfb3z/s320/3e4c9540d92d900530_longbridgetunnel.jpg" width="320" /></a></u></div><u><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><u>Shadow
Boxing</u></div></u><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">July 13th. That was interesting. It was not the
‘historic’ summit politicians always suggest when they have avoided declaring
war on each other, but the NATO Vilnius Summit was more than a bus-stop on the
road from Madrid to Washington. Ukraine was not offered either membership of
the Alliance or a road map to it but rather a vague commitment that at some
point its future is in NATO. Déjà vu Bucharest all over again? The final
Turkish obstacle to Swedish membership was removed. A Defence Investment Pledge
2.0 was agreed under the terms of which 2% GDP on defence so many have so hard
to achieve since 2014 has now become a baseline, the minimum Allies should
spend on defence. This includes 20% on new equipment annually which will
include research and development. Plenty of scope for fiddling the figures
there. The much-vaunted Regional Defence Plans and robust in-place combat
forces were confirmed but where and when the new 300,000 agile, multi-domain
Allied Reaction Force of mainly Europeans will see the light of day remains
unclear. There was the usual cyber, space and China guff in the Summit
Communiqué leavened by the equally usual NATO political correctness.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">However, there was one agreement which most
commentators missed but which might for once stand the test of time and which
might also in time be the thing the Vilnius Summit is remembered for - Defence
Production Action Plan or DPAP. It will have to survive the NATO bureaucracy
first and ‘HQs’ almost genetically predisposed to strangle any innovative idea
at birth in the name of ‘unity’. Look what is happening to poor old DIANA. That
said, the idea that NATO will act as “convener, standard-setter,
requirement-setter and aggregator and defence enabler to promote defence
industrial capacity” is desperately needed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">It is about time! NATO Europe’s leaders have not so
much taken their eye off the ball these past thirty years, they handed it over
to potential enemies and invited them to kick us all in the teeth! The fielding
times and affordability of European military equipment is so appalling it
borders at times on the criminal and is a potential critical weakness in NATO’s
defence and deterrence posture. The lessons emerging from the Ukraine war are
also clear: modern war is a giant black hole into which people and materiel
vanish at an alarming rate far beyond that envisaged by the peacetime NATO
establishment. At the very least, NATO European forces will need far more r<span style="color: #121212;">obust logistics, far more forward deployed, with enhanced
and far more secure military supply chains particularly important. Far more
materiel is also needed, most notably ammunition, not least because of the rate
at which Ukraine has been using up the weapons stocks of NATO Allies.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">If Defence and Deterrence of the
Euro-Atlantic Area, the DDA, is to be anything more than a communiqué writer's
wet dream the Allies desperately need to rebuild and build infrastructure to
assist military mobility and remove all legal impediments to rapid cross border
movements in a pre-war emergency. Deployed NATO forces will also need much
improved force protection with the need to reduce the detectability and thus
digital footprint of force concentrations (‘bright butterflies’) particularly
pressing.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The war in Ukraine has also
revealed the vulnerability of armour unsupported by infantry and helicopters in
the battlespace, as well as the need for NATO forces to be able to dominate
both fires and counter-fires, not least by using large numbers of expendable
drones, strike drones and loitering systems allied to extremely expensive
precision-guided munitions, such as ATACMS and Storm Shadow. Enhanced
land-based, protected battlefield mobility is also needed together with
increased force command resilience given how often the Ukrainians have been
able to detect and ‘kill’ Russian forward (and less forward) deployed
headquarters.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">None of the above can be
realised without a new partnership with defence industries on both sides of the
Atlantic and further partnerships with those in other democracies, which will
include commitments to contracts that are both longer and more stable than
hitherto. This is because both military platforms and the systems that
sit on them are about to undergo a technological revolution in which speed of
data will drive speed of information which in turn will dictate both the speed
of command and its relevance on the battlefield.Europe is, as per usual,
lagging way behind its competitors and not only going to have to spend more but
the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) far beyond the traditional
metal-bashers and their hangers on. ‘Defence’ will have to reach out to new
tech communities and learn to operate at their rate of tempo.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><u><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The Shadow Scheme</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Thankfully, there is a lesson
from history from which NATO might draw. In 1935, the “Shadow Scheme” was
established by the British Government the aim of was to subsidise manufacturers
to construct a system of new ‘shadow factories’, reinforced by additional
capabilities at existing aircraft and motor industrial plants that could
immediately increase war production on the outbreak of war. It was this scheme
that led rapidly to radar, the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters and eventually
the Lancaster bomber. It also enabled Britain to surpass Nazi Germany in
aircraft production in June 1940, a lead Britain never lost not least because
of the entry into the skilled workforce of millions of British women. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">Improved efficiency was also as
important to Britain in 1940 as it is to the Alliance today. For example, the
Ministry of Aircraft Production had an immediate galvanising effect. Upon
taking over Royal Air Force storage facilities it was discovered that whilst
the RAF had accepted over 1,000 aircraft from industry, only 650 had been
despatched to squadrons. Managerial and organisational changes were introduced
that also had an immediate effect. Between January and March 1940 2,729
aircraft were produced by British industry, of which 638 were front-line
fighters. However, between April to May 1940 aircraft production increased to
4,578 aircraft, some 1,875 of which were fighters. By June 1940 British fighter
production reached 250% of German fighter production, whilst the overhauled
repair service returned nearly 1,900 aircraft to action many times more than
their German counterparts. As a consequence, German fighters available for
operations over Britain during the Battle of Britain fell from 725 to 275,
whilst fighters available for RAF operations increased from 644 on July 1<sup>st</sup>,
1940 to 732 on October 1<sup>st</sup>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #121212;">Key to the success of the Plan
was the Directorate of Aeronautical Production which began work in March 1936
and had two goals: rapid expansion of defence industrial production; and the
dispersal of the defence industrial base to protect against air attack. By
October 1937, there were five Shadow Factories already in production, whilst in
July 1938 one Shadow Factory completed its first complete bomber. The Plan was
also extended to industry in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The most famous of the Shadow
Factories was at Castle Bromwich near Birmingham, which today is the home of
Jaguar Cars. The plant opened in June 1940 and after some initial problems went
on to build 12,000 Spitfires of 22 variants! The Shadow Plan also
standardised development and production. For example, the Rolls Royce Merlin
engine became the powerplant for most (but not all) wartime aircraft. The Plan
also looked to the future by helping to fund the development of the jet engine
and the world’s second operational jet fighter, the Gloster Meteor, which entered
service with the RAF three months after the German Me 262.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">By 1944 there were 175 dispersed
Shadow Factories in operation, many of which were linked to industries not
traditionally associated with defence but with relevant supply chain expertise.
The most famous aircraft to come from the Plan apart from the Spitfire and
Lancaster was the ‘wooden wonder’, the de Havilland Mosquito, a twin-engined
fighter bomber that could outstrip most single-engined fighters. The RAF was
not the only service to benefit. The new King George V class battleships were
built from 1936 on by many workers and technicians recruited under the Shadow
Plan, whilst the British Army got new tanks some of which, contrary to popular
myth, were not at all bad.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The NATO Shadow Plan</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Much of the European Defence,
Technological and Industrial Base has been left to rot since the end of the
Cold War. Production facilities are few, many are obsolete and orders even
fewer and only seem to come when there is a political rather than a strategic
imperative. Major systems only survive from cradle to grave because industry
has learnt the vital need to tie government into contracts with punitive
consequences when broken, whilst much of the ‘kit’ ordered has more to do with
industrial policy rather than defence policy.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Consequently, the unit cost of
equipment Allied forces desperately need is inflated, much of it obsolete
before it is even fielded and/or because innovation and technological
advancement have been ‘de-prioritised’. This has led to procurement disasters,
Britain’s Ajax armoured infantry fighting vehicle, a platform that has had so
many systems put on it looks more like a Christmas tree than an armoured
vehicle. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The Ukraine War has demonstrated
the folly of emaciating Europe’s defence industrial base.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Defence
Production Action Plan is not yet a Shadow Plan and is not to be yet another of
those ‘wizard wheezes’ announced with much NATO fanfare only to be lost in the
vacuum of political irresolution it will need to be pushed through. It will
also need to forge new partnerships across the entirety of a radically
reconceived European security and defence supply chain that includes the
Alliance, EU, governments, prime contractors, defence sub-contractors,
systems-developers and providers who have thus far had little or nothing to do
with defence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">The Shadow Plan is the great unsung hero of the
British war effort between 1935 and 1945. Without the Plan Britain would have been
defeated in 1940.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Alliance may not
be AT war but is certainly engaged IN war and, like Britain in 1935, it most
certainly is engaged in a systemic struggle, even if many leaders are in denial
whatever the rhetoric. Such struggles are not won by fine words, lofty summits
and well-written communiqués crafted to meet the political need of the moment. <span style="color: #121212;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are won by the
sustained, systemic, and considered application of resources, technologies,
equipment and forces over time and space.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">One final thought: if NATO does
not learn and apply such lessons from the past the Chinese and Russians will. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Julian Lindley-French</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-38638824862830232272023-06-22T11:19:00.007+02:002023-06-22T12:57:25.873+02:00NATO Vilnius: Conniving France, Foolish Britain, Cold Turkey<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgBYAF1fqSCQKybl1rQkA96PiE2kTm_Pn98phiX0xEfEMhyZAa2aWPqh-rBv5cuLIGRKICHwJifuI1f903W_2KcPH76a06hQSESAF8W-pZ3JTjNUgniMGqyL5m1jAerhYvY5H81vimGPjM895MjnOILSKHaiHyfCV3qfrTqsLpn0m_lGssDIBLlq7FL" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="390" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgBYAF1fqSCQKybl1rQkA96PiE2kTm_Pn98phiX0xEfEMhyZAa2aWPqh-rBv5cuLIGRKICHwJifuI1f903W_2KcPH76a06hQSESAF8W-pZ3JTjNUgniMGqyL5m1jAerhYvY5H81vimGPjM895MjnOILSKHaiHyfCV3qfrTqsLpn0m_lGssDIBLlq7FL" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <o:p style="text-align: justify;"> </o:p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">“To succeed in the world, it is much more
necessary to possess the penetration to discern who is a fool, than to discover
who is a clever man”.</span><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Charles Maurice de Talleyrand</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">June 22<sup>nd</sup>. The focus of NATO’s
forthcoming Vilnius Summit will, rightly, be on Forward Defence and whether the
Alliance can agree dynamic support for Kyiv and, short of immediate membership
of the Alliance, Ukraine’s dynamic alignment with it. However, there will be at
least two other implicit struggles at Vilnius that go to the heart of NATO: the
future of the European pillar and Turkey’s place within the Alliance.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"> <u>Conniving France</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">With the collapse of the Macro-Gaullist wet dream
of an EU that is strategically autonomous of the US, Macron has now turned his
sights on NATO. His aim now is to turn the EU into the European pillar of
the Alliance so that France can instrumentalise US, UK and other military
assets to exaggerate French influence. The first victim of this latest demarche
is Ben Wallace, the current UK Secretary of State for Defence. He had
hoped to be the next NATO Secretary-General, but Macron has effectively
torpedoed his bid by insisting the appointee should come from an EU
member-state.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">If Macron succeeds in establishing the EU as the
European pillar of NATO, he will also ensure no Briton can ever again be
Secretary-General. Macron’s vision of an Atlanticist pillar made up of
America, Britain, Canada and Norway and a European pillar that incubates
‘l’autonomie strategique’ before one day it breaks of the NATO with France at
its head like something out of Predator. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">The problem for France is that dynamism within the
Alliance is far more likely to come from the Atlanticist end of NATO, rather
than the EU end, which is why Paris is also seeking to lock both the US and UK
into the vision. The US via implicit French support for the US in the
Indo-Pacific – AUKUS or no. The British by the vague promise of vague inclusion
in Macron’s vaguely intergovernmental European Political Community. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><u>Foolish Britain</u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">The British have only themselves to blame as once
again they have proved incompetent at the game of strategy that is the
Alliance. And, as ever, the British will complain a bit then roll over in
the vain hope that appeasing the French will endear them to Paris. It never
does. The hard reality is that ever more money London claims to be spending on
defence the ever smaller the British armed forces seem to become. If the British Government increases the British defence budget by any more, the British Army may well cease to exist!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p>This is because behind the mask of ‘defence’
expenditure there are a whole host of rent seekers sucking money out of British
fighting power. Most notably, the National Cyber Security Centre. Like most
things British these days the Potemkin image is far less than the sum of its
parts. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"> <u>Cold Turkey</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">At Vilnius it will become evident whether Turkey’s blocking of Swedish membership of the Alliance is simply Turkish bargaining or something far deeper and far more invidious: an attempt by Ankara to stymie the Alliance in the middle of the most dangerous European war since 1945.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">Ankara’s latest demand is that in return for
Turkey’s acquiescence to Sweden’s membership of the Alliance Stockholm must
prevent anti-Turkish demonstrations by its Kurdish minority. Quashing free
speech is simply not what real democracies do. For many years I have been
something of a ‘Turkije Versteher’. One only must only look at a map to
see the importance of Ankara to NATO and European security and defence.
Moreover, that same map reveals the imposed complexity of Turkey’s foreign,
security and defence policy given the tough geopolitical neighbourhood in which
it is situated. Unfortunately, since the post-September 2015
alignment/accommodation with Putin’s Russia, and the failed 2016 coup, Turkey
has become a progressively more difficult Ally with which to deal. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">There are several issues in contention between the
US and Turkey. The July 2019 delivery to Turkey of the advanced Russian S-400
air defence missile system led swiftly to Turkey’s ouster from the F35 advanced
fighter programme by Washington under the Countering American Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Worse, Turkey’s decision to acquire the
S-400, which was designed specifically to shoot down US F-16 fighters, also
came with a commitment to jointly develop the new S-500 system. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">Turkey’s frustration with its European partners is
of a different hue. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates
that in June 2023 there are some 3.7 million refugees in Turkey. Ankara is
Europe’s gatekeeper but feels it gets little by way of return, in spite of the
2015 deal struck between Erdogan and Merkel. The sense of alienation from
‘Europe’ Turks feel has been further compounded by the final realisation by
Ankara that Turkey would never be offered full membership of the EU. For thirty
years France and Germany pretended Turkey would be offered EU membership and the
Turks pretended to believe them. No more.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"> <u>Fractious Vilnius</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">It is against this changing grand
strategic/geopolitical backdrop that NATO’s Vilnius Summit will take place.
Given the location the focus should be on Ukraine. After all, both Lithuania
and Ukraine border Russia and Belarus. One would hope that such a crisis would
reinforce vital unity of strategic purpose and effort. To avoid a major
argument with the French over Jens Stoltenberg’s successor, Biden is seeking a
one-year extension, even though Stoltenberg himself has had enough. There was
hope of a female successor. However, the most likely candidate, Denmark’s Prime
Minister, Mette Frederiksen, has ruled herself out. The Dutch Prime
Minister Mark Rutte may be emerging as a compromise candidate. He would do a
good job. However, France will at some point be faced with the contradiction at the core of its cleverness: to succeed Paris needs the support of the Americans and the British even as it alienates them. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">As for Sweden, it must be made clear to Turkey that
continued blocking of Stockholm’s membership might be possible under the terms of the Treaty of Washington (all 31
NATO members need to agree before a new country is offered full membership) but
in practice Ankara will simply further isolate itself. Worse, if Turkey blocks
Swedish membership, it is also likely to block any path to eventual Ukrainian
membership. That would raise a further question. Just what value does Turkey
really bring to the Alliance? Turkey needs to decide which side it is on in the
emerging struggle between autocracies and democracies – it cannot be on both
sides. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"> <b>Julian Lindley-French</b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-45763175582144637952023-06-08T11:38:00.006+02:002023-06-09T08:35:02.977+02:00Dynamic Support, Dynamic Alignment<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs3ydqJ2ishyQPi4FlmWBJ0Lq3ukGeESeKvV5lg70csqnlEwLx0ARzx_DzeAncoLJ6lYJ9nmBN2Dh6mFjnpzuz7GNxzD8_eHaT8tFA5DqlyVvAGm9WTegEAmhG9eg_fIopUKOH3O8z94SDTjNANKgRHDMPVKLBVW9JRJEC0hsGzX0VJ7y_98Pfbw/s511/TAG%20Ukraine%20Strategy%20COVER%20PHOTO%203.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="511" data-original-width="511" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs3ydqJ2ishyQPi4FlmWBJ0Lq3ukGeESeKvV5lg70csqnlEwLx0ARzx_DzeAncoLJ6lYJ9nmBN2Dh6mFjnpzuz7GNxzD8_eHaT8tFA5DqlyVvAGm9WTegEAmhG9eg_fIopUKOH3O8z94SDTjNANKgRHDMPVKLBVW9JRJEC0hsGzX0VJ7y_98Pfbw/s320/TAG%20Ukraine%20Strategy%20COVER%20PHOTO%203.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i>“The stakes go beyond
Ukraine and its survival as an independent state. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dealt a
serious blow to the European security order that the transatlantic community
has sought to build – working with
Russia -- since the end of the Cold War.
Defeating Putin in Ukraine is essential if that security order is ever
to recover.”</i></div><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: center;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ambassador Alexander
Vershbow, June 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This past Tuesday, in my capacity
as Chairman of The Alphen Group (TAG), I had the honour to lead a delegation of
members to the European Parliament in Brussels to present the completed Phase 2
of the TAG Ukraine Strategy to parliamentarians. A Comprehensive Strategy for a
Secure Ukraine now includes five elaborated proposals and the link is
below.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222;">https://thealphengroup.com/2023/06/07/updated-comprehensive-strategy-for-a-secure-ukraine/ </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The proposals all call for
the dynamic support for and dynamic alignment of Ukraine with NATO and the EU.
They include:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>A Declaration for Ukraine; <o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>Mutual Commitments of
Defence, Security and Sovereignty; <o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>A Conference of Democracies
on the Future of European Peace and Security; <o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>G7 plus Partners Ukraine Joint
Plan of Action for the Russo-Ukraine War; <o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>And an Accelerated NATO
Ukraine Membership Action Plan. </b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Under Chair Ms Anna Fotyga of
the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dr Camille Grand (European
Council on Foreign Relations), Professor Zaneta Ozolina (University of Riga),
Professor Alexander Vershbow (Atlantic Council of the United States), and
Professor Rob de Wijk (Hague Centre for Security Strategy) outlined the
proposals. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I commend the Strategy to you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Julian Lindley-French,<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Chairman, <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
Alphen Group<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://thealphengroup.com/">https://thealphengroup.com/</a> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-42410200450834779482023-06-01T09:23:00.004+02:002023-06-01T11:24:34.633+02:00Ukraine: When to be Offensive?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwqQeNy3_i0s1eGU6UPTIxErpUHoJTZ2JWalvSxpwBsK08ntGDPriP-aItzYGzLFASpvk6LKw7Ue-6GTeIZ05NHgADWZgVcou5KnPFOoprl4qtcWt80QXR2arimuDLSjI7iQEky7ATsCyVKAcT0DF7K50D4co6--2VzXrwD-IHFVUrzN8OXOv7rQ/s680/UK%20DEf%20Intell%20Map%20010623.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="680" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwqQeNy3_i0s1eGU6UPTIxErpUHoJTZ2JWalvSxpwBsK08ntGDPriP-aItzYGzLFASpvk6LKw7Ue-6GTeIZ05NHgADWZgVcou5KnPFOoprl4qtcWt80QXR2arimuDLSjI7iQEky7ATsCyVKAcT0DF7K50D4co6--2VzXrwD-IHFVUrzN8OXOv7rQ/s320/UK%20DEf%20Intell%20Map%20010623.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><i> “Hard pounding this, gentlemen;
let’s see who will pound longest”.</i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>Wellington
at Waterloo, June 18<span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">th</span>, 1815</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><u>Spring is Sprung?</u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">June 1<sup>st</sup>.
You can almost smell the wishful thinking about Ukraine’s ever-coming “Spring
Offensive”. For Ukraine’s counter-offensive to make the real gains
many in the West want it must enjoy five conditions. First, unity of effort and
purpose. Never forget the power of the will in warfare. Second, sufficient
military capability in sufficient capacity, allied to deployed force
protection. Third, the absolute certainty that the NATO Allies and other
Partners have Ukraine’s back. Fourth, that before Ukraine gets NATO
membership (no specifics will be extended at Vilnius) Kyiv is at least offered
a Defence and Deterrence Partnership (DDP) with NATO. Fifth, the Allies
understand collectively that they are Ukraine’s strategic depth and that depth
depends on the Alliance also fully realising the New Force Model. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">There are
the usual think-tanks suspects going into speculative over-drive about the
indeterminate. The ill-informed in pursuit of the ill-defined. At least
they are contributing to Ukraine’s effective use of fake news to keep the
Russians guessing. However, there is also something deeper going on. NATO
members hoping that Ukraine will make a definitive breakthrough so that
paradoxically the pressure on them to offer Kyiv fast-track membership of the
Alliance is eased prior to NATO’s July Vilnius Summit. Let me state for the
record: I am firm in my belief Ukraine should be offered NATO membership at the
Vilnius Summit. I am equally clear in my analysis that this will not
happen, even if President Macron seems to be shifting his hitherto wobbly position on Russia. Let’s hope his speech to GLOBSEC yesterday translates into
a shift in France’s attitude towards Ukraine inside the Alliance. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Next week, I
will have the honour to lead a delegation to the European Parliament to launch
Phase Two of The Alphen Group’s (TAG) major study, “A Comprehensive Strategy for
a Secure Ukraine”. The TAG Strategy is unequivocal, “ Ukraine
[must]… be offered an immediate, accelerated and tailored Membership Action
Plan with the aim of fast-track NATO membership and <i>ad interim</i> invited
to participate in a deep bespoke Partnership enabling Ukraine to participate in
Alliance activities in a 31+1 format (or 32+1 upon Sweden’s accession to the
Alliance)”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What options
do the Ukrainians have?</span></u><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The war has
certainly reached <u>A</u> critical point and the Ukrainians face hard choices
in the coming weeks: fail and the conflict turns into a long war; succeed and
possibly force the Russians to negotiate seriously to bring a legitimate end to
the war on terms favouring Ukraine; or succeed and still face a long war
because Putin and his cronies are boxed in politically and has nowhere else to
go but war. Even if the Ukrainians somehow drove the Russians out of
Ukraine in one move they would still not have decisively defeated Russia.
Therefore, the importance of the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive is to
prove to the Russians once and for all they cannot win this war. As such, the
attack will be one move in many and reinforces Ukraine’s need for strategic
depth to sustain a war that is unlikely to end soon. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">.
Ukraine has fought hard, skilfully and cleverly and revealed the very-clunky
nature of the Russian military. Their efforts at battlefield-shaping with
attacks on the Russian Army’s rear-areas, lines of communication and logistics
chains are helping to keep Russian forces and their commanders’
off-balance. This is precisely why the Russians have resorted to lines of
defensive positions not dissimilar to the Hindenburg Line in 1917. There
are also vulnerabilities in the Russian command chain that the Ukrainians have
exploited to effect between field commanders, the General Staff in Moscow and
the Kremlin. Above all, there appears to be a significant lack of
‘jointness’ between the Russian Army, the Air Force and the Naval Infantry
which have been deployed, as well as between the Western, Central and Southern
Military Districts from which the bulk of Russian forces have been drawn.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">However, for
all the incompetent caricature of an invasion the Russians have mismanaged to
effect there are still competent officers and officials who are fast learning
the hard lessons of failure. The Russians are learning to identify
concentrations of Ukrainian forces far earlier than a year ago. They are
improving the accuracy of their still extensive artillery using the Strelets
battlefield computer system together with reconnaissance drones. The system
also enables Russian forces to avoid counter-fires more effectively than
hitherto. They are also targeting Ukrainian military facilities, command
centres, supply routes and ammunition and fuel depots, as well as logistical
hubs more effectively. Their use of infantry also seems to be changing.
They continue to use ill-trained formations to probe for weaknesses in
Ukrainian forward positions, whilst better-trained, more mobile and more agile
smaller formations are held back for defensive missions. Their use of
thermal camouflaging is also reducing the effectiveness of Ukrainian anti-tank
systems. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Therefore,
the most the Ukrainians can realistically achieve with the counter-offensive is
to significantly disrupt Russia’s land bridge to Crimea via the Donbas.
In spite of the twenty or so new brigades the Ukrainians have worked up in
advance of the counter-offensive the force does not have the necessary weight
to forge a decisive war-winning breakthrough on the battlefield. That begs a
further question: what would win this war? Ukrainians are not going to
march into Moscow and even if Russian forces were pushed back over Russia’s
borders would that end the war? Even a scant understanding of Russian
history suggests not. What is the game-changer?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What options
do Ukraine's Western partners have?</span></u><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">NATO is
Ukraine’s game-changer. Military success on the battlefield would be painfully
irrelevant if it happens in a political and strategic vacuum caused by
dissolute Western partners and a divided Alliance. At the Vilnius Summit NATO
leaders need to ask themselves some tough questions. How badly do they want
Ukraine to win? Do they all agree on what ‘winning’ would look like?
Will they collectively commit to the application of effective strategy
with Ukraine in support of Ukraine? Will it make a public statement of
such determined intent? Will they give Ukraine the weapons they need? Rather,
there is what might best be termed strategic ad hoccery whereby nations compete
with each to say how much they are giving to Ukraine whilst quietly disparaging
other Allies. The result is a small Ukrainian force (in relative terms) armed
with an increasingly diverse range of systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">At Vilnius,
NATO and its Partners need to agree and announce a real strategy that
effectively answers all of the above questions, not least so that the whole
world fully understands the Alliance sees itself as Ukraine’s strategic depth
and does whatever it takes for however long it takes. In other words,
what Ukraine needs now is an unequivocal statement from the Alliance timed to
coincide with the counter-offensive that NATO fully understands its vital role
in enabling Ukraine achieve its legitimate war aims so that said offensive does
not take place in a political and strategic vacuum. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Strategic
depth in his war is not simply about supporting Ukraine. NATO is and will
remain the back-stop of European security and defence which means putting the
Alliance’s deterrence and defence posture on the new footing that was agreed at
Madrid last year. Specifically, the NATO Allies must collectively meet
the challenge of SACEUR General Chris Cavoli’s “family of plans”. This means
not only replacing the weapons sent to Ukraine but building the New Force Model
agreed at the NATO Madrid Summit in 2022, particularly the force readiness
goals and all that implies for Europe’s broken defence and technological
industrial base. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">When to be
offensive?</span></u><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Napoleon
once said that one should never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake
and that one should always do what the enemy least wants you to do. The
decision when and where to advance should be left to Ukraine’s political and
military leadership with the simple aim of generating best results at least
cost. However, Kyiv is all too aware that the counter-offensive will be
aimed as much at the Allies and their lack of strategic clarity and shared
resolve as Russia’s wavering armed forces. Vilnius? If nothing else
Ukraine must have that clear statement of solidarity from the NATO Allies to
support Ukraine in its efforts to return to their 1991 borders whatever it
takes and for how long it takes. Nothing more, nothing less. The
when and how of Ukraine’s NATO membership? That will be the litmus test of
Alliance seriousness and Vilnius will have failed if the Ukrainians are not
offered at the very least a dynamic Deterrence and Defence Partnership.
Why does it matter? The Russo-Ukraine War is being
fought in Ukraine. It is also being fought in Europe over the future
nature of power in Europe and there must be no illusions about that. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">When to be
offensive? The most important one thing Ukraine’s partners can do to shape the
battlefield is to relieve Kyiv of the constant need to look over its political
shoulders. Then, the Ukrainian military commanders can simply decide when and
where to attack at any given time and in any given place based solely on the
military situation on the ground. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Ukraine can
no longer afford to fight a political zweifrontenskreig. As Winston
Churchill once famously said, “Give us the tools and we’ll finish the job”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 105%; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Julian
Lindley-French </span></b><span style="line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-52789418384496862762023-05-16T15:59:00.000+02:002023-05-16T15:59:01.801+02:00Dambusters 80<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1uk_Ezn6nLqMGKGmXW7r_aAEvtxP5meVPylKLy-KDyqpqNOf1cX_9RpXvPOdjqVoJZ5iXVzCG7jdEPyuo_OiaKb_OxjRitDTQJAFNghi1gDV42uHyev9030aV-M-Tl0PIGWdOxSzSCkWaE8eQjYzr8IDXOxW7b1MSK_woHIepNJ3_Csf6gbYYoA/s363/Dambusters%2080.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="363" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1uk_Ezn6nLqMGKGmXW7r_aAEvtxP5meVPylKLy-KDyqpqNOf1cX_9RpXvPOdjqVoJZ5iXVzCG7jdEPyuo_OiaKb_OxjRitDTQJAFNghi1gDV42uHyev9030aV-M-Tl0PIGWdOxSzSCkWaE8eQjYzr8IDXOxW7b1MSK_woHIepNJ3_Csf6gbYYoA/s320/Dambusters%2080.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><i><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“That night, employing
just a few bombers, the British came close to a success which would have been
greater than anything they had achieved hitherto with a commitment of thousands
of bombers.”</span></i></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Albert Speer</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">16 May.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All of we Brits of a certain
age remember the film.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Richard Todd<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>coolly leading his elite squadron of
Lancaster bombers into attack the Mohne, Eder and Sorpe dams.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>British stiff-upper lip and brilliant
“bouncing bomb” technology combining against the backdrop of a stirring and
evocative 1950s soundtrack to deal the Nazis a crippling blow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eighty years ago today the Dambusters of 617
Squadron undertook the actual “dams raid” and in spite of many politically
correct attempts to ‘revise’ history the attack remains one of the most
stunning precision air strikes in military history.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">The facts alone speak for themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Twenty-four year old Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC, DSO (Bar), DFC (Bar),
RAF, a veteran of over 170 missions, led the 19 Lancaster Mark IIIs in his
bomber G for George.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His ‘Lancs’ were
armed with Professor Barnes Wallace’s amazing Upkeep ‘mine’which was designed
to bounce across the lakes behind the German dams before rolling down the dam
face and then explode. A ‘mine’ inspired by pebbles skipping across a pond.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">Early in the morning of 17 May the Mohne and Eder dams were breached and
water catastrophically-flooding the Ruhr and Eder valleys.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some 1600 people were killed and many
factories were destroyed or damaged together with two hydro-electric
plants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of the 133 airmen who took part
in the raid 53 were killed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was
World War Two – total war.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">Strangely the raid has touched me personally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few years ago I had the honour to visit 617
“Dambusters” Squadron at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland in which I was invited
into the cockpit of a Tornado figther-bomber. Ironically, eighty years ago had
I been sitting at this seat at around 0030 hours the 9 aircraft of Formation
One would have roared over my house in Alphen no more than 25 metres (80 feet) above
my head with the whole village awakened by the low-flying cacophony of 36
Rolls-Royce Merlin engines.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">Formation Three was comprised of two Lancasters which formed a mobile
reserve one of which (S for Sugar) was shot up by German flak over Molenschot
some five kilometres from here and then crashed onto what was then a German air
defence base at Gilze-Rijen just up the road.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>My wife and I visited the graves of Canadian Pilot Officer Lewis Burpee
and his crew which are interred in the Bergen-op-Zoom British-Canadian
Commowealth War Grave.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">Although not onnected with the dams raid my wife and I also had the very
real pleasure of lunch with Group Captain Steve Reeves and his wife Michelle at
RAF Leeming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was following our
discovery of another crash site close to our house where an RCAF Halifax II
(JD363) of 429 Squadron RCAF had crashed at Bolk, just over the border in
Belgium.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Piloted by Flight Sergeant
Graham Howard, the Halifax crashed in October 1943 with the loss of all seven
members of its Canadian and British crew.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The site has been lovingly marked and preserved by local people and we
had the honour to present my wife’s photograph of the monument to Group Captain
Reeves at RAF Leeming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What moved me to
take this photograph back to Leeming was the fact that a year earlier I had had
the honour to address senior RAF personnel at Leeming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Movingly, I ate my meals in the same mess
(dining room) as the men of JD363 shortly before they left on their final
mission.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">So what was the impact of the dams raid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There have been many attempts to downplay the impact of the raid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly, the Germans moved quickly to
repair the damage and by the following September the lakes were once again
filling, although the dams never achieved full capacity until the following
year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, slave labour had to be
diverted from the building of the Atlantic Wall and this meant that by June
1944 and D-Day the defences were weaker than they would otherwise have
been.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, the British had proven
they could undertake precision strike missions and armed with new bombs designed
by Barnes Wallace ‘617’ went onto destroy critical bridges and tunnels before
sinking the German battleship “Tirpitz” in November 1944. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">Time of course moves on and I will soon have the honour of leading a
NATO-backed meeting at Wilton Park with friends from the Luftwaffe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is, course, as it should be, and I am
sure the men of 617 Squadron in May 1943 would have heartily approved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">Good show, chaps!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">“Apres nous le deluge”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="NL" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;">Julian Lindley-French
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-35611677924678563162023-05-02T11:00:00.001+02:002023-05-02T11:00:38.813+02:00The Eagle, the Dragon and the Blancmange<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhutoOxQtl2yONR1UeCHjzs5ghM6JE-rGzNngVE2ATxS9pe_C0CJnN5lk-Fy2lgKfuCSqi_kN7bJRBbTwfnxmhk41NixzV7dpCpWj_-sQsKskmikyQmRgqGacXPuzz-6viIp27zmSrYYs_fGaNuQxPqsEyEHD2MNf6aWvI7N1bVF2WQfx0kI2XUkQ/s474/EU%20military%20force.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="474" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhutoOxQtl2yONR1UeCHjzs5ghM6JE-rGzNngVE2ATxS9pe_C0CJnN5lk-Fy2lgKfuCSqi_kN7bJRBbTwfnxmhk41NixzV7dpCpWj_-sQsKskmikyQmRgqGacXPuzz-6viIp27zmSrYYs_fGaNuQxPqsEyEHD2MNf6aWvI7N1bVF2WQfx0kI2XUkQ/s320/EU%20military%20force.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: center;">Blancmange “an EU strategic
desert that looks like jelly formed into a shape”.</p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: center;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Merriam
Webster corrupted by Julian Lindley-French<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The EU
blancmange</span></u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">May 1st. If
ever there was a 1990s solution to a 2023 problem the European Union Rapid
Deployment Capacity is it. Due to be operational by 2025 it will be the same
old forces organised under yet another acronym – EURDC. Even with
the planned “special forces commando” it will be a small force with too many
bosses that can only ever be used if they all agree for collective security
missions about which they rarely do and which can already be done by existing
forces. At 5000 strong it will be too cumbersome for Sudan-type evacuations and
not large enough to play any meaningful role in Ukraine-type scenarios because
it cannot be expanded. Above all, the stated missions of the ‘capability’
“ranging from initial entry, to reinforcement or as a reserve force to secure
an exit” require above all significant strategic airlift. As the French
discovered in Mali only the British amongst the Europeans have any level of
strategic and heavy tactical airlift and that is limited. And, given
Britain is no longer a member of the EU the implication is that the British
will be expected to provide critical ‘enablers’ in support of the EURDC whilst
under Third Country rules be allowed little more than the right to shape
decisions made elsewhere. No deal, Chaps! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">When I wrote
my doctorate on this stuff many years ago I believed such a force could have
both utility and effect but that was against the backdrop of the immediate
post-Cold War and the meltdown in the Western Balkans. Since then the EU
has become a blancmange of acronyms which are never met with the requisite
forces and resources: ESDP, the ERRF, EU BGs, CSDP, Pesco, and now EURDC. I
won’t bore you by spelling them out as none of them actually worked and unless
there is some fundamental improvement in the ability of Europeans to fund and
field increased numbers of robust rapid reaction units then EURDC will not work
either. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Take
NATO’s New Force Model. The plan is for the enhanced NATO Response Force of
some 40,000 troops to be transformed into a future force of some 300,000 troops
maintained at high alert, with 44,000 kept at high readiness. For the first
time all rapid reaction forces under NATO command will be committed to a
deterrence and defence role and all such forces will be consolidated within one
command framework. A force of that size and with the necessary level of
fighting power would normally mean that with rotation there would always be a
force of some 100,000 kept at high readiness, which will be extremely expensive
for NATO European allies grappling with high inflation and post-COVID
economies. A NATO standard brigade is normally between 3200 and 5500 strong.
Given that both air and naval forces will also need to be included, a land
force of 200,000 would need at least 50 to 60 European rapid reaction brigades
together with all their supporting elements. At best, there are only 20 to 30
today. There are already concerns being expressed by some Allies. EURDC?</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The
insoluble dilemma</span></u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Don’t get me
wrong. I am all for Europeans finally getting their military act together but
it must be to address the threats posed by this world not what in strategic
terms is ancient history. Worse, the EURDC simply reaffirms the insoluble
dilemma at the heart of EU military ambitions – the only such force that would
be relevant given the likely nature of the adversaries and in the absence of
the Americans would need a huge boost in European military spending to be
sufficiently capable and a European Government to be credibly
‘commandable’. As for conducting evacuation missions like those undertaken
in Afghanistan or Sudan, Europe’s major powers already have the capability and
given those forces are under national command the necessary political agility. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Implicit in
the EURDC are two entirely contending visions which also go to the very core of
EU political dystopia. Macron wants to use the EU to instrumentalise the rest
of Europe to realise a declining France’s strategic ambitions by using the
Commission to place Paris at the centre of a spider’s web of European power.
Macron has no intention of transferring French defence sovereignty to Brussels
now or ever. The European 'theologians' in the European Commission really do
believe that one day their vision will be realised of a European Army replete
with a European Government. The EURDC is yet another product of
this political dystopia and the profound tension that exists between the
Commission and European states that helped drive Britain out of the EU. It is
also a significant reason why Europe today simply carries so little weight in
the world given that for forty years Europe’s internal inner struggle over
power and regulation and who controls Europe has pretty much ensured Europeans
do not. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The EURDC is
thus the latest example of EU defence pretence in which politics comes before
capability and the regulatory stranglehold of Brussels on member-states will
guarantee more lawyers than warriors. Rather, what the EU should be focusing on
is making Europe more competitive in those areas of tech that will shape and
are shaping the future security and battlespace. The Special Competitive
Studies Project is a non-partisan US-based group that looks at relative
strategic competitiveness. Whilst America and China are forging ahead in
internet platforms, fusion energy, quantum computing, synthetic biology, biopharmaceuticals,
commercial drones, next generation networks, semiconductors, advanced
manufacturing and, above all, Artificial Intelligence. The only sector where
the EU leads is in the amount of regulation it imposes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">EU defence
pretence, aka strategic autonomy, is also sadly affecting NATO. Take the race
underway to be the next Secretary-General. It is likely that the
incumbent Norway’s Jens Stoltenberg will be extended for another year. All well
and good. He has done a good job in the midst of a crisis. Those seeking
to replace him include UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, former Lithuanian
President and European Commissioner Dalia Grybauskaite and former Croatian
President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic. All three would make excellent ‘Sec-Gens’.
And yet, the word on the street is that the favourite is European Commission
President Ursula von der Leyen. Why? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The answer
is both complex and simple. First, the Biden administration, who should
be backing Wallace, have instead decided to back ‘VDL’. Having lost its
window into the EU with Brexit Washington increasingly sees NATO as an
Atlantic-sphere and an EU-sphere with the EU the future European pillar of the
Alliance. Secondly, Washington also divides NATO into the useful bit –
those Europeans who could do a little bit even if not very much, and those who
talk a lot but are pretty much incapable – the Franco-German-led EU. Third, the
Five Eyes intelligence community (plus Japan) is growing in importance to the
Americans given the rise of a bellicose China and the increasingly global
context of Washington’s security commitments. Fourth, with coalitions rather
than alliances ever more the stuff of American strategic influence the
Americans increasingly simply do not care. Washington would prefer to work with
trusted allies bilaterally than through action-stifling bureaucracies. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Coming clean
about China</span></u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The EU is
not alone in this continuing European penchant for strategic and defence
pretence. Last week UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly gave his annual
foreign policy speech at the glitzy Mansion House banquet. The speech was
clearly written by HM Treasury economists and the civil service declinists who
simply do not understand foreign, security and defence policy and see
everything through the mercantilist lens of trade. Still, Cleverly called for
China to “come clean” about what he called the largest peacetime military
build-up in history”, but that was only so he could also say it would be an
historic mistake to close the door on China. Translation? Rather than
re-shoring (ally-shoring in contemporary rhetoric) critical supply chains to
democratic allies and partners Britain it seems is willing to continue relying
on China. Appealing to Xi’s better nature, as Cleverly was not so cleverly
trying to do, smacked all too readily of Baldwin and Chamberlain in the 1930s. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">As for China
‘coming clean’, it is perfectly clear what China is seeking to achieve because
Xi has said so. First, China’s grand strategy is to achieve global military
dominance by creating a Realpolitik of power that favours China. Second,
because Western concepts of a rules-based order stand in the way of such
ambition it must thus be destroyed by demonstrating the West’s lack of resolve,
power and strategic patience. That is why China is eschewing all efforts to
re-establish arms control and is determined to increase the number of nuclear
warheads in its arsenal from the current 400 (up from 200 in 2021) to 1500 by
2035. Third, by 2027 China must have sufficient relative military power
projection to take back Taiwan by force if need be. That is why,
for example, between 2014 and 2018 the Chinese launched more warships than the
combined naval tonnage of both the entire French and German navies as part of a
ship-building programme that continues apace. Today, the official (and
extremely conservative) estimate of Chinese defence expenditure in 2023 is 300%
that of the UK, the world’s fifth or sixth largest defence spender. Add to that
the grand asymmetric warfare that China already uses against the West through
hybrid and cyber warfare, as well as systematic and systemic espionage, and
only an economist could possibly fail to see China’s strategic direction of
travel. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The Eagle,
the Dragon and the Blancmange</span></u><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Europeans
should look beyond Macron’s lame duck posturing on the European stage to
distract from his domestic trials and tribulations. Strategic autonomy is
precisely what Europeans should collectively (not commonly) be aspiring to
irrespective of institutional allegiance. However, such autonomy must be
US-friendly, NATO friendly, and utility-friendly. Above all, it must be
built on power not empty words. In other words, Macron is right in
principle, but wrong in fact and the EURDC is simply the wrong ‘capability’ (it
is not even a ‘force’) for the wrong mission at the wrong time – another
case of Europeans putting short-term politics over longer-term strategy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">First, the
EU-NATO Strategic Partnership needs to be expanded to create a pool of such
forces with appropriate dual-hatted command structures and enablers so that it
can operate under an EU or NATO flag and thus as the EURDC. NATO is already
pooling its various rapid reaction forces and can act as a ‘brokerage’ for such
forces. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Second, the
EU should reform both Pesco and its Third Country rules to allow the likes of
Britain and Turkey to have a role in both decision-making and decision-shaping.
The hard facts of any coalition are thus: the greater the contribution the
greater the say. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Third, with
Finland and Sweden’s (eventual) accession to the Alliance the memberships of
the two institutions are aligning and there is a case for the EU over time to
become a pillar of a bi-pillar NATO; the other being the Atlanticist powers
plus Turkey. NATO, in turn, could become the junior partner in EU-led
efforts to enhance European resilience. The appointment of ‘VDL’ as NATO
Sec-Gen would then make strategic sense not simply political expediency. The EU
does have a vital role to play in Europe’s future security and defence but only
by focusing on structural aspects such as improving Europe’s resilience across
the civilian space and constructing enhanced civilian and military mobility in
an emergency. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Fourth,
Europe’s major powers, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and increasingly Poland
must collectively drive forward Europe’s strategic rehabilitation. The real
cause of European strategic and defence pretence lies in Western European, not
a Central or Eastern European problem. Britain, France and Germany alone
represent over 65% of all defence investment in Europe and over 80% of defence
research and development. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Fifth, given
the Russo-Ukraine war Europeans need to collectively answer two fundamental
questions. What role should European military forces have in Europe’s future
security? What force levels and capabilities should Europeans aspire to given
the broader framework of geopolitics? In fact, a plan already exists: the
NATO Military Strategy. The Strategy is built on a rather old-fashioned
principle that threat-relevant capabilities should come before missions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Charles
Baudelaire wrote that the, “smartest ruse of the devil is to persuade you he
doesn’t exist”. It is a ruse made far easier when many Europeans need
little persuading given they care about little that takes place outside the EU
blancmange which at one and the same time is dependent on the eagle for its
defence and the dragon for much of its income, both of which are in the process
of facing off for a fight. At some point, Europeans will need to take
sides. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Julian
Lindley-French</span></b><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-45633057226059999632023-04-24T09:30:00.003+02:002023-04-24T09:30:43.617+02:00New JLF Book: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0z-z-MPwuqY2vInhy9_BgPu2BN1Vh5LZflst6IZ9CRwYQ4pRmjc0vJe9uEDPJ4GrLzJC8GHNcVEzXhhD0sMbuVwAUlIfzY1OEOBu-CX71o0OAEZOck7prGXjT-gf2z6jbcdUEzQh4IsjDQY9i22toDVKXRmA8kJcViHbgf2vy22lTef1to2ugng/s1024/JLF%20Flyer%20N.A.T.O.%203.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="770" height="846" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0z-z-MPwuqY2vInhy9_BgPu2BN1Vh5LZflst6IZ9CRwYQ4pRmjc0vJe9uEDPJ4GrLzJC8GHNcVEzXhhD0sMbuVwAUlIfzY1OEOBu-CX71o0OAEZOck7prGXjT-gf2z6jbcdUEzQh4IsjDQY9i22toDVKXRmA8kJcViHbgf2vy22lTef1to2ugng/w686-h846/JLF%20Flyer%20N.A.T.O.%203.jpg" width="686" /></a></div><br /> <p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-73911640697739230732023-04-17T10:10:00.001+02:002023-04-17T10:10:35.383+02:00Can a Mouse Roar?<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqYISNT6tLfch_cX23MigmjWMRXUY8cCs-Ft2HH2L1Qe6ZGXtBuqCp2TUqLN5fwv1wtpb8AjMU4jQy4Lcv5EYCezU3ZrC5hGT1ekylwttDU7P-WX7W5jAUU6RrhKDV4nlhm8GjA7VSD6dfi0cjkp0EzPdPXYwOhMPZQqMbxyoen1oiFMKU46h6Tw/s474/Mouse%20that%20roared.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="353" data-original-width="474" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqYISNT6tLfch_cX23MigmjWMRXUY8cCs-Ft2HH2L1Qe6ZGXtBuqCp2TUqLN5fwv1wtpb8AjMU4jQy4Lcv5EYCezU3ZrC5hGT1ekylwttDU7P-WX7W5jAUU6RrhKDV4nlhm8GjA7VSD6dfi0cjkp0EzPdPXYwOhMPZQqMbxyoen1oiFMKU46h6Tw/s320/Mouse%20that%20roared.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><i><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">“There has been a leap forward on
strategic autonomy compared to several years ago.”</span>European
Council President, Charles Michel, April 2023</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The Great
Leap Forward?</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">April 17<sup>th</sup>,
2023. There was something deliciously absurd hearing a former Belgian
Prime Minister talking about Europe’s strategic autonomy during an interview on
French television last week. It reminds me of that wonderful 1959 Peter
Sellers film, “The Mouse That Roared”. Sellers told the story of the
mythical Duchy of Grand Fenwick, an overlooked Central European state-let that
had been founded by a group of drunken thirteenth century English knights who
whilst on Crusade got lost. Sellers, as Chief Minister, declares war on the
United States because he concludes that everyone who had declared war on the
Americans had in the end made money. The European Union? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What was
interesting about Michel’s interview was not only that it echoed President “His
Master’s Voice” Macron’s call for European strategic autonomy but that said
autonomy so sought seemed to be from fellow democracy and long-time liberator
and defender of Europe the United States. Macron made his strategic
autonomy comment in China which in 2019 the EU had described as an “economic
competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership” and also a “systemic
rival promoting alternative models of governance”. Location, location,
location. Macron was kow-towing to his Chinese host by hinting that
Europeans would not get dragged into some future American war, i.e. Taiwan.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 106%; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 106%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The current
buzz-word in EU-Chinese relations is ‘de-risking’ which translated into
Mandarin means “nothing to do with us, Guv”. And yet, not only is the
inference that Europe is seeking more strategic autonomy from the Americans, it
implies a Europe that is seeking less strategic autonomy from that great
defender of freedom, China. Worse, it implies an equivalency in the European
elite mind between the Americans and Chinese. Remind me how many Chinese
soldiers are buried above Omaha Beach? No wonder Xi smiled inscrutably when
Macron asked China to join ‘Europe’ to persuade Russia to end its war on Ukraine.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Another
inference in both the M&M interventions was that Europe can still roar on
the world stage even if it is only a soft roar. Selling Volkswagens to the
Chinese would seem to trump the values espoused in now countless EU treaties
and declarations. This could also help to explain the mixture of
irritation and boredom on Xi’s face when Macron was banging on (as he does)
about European power. Less Peter Sellers more Jacques Tati. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The new ion
curtain</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What is most
galling about this nonsense is the fantasy of some European leaders that Europe
can have real influence without real power that the likes of Xi define.
Global Britain is also prone to this fantasy. It is particularly dangerous
because an Ion Curtain is descending across Europe. Behind its digital and
not-so-digital lines lies Beijing and Moscow with all those under the yoke of a
China-propped Russian sphere subject, in one form or another to a very high and
in some cases increasing measure of control from both Beijing and Moscow. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">It is all
part of Putin’s new drive to increase fear in certain western European NATO
members in which the threat of mass destruction and mass disruption combined is
reinforced by cyber-attacks and desinformatsiya. Putin is being
re-galvanised by increasing talk in the West about Ukraine possibly losing the
Russo-Ukraine War, or rather if the West allows Ukraine to lose the war? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">For the
record, the answer is clear. If the West allows Ukraine to lose Russia’s
war on Ukraine the West will lose the world. It would be the latest calamity in
Western foreign and security policy since 2003 in which a mix of poor American
leadership (!!!), European weakness and transatlantic divisions have ‘enabled’
the West to lose Iraq, to lose Libya, to lose Syria and to lose Afghanistan.
Another failure in Ukraine would simply confirm to the increasingly influential
non-aligned states that only China has both the paying power and the staying
power. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The Duchy of
Grand Brussels-wick</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What was
perhaps most galling was the public division evident in China between Macron
and ‘President’ of the European Commission, Grand Duchess Ursula von der
Leyen. What she attempted in China was little more than a foreign policy
coup as she endeavoured to put the European Commission in the driving seat of
‘European’ policy. Macron firmly slapped her down by reminding that it was the
European Council, i.e. EU member-states that decide European foreign policy,
not the European Commission. That begs two big questions? What policy? What
power? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">European
strategic autonomy as currently envisaged is an alibi for wilful European
strategic weakness. An instrument to enable incompetent European leaders
to again blame the Americans for their own strategic pretence and indolence and
thus enable them retreat for another few years into the fantasy of a super
Grand Brussels-wick in which soft power is real power and ever more acronyms
count for ever less military power. Until that is the day hard power
comes out of the blue to once again bash down Europe’s rotten door. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Until
Europeans finally wake up and realise that soft power is only every credible if
backed up by credible hard power then Europe will continue to destabilise the
world with its weakness, President-for-Life Xi will continue to yawn when
Europeans speak, Americans will continue to bear the burden of defending the
ungrateful and smaller countries no-so-far away about which we care to know
little will see their people murdered. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Autonomy and
responsibility</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Strategic
autonomy’ is a function of relative power not relative words. Take
Michel's country, Belgium. In spite of a 10% hike to the defence budget in 2021
Belgian defence expenditure is still some 5% below the NATO minimum threshold
of 2% GDP on defence by 2024 of which 20% per annum should be spent on new
equipment. <i>The Brussels Times</i> even suggests it will be 2035 before
Belgium spends 2% GDP on defence, let alone spends it well. Contrast that with
China. <i>The Financial Times</i> states that, “Although China’s military
spending is only a third of the US level, it has grown fivefold over the past
two decades, according to the US think-tank CSIS, and now exceeds that of the
13 next-largest military spenders in the Indo-Pacific combined”. Moreover,
Chinese defence expenditure now outstrips all other forms of Chinese public
investment. Where is the Great Leap Forward in that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">REAL
European strategic autonomy will require strategic judgement built on strategic
unity of purpose and effort. Judgement and unity are as important as
strategic capability and there was little of either apparent in the Macron and
von der Leyen visit to China or Michel’s nonsense on French television. In
other words, European strategic autonomy must mean European strategic
responsibility and what happened last week in Beijing was European strategic
irresponsibility. Empty words from empty leaders who count on their emptiness
to absolve them of responsibility. Yes, President Macron really does speak for
Europe albeit only the French bit of it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The Mouse
that Roared</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In <i>The
Mouse that Roared</i> Tully Buscombe, commander of Grand Fenwick’s 15 strong
invasion force of the United States, eventually meets the US Secretary of
State. Faced with the prospect of declaring war on a tiny European state-let
the Americans decide instead to sue for peace for fear of being accused by the
Soviets of bullying ‘peace-loving peoples”. The following conversation than
ensues which might also throw some light on Macron’s strategy in Beijing: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">President
Macron (sorry, Tully Buscombe): “We want a million dollars”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">President Xi
(sorry, US Secretary of State): “You mean a billion dollars”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Tully: “No,
sir, just a million”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">US Secretary
of State: “You can’t expect us to give you a measly million? That’s less than
we spent in Germany on one city alone”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Tully: “Yes,
but you see, sir, they lost”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">US Secretary
of State: “Oh, I can’t promise to get that though Congress. You will have to
take a billion. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Tully:
“Well, if you could try, sir”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">If Europeans invest more in their own defence they will become more autonomous from the Americans, the Chinese at al. However, European strategic autonomy will only be possible if the ambition is to share burdens and risks with Europe's American ally and for Europeans to act responsibly together on the world stage. To imply in any way that any such autonomy would be driven by a desire to decouple Europe from the US will not only doom such ambition to fail, it will also cripple NATO. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">There is an alternative. France can declare war on the US, just like Grand Fenwick!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Julian
Lindley-French</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><o:p> </o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-57449954297465340102023-03-31T12:44:00.003+02:002023-03-31T13:49:25.701+02:00NATO TECHNOLOGY TRENDS 2023-2043<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC3iCSbdmWb1-aHFHQ6jHEIQzOVgyOaDH9BRbLORbIiUPVAHLig3_tSi67o0kRBUa_YE700PSheB1MnDW2huyIHm2DY3G9O3NvKRJMvXXnsDShcfeLxlKD67KBW5vDOy-DpFDQjhm9omHxSUuzkyx6rpY1MXJw5-BD1v3LmPPZqekEb7VLRuY8tw/s400/FWDE%20Book%20Cover.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="260" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC3iCSbdmWb1-aHFHQ6jHEIQzOVgyOaDH9BRbLORbIiUPVAHLig3_tSi67o0kRBUa_YE700PSheB1MnDW2huyIHm2DY3G9O3NvKRJMvXXnsDShcfeLxlKD67KBW5vDOy-DpFDQjhm9omHxSUuzkyx6rpY1MXJw5-BD1v3LmPPZqekEb7VLRuY8tw/s320/FWDE%20Book%20Cover.jpg" width="208" /></a></p><br /><i style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">“Significant or revolutionary disruption of military capabilities is
either already ongoing or will have considerable effect over the next five to
ten years”.</span></i><p></p>
<p align="center" class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><i><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">NATO Technology Trends 2023-2043, March 2023</span></i></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">Train-spotting</span></u></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">March 31<sup>st</sup>. Let me admit something
terribly embarrassing at the outset of this missive: I was a train-spotter.
Yes, in my now distant youth I would stand at the end of still sooty station
platforms wearing the eponymous hooded quilted jacket known as the anorak,
taking down the numbers of locomotives as they passed. As a group we were also dismissed
as ‘The Anoraks’. At the time steam traction was steadily giving way to diesel
and electric traction and it was the technology that I found interesting. That
is perhaps why I am also directing a major conference that will take place in
October entitled <i>Future War, Strategy and
Technology</i> under the leadership of General Lord Richards (sponsorship
opportunities still available). </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">The conference is supported by NATO and its Chief
Scientist, Dr Bryan Wells. Bryan and his
team have just published the excellent <i>NATO
Technology Trends 2023-2043 </i></span><span class="gmail-MsoHyperlink" style="color: #0563c1; text-decoration-line: underline;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/3/pdf/stt23-vol1.pdf" style="color: #0563c1;">https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/3/pdf/stt23-vol1.pdf</a></span></span><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> & <a href="https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/3/pdf/stt23-vol2.pdf" style="color: #0563c1;">https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/3/pdf/stt23-vol2.pdf</a>
</span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">Future proofing NATO</span></u></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">The</span><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> core message of
the NATO report is both sobering and encouraging in equal measure. Between 2023 and 2043 NATO asserts that
advanced military technologies will become increasingly intelligent,
interconnected, decentralised and digital.
This was also the conclusion of my 2022 Oxford book <i>Future War and the Defence of Europe</i>, co-written by General John R.
Allen and Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges. Consequently, military capabilities
will become ever more autonomous of human command, networked, multi-domain, and
precise, not to mention fast (hyperwar). The technologies that appear in the
battlespace will also be increasingly those developed first and foremost by
the commercial sector and thus have a raft of dual-use applications. </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;">The
good news is that such emerging technology-enabled capabilities will greatly increase NATO’s ability to uphold a credible deterrence and defence
posture by turbo-charging the Alliance’s operational and organisational
effectiveness. The NATO of 2043 will also be a markedly different beast to the
NATO of 2023…it will need to be. Critically, so-called emerging and disruptive
technologies (EDT) will enable the NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept’s five
Warfare Development Imperatives (WDI): Cognitive Superiority; Integrated
Multi-Domain Defence; Cross-Domain Command; Layered Resilience; and
wide-ranging Influence and Power Projection. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">The not-so-good news is that NATO’s adversaries, most notably China are
also fully engaged in exploiting these technologies for future war. Moreover,
they also present significant challenges to the Alliance across the operational,
interoperability, ethical, legal, and moral spectrum. In
the twenty years to 2021, the combined EU countries increased defence
expenditure by 20%, the US by 66%, Russia by 292% and China by 592%. In other words, the Allies need to relearn
some of the ‘national endeavour’ lessons of industrial warfare – albeit contextualised
for the information age – and provide the investment required to place their
defence industries on a war footing. This
needs to drive a closer and more transparent relationship between defence and
industry to ensure that their forces can acquire and maintain the right
information technology, combat platforms, support systems and munition stockpiles
within the right timescale and at the right cost to deter and, if required,
defeat future threats. The nature of
21st century warfighting technology suggests that industry must be an integral
part of the through-life team that helps to maintain defence’s combat edge and readiness. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;"><u>Interoperability or inoperability? </u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;">The key to NATO’s
future credibility is the maintenance of military interoperability in extreme
high-end warfare. As China moves to exploit such technologies, so is the United
States. Therefore, industrial resilience will be a core plank of national
deterrence, and will require a continuous flow of expenditure on defence,
albeit on occasions at low rates of production.
Viable industrial independence amongst European nations, albeit
interoperable with US capability and industry, will incentivise cross-Alliance
burden-sharing with capability programme collaboration between nations as a way to
economise on effort. As a direct
consequence of the NATO Technology Trends report NATO and its agencies should
undertake an immediate audit of industrial capability and capacity and, thereafter,
undertake the role of broker in this field ideally in conjunction with the
European Defence Agency. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;">The specific aim of such a demarche would be
to better understand the cradle-to- grave concept, development and acquisition
of potentially revolutionary technologies that range across artificial
intelligence, quantum computing, machines-learning, big data, Nano-tech,
materials, hypersonic and glide missile systems, drone swarming and a host of
other technologies and capabilities that begs two very big questions indeed:
can the European Allies keep up and if so how? </p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">First, the Alliance needs to build on the 2019
Military Strategy and the Warfare Development Initiative by developing a force
model that can act as systems and platform integrator within Allied forces
structures and across the nations. In the TAG Shadow NATO Strategic Concept we
called on the NATO Canadian and European Allies to go beyond current planning
to preserve all-important military interoperability into the future.
Specifically, the creation of a NATO Allied Command Operations Mobile Heavy
Force (AMHF) that would consolidate all Allied Rapid Response Forces into a
single pool of forces supported by the requisite force, logistical and wider
support structures. </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Second, if speed of relevance is to be maintained the
Alliance needs to adopt a concept of agile manufacturing and procurement that
will enable the better exploitation of civilian technologies and thus far
faster fielding of military capability at the required capacity. </span>‘Spin-in’
from adjacent (non-defence) sectors and incentives for S&T collaboration
expand defence’s ability to innovate.
The pace at which ideas move from laboratory to frontline can be a
deterrent in their own right; this relies on investment, focus and exploitation
projects. <span lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Third, </span>maintenance of a strong Science & Technology (S&T)
base and supporting investment will be essential to sustain a warfighting edge.
Investment can be wasted if key R&D activity is not exploited quickly. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Fourth, defence requirements and procurement practice
have yet to embrace fully data and information-centric capability. This is not to eschew the importance of
platforms but they will need to be better configured around the information
[on-board or remote] operators need to fulfil their mission, and be able to
integrate into a wider force. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Fifth, given that most equipment in
service in 2035 is either in service now or is just coming into service, platform-based capability must accommodate
faster refresh rates for information- and other sub-systems. There are some historical precedents for this
and current experimentation in the field. For example, in 1906 <i>HMS Dreadnought</i> was a platform that
fielded innovations that had been discretely developed independently for
decades prior to being finally brought together in one ship.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Sixth, growing through-life technical
complexity can only be delivered and sustained effectively by innovative
commercial arrangements with ‘rainbow teams’ of large and small suppliers;
these long-term relationships require two-way commitment, transparency and
flexibility. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Seventh, higher procurement costs results in
fewer platforms being acquired with more integrated capability to compensate.
This leads to unbearable affordability and risk management issues, a vicious
cycle of cost escalation, delayed delivery and reduced mass leads to indigenous
industry abandoning key areas, and leaving fewer off the shelf options.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Eighth, while significant effort is applied
to delivering large-scale programmes, operational military capability is most
often the result of combining those programme outputs. However there is much less focus on thematic
or cross-cutting multi-platform and/or multi-domain system of systems (e.g. integrated
air defence) - which will be the key enabler of future military
capability. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Ninth, although best led by market forces,
there is strategic risk in the marked decline in the number of defence
industries. Reliance on a few ‘mega-primes’ will create dependencies which may
not be able to deliver capability and materiel scale up at times of
crisis. . </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Tenth, despite the Alliance having academic,
research and commercial industry partners who lead the world in the development
and fielding of some of the most exciting, breakthrough technologies for a
range of applications, defence
innovation too often focuses more on ‘discovering ideas’ than innovation
adoption. Generally high-tech, safety
intensive nature will require systems thinking to be applied from the outset
allied to the early engagement of regulators.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Eleventh, fewer forces/less combat mass than
in previous eras of confrontation creates an imperative for greater
interoperability and multi-domain integration.
Greater rigour in enforcing common standards (STANAGs) and measuring the
effectiveness of technical and procedural interoperability will be increasingly
important. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Twelfth, defence and defence industry are too
often in competition with other (non-defence) industrial sectors for the skills
required to create and sustain defence capability. An enterprise approach to the development and
nurturing of relevant skills between public and private sectors will be
required to ensure the right number and balance exists; this will undoubtedly
require closer collaboration and some employment innovation. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Thirteenth, focussing time and resources on
totemic platforms, without an equal focus on the ‘dull but essential’
supporting aspects (such as materiel and weapons stockpiles) undermines
performance and effect. At the very least, a revalidation of stockpile planning
is urgently required in the light of recent experience in Ukraine. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt; text-align: justify;">Fourteenth (and perhaps above all other considerations), the Alliance
must not become blinded by emerging and disruptive technologies. Human enhancement via twenty-first century
professional military education and training (PMET) at all levels of mission
command will be vital. Cognitive superiority will be as important as
technological superiority and most definitely not an afterthought, which it too
often is. PMET needs to do far more at all levels of intended effect, not least
assisting in conscious work on using technology (simulation et al) to make the
operation of platforms and systems easier from both a motor skills and
cognitive perspective. </p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span lang="EN-US">S**t happens!</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US"></span></u></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">S**t happens! All military technology ultimately comes
down to policy and planning. In May 1941 </span><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">a naval battle took place that remains a metaphor for the
profound tensions that exist between future war and the defence of Europe. A severely over-stretched force sent an
ageing ship to confront a state of the art enemy because there was little else
to send and because repeated opportunities to modernise had been sacrificed
over years to satisfy politics at the expense of strategy and defence. Europe
today. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">On the morning of May 24, 1941 in
the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland, a fifteen inch (38cm)
armour-piercing naval shell from the German fast battleship <i>KM Bismarck</i> crashed into the starboard
side of the British battlecruiser HMS<i>
Hood. </i> The shell penetrated deep into
the innards of <i>Hood</i>, pierced the
armoured deck and then exploded in one of the shell rooms for the ship’s 4 inch
guns which were also close to the shell rooms for two of the Hood’s main 15
inch batteries. As Bismarck’s shell exploded the stored and ‘ready’ British
shells joined together in an almighty chorus of cataclysmic death that sent a
cathedral spire of flame towering over the doomed ship. <i></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">The essential problems were
hubris, denial and relative under-investment.
At 47,000 tons <i>The Mighty Hood</i>
was a symbol of fading British naval might in the interbellum. By May 1941, she was over twenty-two years
old. Plans had been in place to
modernise her in 1937 but the money had been diverted to other projects,
including for the completion of the new battleship <i>HMS Prince of Wales</i> that accompanied her into battle. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraph" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">An Allied Mobile Heavy Force would protect against
such failure because it would act as </span><span lang="EN-US">an agile
and adaptive high-end, first responder and force integrator, an Allied Future
Force able to act from seabed to space and across the domains of air, sea,
land, cyber, space, information, and knowledge. If sufficiently robust and
responsive, and held at a sufficient level of readiness, such a force would be
able to meet any and all threats to the territory of the Euro-Atlantic area in
the first instance, with sufficient capacity to also support those frontline
nations facing transnational threats such as terrorism.</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u>Future War, Strategy and Technology</u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">War is the consequence of bad
policy that fuses strategy and technology. In <i>Future War and the Defence of Europe</i> we write, “…the danger
persists that Europeans are moving inexorably towards a lowest common
denominator European force, an analogue ‘European army’ in a digital age which
simply bolts together a lot of European legacy forces”. To avoid that is precisely the reason for the
Future War, Strategy and Technology Conference. </p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">As for my trainspotting there is a gaping hole in my
Ian Allen train-spotters book of locomotive numbers: BR Class 9F 2-10-0 92220
Evening Star. Any ideas?</span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">I commend <i>NATO Technology Trends 2023-2043</i> to you.
</span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-Normalheading" style="color: #003f73; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold; line-height: 13pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Julian Lindley-French</span></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-22351777270620794022023-03-17T10:19:00.001+01:002023-03-17T10:19:28.537+01:00Britain’s Down-Payment Defence Review<p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOLnCH59xQGf4NUYyistRVi8dWDweqUhUWORAvWNa3566JN9_aBh9AtedIJR-joKAvoWvdcHMalaFpO7rAEvzGuwv-Ozb25MFdryj_CYBNMNMilkHyCgKtyIlpn-CyuZ9h33ecXebV0XJlZHgLgZs2-aC2r8hZU2VNr7y5gA1pPe915C142sRmWA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="478" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOLnCH59xQGf4NUYyistRVi8dWDweqUhUWORAvWNa3566JN9_aBh9AtedIJR-joKAvoWvdcHMalaFpO7rAEvzGuwv-Ozb25MFdryj_CYBNMNMilkHyCgKtyIlpn-CyuZ9h33ecXebV0XJlZHgLgZs2-aC2r8hZU2VNr7y5gA1pPe915C142sRmWA" width="296" /></a></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><br />“We have, as the House is aware…a very great
problem [German and Japanese rearmament]…that will have to be met in the next
four to five years and, as we go on to meet those conditions, one of our
greatest problems will be to consider whether such measures as we have taken
hitherto will be sufficient”.</p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, House of
Commons, 24 February 1936<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Refresh or re-hash?</span></u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">March 17<sup>th</sup>, 2023. What should the
world’s fifth or sixth largest economy spend on defence and what kind of force
does it need given its location, the threat array it faces, and the alliances
and partnerships Britain needs to leverage? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">On launching the Integrated Review Refresh
(IR2023) Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described Russia as the greatest regional
threat to Britain’s security which was in turn intrinsically-linked to the
outcome of the war in Ukraine. He also said that China “poses an epoch-defining
challenge”. Given the scale of the challenges implicit in those statements
compared with the money London is prepared to further invest in defence the
IR2023 is yet another down-payment on defence, a down-payment on future war, a
down-payment on future alliances, and a down-payment on the warfighting lessons
from Ukraine for which most of the British armed forces lack the critical
capability and capacity. Above all, IR2023 is yet another down-payment on
Global Britain which if it is ever to be anything more than empty political
rhetoric will require London to invest far more in defence and far more
efficiently. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Given the centrality of China to Britain’s
Integrated Review Refresh it is interesting to compare and contrast “IR2023”
with President Xi Jinping’s “Great Wall of Steel” speech this week. China’s
President was uncompromising: “We must fully promote the modernisation of
national defence and the armed forces, and build the peoples’ armed forces into
a Great Wall of Steel that effectively safeguards national sovereignty,
security and development interests”, during which he announced a further 7.2%
increase in the Chinese defence budget to $224 billion (in fact China already
spends far more). This is a year-on-year increase of some $15 billion.
Britain, on the other hand, will increase its defence expenditure of $70.2
billion by $6 billion by 2025, with a “somewhere over the rainbow” promise to
spend 2.5% of a $3 trillion economy bit only if “fiscal and economic
circumstances allow”. They never do. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">One could argue that given China’s official
defence budget is only some 1.5% of Chinese GDP Britain’s hike is reasonable.
That is not the case. First, China’s nominal GDP is $14.14 billion,
whilst its “usable” GDP (Power Purchasing Parity) is $27.31 trillion, whereas
Britain’s ‘PPP’ is only $3.78 billion. The map above is interesting in
that it shows GDP per capita and confirms the extent to which China is a
developing nation and Russia is close to being a failed state. Economists
would suggest that as a consequence neither China nor Russia really poses an
existential threat to either Britain or its allies. Unfortunately, economists
by and large fail to understand why wars start. Still, China is a large country
far away about which we know little so what should it matter. China is
gearing up to confront the United States in the Indo-Pacific. Given the
centrality of Washington to London’s security and defence planning assumptions,
anything that impacts on the US impacts on Britain and NATO. China is
impacting big time on US defence policy. Just read the new National Defense
Strategy 2022. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Plus ça change?</span></u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Lord Richard Dannatt, the former head of the
British Army, likened the state of Britain’s armed forces of today to those of
the 1930s. In fact, and as someone who wrote his Oxford thesis on that
very subject, the situation could be even worse. On March 23rd 1932, Britain
scrapped the so-called Ten Year Rule by which Britain could assume that it would
not be involved in a major war for the next decade and reduce defence
expenditure accordingly. In February 1934, Britain began rearming and
over the next eight years both modernised the Royal Navy and created the
world’s most advanced air defence system which the Luftwaffe discovered to its
cost in 1940. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The British Army by and large lost out.
There were several reasons for this, perhaps the most telling of which was a
political determination in London never to the trenches of World War One in
which several of Britain’s leaders had fought between 1914 and 1918. And,
although the British had in 1918 invented ‘Blitzkrieg’, or the ‘All Arms
Battle’ as it was known, by 1935 the British Army had resorted to being what it
had been since 1815, an imperial policing force. Consequently, in
May and June 1940 Lord Gort’s British Expeditionary Force (BEF) only
represented 10% of the Anglo-Belgian and overwhelmingly French forces defending
North-West Europe. When the French fortress of Sedan fell on May 15, 1940
Gort’s force was simply too small and lacked the necessary joint fighting power
to act as an independent force and was forced to retreat to Dunkirk where it
lost the bulk of its equipment. Whatever the quality of the BEF it was simply
too small and too under-equipped to make a qualitative difference on the ground
in the face of the Wehrmacht’s onslaught. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Drill down into IR2023 and the facts are
revealing. Almost $4 billion of Britain’s $6 billion defence uplift will go
towards nuclear defence, particularly support for the clumsily-named SSN-AUKUS
(if the French get involved will it become SSN-FAUKUS?) which is planned to
replace the current Astute-class from mid-2030s even though these admittedly
excellent submarines are still in the process of being delivered. In
other words, Britain will not see the fruits of much of IR2023 until probably
the 2040s and that $4 billion is thus a down-payment on a future submarine
system with little impact today. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The cost of Ukraine</span></u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What is relevant today is the planned £2
billion to be spent on replenishing munition stocks depleted by transfers to
Ukraine, thus reinforcing the £560 million announced in 2022. The implication
being that IR2023 is also a down-payment on the lessons being learnt from the
Russia-Ukraine War. However, given the extent, scope and cost of those
lessons it is not much of a down-payment given the nature of those lessons
which explains why Ben Wallace, the Secretary-of State for Defence was seeking
a $13.25 billion hike, rather than the $6 billion on offer. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Learning the lessons of the war in Ukraine
will cost the British a lot of money if London is to transform the British Army
from counterinsurgency policing to full-on warfighting as both IR2023 and
Integrated Review 2021 suggest it will. Given the size of Britain’s population
any future war will always cast Britain as Sparta to Athens, Ukraine to Russia.
Britain’s defence-industrial capacity is woefully small compared with the
1930s. British forces will also need far more robust logistics far more forward
deployed, with enhanced and far more secure military supply chains particularly
important. That is perhaps why there are echoes in IR2023 of the 1936
Shadow Factory Plan which was critical, for example, to Britain out-producing
Germany in combat aircraft as early as June 1940. Britain will now
invest in “munitions infrastructure” to accelerate the acquisition of
ammunition which has been consumed at a far higher rate in Ukraine than
expected. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">British forces will need to make far better
use of technology to authorise action at the lowest level possible of mission
command. A flat-line command and control structure will also be needed to
reinforce redundancy in command and avoid decapitating strikes against the
command structure. Land warfare is also becoming like submarine warfare
with concealment, stealth and sudden strike now at the core of warfighting
doctrine with a shift also taking place towards so-called “Über-targeting” with
the best-placed unit given command authority to strike at their discretion to
ensure a larger enemy is kept permanently off-balance. All of the above will
require force transformation and should ideally see such investment beginning
now. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Improved force protection will also be vital
with a particular need to reduce the digital footprint of force concentrations
(‘bright butterflies’). The vulnerability of armour unsupported by
infantry and helicopters in the battlespace is been all-too-apparent and
Britain lacks sufficient numbers of all three, especially so given the need to
dominate both fires and counter-fires. The vulnerability of deployed
forces to expendable drones, strike drones and loitering systems armed with
precision-guided munitions is also abundantly clear. Enhanced land-based,
protected battlefield mobility will also be a core British requirement together
with increased force command resilience given how often the Ukrainians have
been able to detect and ‘kill’ Russian forward (and less forward) deployed
headquarters. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Agility or fragility?</span></u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Beyond Ukraine? Integrated Review 2021
focussed on future agility at the higher end of the conflict spectrum,
primarily to reinforce London’s weight in NATO and Britain’s importance to, and
thus influence with, the US. At the core of the military-strategic
thinking behind IR2021 was creation of a fully-interoperable, deep joint,
global reach if need be future force able to better share transatlantic
security and defence burdens. AUKUS will be central to such future
force. That was the essential message from this week’s meeting in San
Diego, home of the US Pacific Fleet, at which Sunak stood alongside Australian
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Joe Biden. The three leaders
announced that Australia will purchase between 3 and 5 US Virginia-class
submarines, as will begin work in Australia and Britain on building SSN-AUKUS
using US technology. It was also implied that Britain will increase its
future fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines from the 7 Astute-class boats
to 15 SSN-AUKUS. It is all very impressive on paper but if Britain is to
meet the procurement challenge implicit in AUKUS it will need to markedly
improve the performance of its Submarine Delivery Agency. The gap between
each of the seven Royal Navy Astute-class boats has been so long that each
submarine is literally in a class of its own!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #121212; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">IR2023 and NATO? The New Force
Model at the heart of NATO’s Military Strategy calls for the enhanced NATO
Response Force of some 40,000 troops to be transformed into a future force of
some 300,000 troops maintained at high alert, with 44,000 kept at high
readiness. At American behest the new force will be mainly European. A
force of that size and with the necessary level of fighting power would
normally mean that with rotation there would always be a force of some 100,000
kept at high readiness, which will be extremely expensive for NATO European
allies grappling with high inflation and post-COVID economies. A NATO standard
brigade is normally between 3200 and 5500 strong. Given that both air and naval
forces will also need to be included, a land force of, say, 200,000 would need
at least 50 to 60 European rapid reaction brigades together with all their
supporting elements. At best, there are only 20 to 30 today. Britain? </span><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="color: #121212; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Back to the future?</span></u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What must be done? In November 1933 the
Defence Requirements Sub-Committee (DRC) was formed to consider the shortfalls
and deficiencies in Britain’s then armed forces. A new version of the DRC
needs to be stood up as a matter of urgency. Britain’s defence
procurement is also (eternally) in desperate need of root and branch reform.
Last October’s <i>Future War and Deterrence Conference</i>, which I had the
honour to direct, was clear: “A new and far more interactive and proactive
partnership is needed between government, defence industries and the wider
military supply chain. Such supply chains also need to be made more
robust and secure. The pace and scale of political, economic and
military-technical change risks undermining Allied cohesion, force interoperability
leading to increasingly unbalanced security and defence planning in
democracies. Effective long-term project management is a particular lacuna”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">For both IR2021 and IR2023 to be credible
acquisition cycles will need to be markedly accelerated. There is also
profound tension between the acquisition of platforms and systems. For example,
the acquisition of new military platforms in Europe is on average 5-7 years
whilst technology evolves every 5-7 months. As the war in Ukraine is
demonstrating, European states in particular simply lack the defence industrial
capacity to ramp up production immediately and rapidly. Only something akin to
the British Shadow Factory Plan will do so. The Plan enabled London to
place the British economy on a war footing and rapidly increase war production
in September1939. And here is the crunch. IR2023 implies Britain must prepare
for war but with a determinedly peacetime mind-set. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Does the UK defence strategy implicit in
AUKUS make sense? IR2021 had much to be commended. Innovative thinking
was built into its DNA with digital manoeuvre and space reach considered across
the emerging hybrid war – cyber war - hyperwar spectrum, whilst at its core was
the vision of a US-interoperable high-end British future force. IR2021 also
considered security in the round, i.e. the effects Britain needed to generate
from the entirety of its security investment and the role of defence
therein. The key word was ‘integrated’, the use of all national means
including defence to secure Britain and its interests. Unfortunately, the ends,
ways and means of IR2021 did not add up and nor do they for IR2023. The
major lacuna is the lack of new money for the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force,
and above all the British Army. Consequently, British will continue to do
what it has been doing since the 1998 Strategic Defence Review and the creation
of the hideously misnamed ‘Smart Procurement”: the sacrifice of contemporary
mass to pay for ill-defined digital manoeuvre, the here, now and tomorrow for
some ill-defined future. In 2010, the British went further and took an
axe to Britain’s armed forces even though they were in the midst of a major
campaign in Afghanistan. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">And yet, Sunak said this week that Britain’s
defence policy rests on “the quality of relationships with others”.
However, important the relationship with Australia it is the relationships with
Britain’s NATO Allies that must come first. First, because Sunak has placed
NATO at the heart of British defence policy. Second, Britain is a European
regional-strategic power. The most striking paradox of IR2024 is that by
continuing to sacrifice contemporary mass for future manoeuvre London is
effectively binning its commitment to the land component of the NATO Defence
Plan and the 2019 NATO Military Strategy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Britain’s down-payment defence review</span></u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The strength of the Integrated Review
process is that it envisions security, intelligence, influence and defence in
the round and attempts to understand and respond to the changing character of
the new hybrid, intelligence, and cyber ‘permawar’ the Britain is daily
fighting, as well as deterring a possible future war. The weakness is a culture
of government in London that sees Britain’s public finances as the first line
of defence rather than Britain’s armed forces. This basic misconception
exaggerates the importance of soft power and underestimates the utility of hard
power as the essential commodity in national influence. Consequently, funding
for defence is what is left over after other instruments of power – economic,
diplomatic and development – are afforded. And, even though defence is the
fifth largest expenditure from the public purse it is simply not enough to meet
the ambition implicit in IR2023. This is because Britain and all the
developed democracies are engaged in a clash of wills with autocratic powers
such as China and Russia. Russia might be down but it is certainly not
out, particularly as a hybrid and cyber warrior. China is not Russia and may be
reasoned with but Xi’s Great Wall of Steel speech still reveals a Middle
Kingdom only just beginning its Long March to geopolitical power. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Furthermore, the reasons a country like
Britain invests in defence do not simply concern national defence. A
relatively strong British defence effort buys influence inside NATO, with
partners, in the UN and G7, and above all in Washington. In other words,
visible defence has a value far beyond steel and must be seen as such. Sadly,
the ‘refresh’ still reeks of strategically-illiterate Treasury economists who
only ever see defence as a cost that must be limited. Even 3% of
Britain’s GDP spent on defence would be barely enough given the strategic
circumstances because of the way Britain spends on defence. Given events
and decisions being made by the likes of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and
others 2.25% GDP on defence, even if it is enough, could only ever be enough if
the British spent far, far better. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">IR 2023 is thus a down-payment on
alleviating the eternal short-term funding crisis from which Britain’s armed
forces suffer, and AUKUS is clearly a down-payment towards a new
intelligence-led Five Eyes-based alliance fit for the twenty-first century. The
problem is that the first is little more than a fix and the second is a
structurally strategic shift that will require both investment and delivery,
neither of which Britain’s High Establishment is renowned for. Critically,
AUKUS will require a sustained and joined-up security, defence and industrial
policy. In other words, whilst AUKUS implies a profound change in Britain’s
view of its role in the world and the utility of defence as a value rather than
a cost, IR2023 seeks to limit the very defence investment central to the AUKUS
vision. The result? Ever more tasks over ever greater distance for
Britain’s dangerously hollowed-out and over-stretched armed forces. .
Politics at the expense of strategy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Too small with too much to do<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The hard truth is that in relative terms the
British armed forces are too small and too ill-equipped for the missions and
tasks the British Government has signed up to in NATO let alone Global
Britain. They have neither the quality nor the quantity. This is
particularly the case for the British Army which has become a leitmotif of the
dead-end which for too long British defence policy has been parked in. It
is precisely for that reason the British Army of today faces a very similar
challenge to Lord Gort’s force back in 1940. For all its illustrious history
the British Army of 2023 is an ‘anything but warfighting force’ compared with
the forces that could soon be arrayed against it in the kind of war it might be
called on to fight. Much the same can be said for the Royal Navy and the Royal
Air Force. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Therefore, the essential inefficiency in
British defence policy and investment is both caused by, and a consequence of,
profound misalignment between the ends, ways and means of Britain’s security
and defence. Such chronic defence-strategic inefficiency is magnified by
a High Establishment seemingly incapable of generating the deep synergy across
government that would be vital to turning relatively low defence investment
into high effect. IR2023 is thus the latest iteration of a process that began
back in 1998 which seeks to give the impression of ambition but in fact reveals
Britain’s lack of it due to a woefully incoherent between national strategy,
defence strategy and public finances. Smart defence it ain’t. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">IR2023, like its forebears, is a thus
another well-meaning attempt to square the eternal circle of Britain’s security
and defence failure in the twenty-first century, but it is no more nor less
than that. Rather, it is another one of those increasingly iterative
‘Microsoft’ security patch defence reviews that London routinely likes to
download for political effect rather than strategic influence. IR2023 or
Muddling Through 2023? As we Yorkshire folk are prone to say, IR2023 is a bit
like putting a bay window on a brick s***house! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Julian Lindley-French<o:p></o:p></span></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-34692596428049296552023-02-22T14:44:00.016+01:002023-02-22T17:05:19.125+01:00A Comprehensive Strategy for Ukraine's Future<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq454BL0OCVUP47suxQJaJrlMWyGu0-gzzTY5Fi6uFYoNAzSxlUkLO1IkHlCXnoNHAaGnjwNOCNqEnEP3wmQtd-i2-_HKsZW_tpD7nhrP6ONSiB8u7OixcbG6W11F9iSXp8LIMRYqSY8xnvpqtiTAdnNEl2H-nczWgCzKmvgQFJIZnpBL67uuPQA/s1080/TAG%20Ukraine%20Strategy%20(1).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq454BL0OCVUP47suxQJaJrlMWyGu0-gzzTY5Fi6uFYoNAzSxlUkLO1IkHlCXnoNHAaGnjwNOCNqEnEP3wmQtd-i2-_HKsZW_tpD7nhrP6ONSiB8u7OixcbG6W11F9iSXp8LIMRYqSY8xnvpqtiTAdnNEl2H-nczWgCzKmvgQFJIZnpBL67uuPQA/s320/TAG%20Ukraine%20Strategy%20(1).jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Julian
Lindley-French</span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://thealphengroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TAG-Ukraine-Strategy-PUBLIC-LAUNCH-VERSION-220223.pdf" style="font-family: arial; text-align: justify;">https://thealphengroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TAG-Ukraine-Strategy-PUBLIC-LAUNCH-VERSION-220223.pdf</a><span style="font-family: arial; text-align: justify;"> </span></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><u>INTRODUCTION</u></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It is my honour to
share with you the TAG’s latest publication “A Comprehensive Strategy to Secure
Ukraine’s Future”, </span><span style="font-family: arial;">The Alphen Group’s latest working project, which I have had the honour to
lead. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The Strategy has been prepared over
several months with the support of experts from fifteen democracies, including
Australia and Japan. Signatories, inter alia, include one
former NATO Secretary-General, two Deputy Secretaries-General, three
former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commanders, former ministers, several Chiefs
of Defence Staff, and senior diplomats, as well as many subject matter experts
all of whom are members of The Alphen Group. Our aim is simple: to secure
a legitimate peace for Ukraine as quickly as possible and secure that peace
going forward. T</span><span style="color: black; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">his blog summarises the main points of
the Strategy the TAG believes should be adopted now by the community of
democracies (the West for the purposes of the Strategy) that form the coalition
supporting Ukraine.</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">2023 will be the decisive year of the Russian-Ukraine war. The prospect
of a total Russian victory that would see the complete dismemberment of an
independent Ukrainian state, although by no means impossible, seems remote.
However, Ukraine will only prevail with sustained and extensive Western
support. Equally, continued Ukrainian advances and recovery of
still-occupied territory cannot be assumed and Russia may have sufficient
capability to repel Ukrainian offensives and force a stalemate. Russia enjoys
far more strategic depth and industrial capacity than Ukraine which is
precisely the reason why Western support remains indispensable. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: arial; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">A</span><span style="font-family: arial; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">s Russia’s
war of aggression enters its second year, the Western definition of success
must remain the re-establishment of Ukraine as a secure and sovereign European
democracy with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. The
critical issue the TAG Ukraine Strategy 2023 (the Strategy) thus addresses is
the scope and extent of Western support required to reinforce that goal across
the diplomatic, informational, military and economic domains. For the
purpose of the Strategy, “the West” encompasses the Euro-Atlantic Community and
those members of the G7 and beyond, such as Australia, Japan and South Korea,
the policies of which are largely aligned.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The specific aims of the Strategy are threefold: To bring the war to an
end on terms acceptable to Kyiv that deny the Russians the fruits of aggression
and ensure that Russia does not invade Ukraine again; to restore Ukraine as an
independent state in full control of its internationally-recognized borders,
with the capability to deter and defeat any further Russian aggression; and
thereby, to demonstrate to any potential aggressors that the democratic nations
will defend the rules-based international order. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"> </span>THE STRATEGY</u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The
TAG Ukraine Strategy is established on the following principles: Russian
aggression and attempts to change borders by force must not be rewarded or
legitimized in any way; Russia must pay reparations for the death and damage it
has inflicted on Ukraine; there can be no de facto Russian veto over NATO<span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>’</span>s support for Ukraine and no secret deals with
Moscow that undercut Ukraine’s position; the lifting of sanctions on Russia
will only come as a consequence of Russian action and only over time; the West
must be able to determine the European security order on its own terms,
including Ukraine’s place in it; and, a NATO-Russia war is avoided.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The
Strategy has two phases: the short-term (2023) and the medium-to-longer term
(2024 and beyond). Within the Strategy there are four lines of action:
diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DIME) the main elements of
which can be thus summarised: </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Diplomatic: i</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">ssue a new “Declaration for Ukraine” to maximize
Western cohesion and further deter Russia; pursue more vigorous diplomatic
measures with China to seek their intervention to end the war; </span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">clarify
further for Russia the consequences of nuclear use or another massive invasion
of western Ukraine; convene a “Conference of Democracies” to begin planning the
post war order; maintain diplomatic contact with Moscow to the maximum extent
possible; </span><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">provide all
support necessary to support Ukrainian efforts to hold Russians accountable for
war crimes.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Informational: </b>Prepare western publics for the broad consequences
of a protracted war; escalate the information campaign in Russia to counter the Kremlin’s narrative; maintain a high level of public support for assistance to
Ukraine; and publicly define the meaning of a Ukrainian victory in which the
full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity is the goal. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Military: </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Streamline decision-making on assistance to
Ukraine; increase the pace and volume of weapons transfers to Ukraine designed
to allow them to retake occupied territory, while refraining from attacks on
Russian territory with western arms; seek to deter and prepare to deal with
further Russian escalation should it come; take additional steps to guarantee
Ukraine’s long-term security, including security guarantees and eventual NATO
membership; and, avoid the temptation to slow efforts to further strengthen the
NATO alliance because Russia will rebuild its forces in its long-term struggle
with the alliance.</span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Economic: </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Maintain and further strengthen sanctions; there is
much more that can be done; continue to provide short-term economic aid and
budget support to Ukraine to counter Russia’s effort to undercut Ukraine’s will
to fight; pass western legislation as needed to allow sequestered Russian
financial reserves to be used for Ukrainian reconstruction; and prepare for a
massive Marshall-style plan for Ukraine once the conflict ends.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><u><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"> </span>LESSONS
FROM THE WAR FOR NATO</u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">War
is a giant black hole into which people and materiel vanish at an alarming rate
far beyond that envisaged by peacetime establishments. Consequently, there are
two overarching lessons for the Alliance from the Russian-Ukraine War. First,
NATO’s Deterrence and Defence Posture across Central and Eastern Europe must be
reinforced to frustrate possible future Russian territorial ambitions. Second,
whilst NATO</span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="color: black;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>’</span><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">s
missions and tasks were stated clearly in the 2019 Military Strategy, the 2021
NATO Agenda and NATO Strategic Concept 2022 the Alliance must also learn the
military-technical lessons already apparent. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The
initial </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">military-technical lessons for the Alliance can be thus summarised: the
v<span style="color: black;">ulnerability of armour unsupported by infantry and
helicopters in the battlespace; the vital need to dominate both fires and
counter-fires; the vulnerability of deployed ground forces to expendable
drones, strike drones and loitering systems allied to precision-guided
munitions; the need for more robust logistics forward deployed, with enhanced
and far more secure military supply chains; more ready-action materiel, most </span>notably
small arms and tube and rocket artillery ammunition; b<span style="color: black;">uild
more and rebuild infrastructure to accelerate military mobility in scale;
remove all legal impediments to rapid cross-border movements in a pre-war
emergency; and, improve force protection of deployed forces, allied to a
particular need to reduce the detectability and thus digital footprint of force
concentrations.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><u>THE
WAY AHEAD</u></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; margin: 12pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The
core aim of Western strategy must remain, and must continue to remain, the
complete and irreversible withdrawal of Russian forces, an end to all shelling
and rocket attacks on the Ukrainian people, and the restoration of normal
democratic governance across Ukraine’s territory. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; margin: 12pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">However,
a wider strategy must also be embraced by the West. Russia is seeking to tear
down the rules-based order with the massive use of Russian power and
illegitimate </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">coercion using all other possible means. It <span style="color: black;">is
precisely such coercion that the West is confronting in Ukraine with Ukrainians
and which must be contained and then ended. History suggests that only when
Russia has acknowledged the West’s countervailing power will rules and
all-important institutionalised structure be re-established. In Europe,
such structure is particularly important. </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; margin: 12pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Therefore,
when negotiations for an enduring and equitable peace agreement do eventually
begin there must be no territorial compromise</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">. That said, <span style="color: black;">the West, in
consultation with Kyiv, must also</span> consider <span style="color: black;">its
minimum conditions for a peace settlement beyond a mere cease-fire</span><span style="color: #ff2600;"> </span>precisely so that serious negotiations may begin.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; margin: 12pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Those
conditions might include: Any eventual peace agreement would be linked to
Russia's future behaviour, and not just to ending its use of force in Ukraine;
effective security guarantees for Ukraine, as part of which the West excludes nothing
in advance, including NATO membership, and with no repeat of the failed 1994
Budapest Memorandum; OSCE-guaranteed language and other 'rights' for Russian
speakers in Eastern and South-Eastern Ukraine, in tandem with similar
guarantees by Russia for ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars; a lease-back
deal for the Black Sea Fleet’s base in Sevastopol could be considered,
coupled with guarantees that Crimea will not be used as a base for
aggression against Ukraine as in 2014; reparations by Russia to Ukraine; and,
an immediate and expanded Association Agreement with the EU and Ukrainian
membership of both the EU and NATO by 2033. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; margin: 12pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">A
much greater Western effort is also needed to convince the likes of China and
India to further withhold support from Russia. At this year’s G7 Summit in
Hiroshima, Japan, China and India should be invited to join a G7-Plus Contact
Group charged with both preventing nuclear escalation and returning the
conflict to an institutional framework. A major diplomatic demarche is also
needed towards other important democracies, such as Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria,
the Philippines, and South Africa. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Beyond the future of Ukraine, what is also at stake in the war is the
West’s capacity to shape its strategic environment and shape the European
security order on its own terms in a way that upholds the principles of the
rules-based international order established following World War Two. All and
any collective action will involve risk. A new European security system will be
needed in order to restore respect for the principles of international law that
Russia has violated and, over time, to lay the basis for a new relationship
with Russia, whatever the outcome of the war. And, in the short term, it will
also be indispensable in order to maintain a sufficient level of support from
Western public opinion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>The Alphen Group, </b><b>February
2023</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-15214508805227595092023-02-02T10:12:00.005+01:002023-02-02T10:18:48.613+01:00Could China Invade Taiwan?<p style="text-align: center;"> <i>“I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me we [US] will
fight [China] in 2025”. </i><i>General Mike
Minihan, Commander, US Air Mobility Command</i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrbzFaO0nAX4zRoJhuklQEMk92MGQH65Vi2hYUFK5Y644EfGKsdLwgi7Cwe36SkIgBZLHduD6h0Bn0lSdrbogTOWc91KS1Tsthcutg66B2Ngd_5zxGiFw0jML7Koh3LPSjIHB_-6l3Ds0q3VHX4IJtNewrMAdB2Ud5dkDioGjgD2in5EDEcwsbyw/s300/HMS_Mallard_1944_IWM_FL_22438.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="300" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrbzFaO0nAX4zRoJhuklQEMk92MGQH65Vi2hYUFK5Y644EfGKsdLwgi7Cwe36SkIgBZLHduD6h0Bn0lSdrbogTOWc91KS1Tsthcutg66B2Ngd_5zxGiFw0jML7Koh3LPSjIHB_-6l3Ds0q3VHX4IJtNewrMAdB2Ud5dkDioGjgD2in5EDEcwsbyw/s1600/HMS_Mallard_1944_IWM_FL_22438.jpg" width="300" /></a></p><div style="text-align: center;">HMS Mallard</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><u>Lessons from the past</u><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">February 1st, 2023. On September 17<sup>th</sup>, 1940 Hitler indefinitely postponed Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of Britain. He had good reason. None of the basic conditions for a successful invasion had been met. First, on September 15<sup>th</sup> the Luftwaffe had received a mauling at the hands of the Royal Air Force which denied any chance the Germans could establish air superiority over the Channel and proposed landing grounds near Hastings. Second, the Kreigsmarine was in no position to escort the Wehrmacht across some 30 miles/40km of open sea under ferocious attack from the Royal Navy, world’s biggest navy at the time. The plan was to land three of the Wehrmacht’s best divisions on the southern English coast supported by paratroopers. Had they tried it is likely all three divisions would have been destroyed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">Fast forward to 2023. In late January a memo appeared online from General Mike Minihan warning US forces of a conflict with China as early as 2025, most likely over an invasion of Taiwan. He warned that the 2024 Taiwanese presidential elections could be a pretext for invasion. In August 2022, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) carried out a major exercise simulating just such an invasion. That begs a question: just what would it take for the People’s Republic of China to successfully invade the Republic of China? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">History would suggest that President Xi would need to feel pretty threatened to undertake such a gamble. Any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be fraught with danger for Chinese forces. Yes, in some ways such a massive air-maritime-amphibious operation would be different to those of the past. It would doubtless be preceded by a massive missile barrage, as well as cyber and other information warfare attacks designed to take out critical Taiwanese infrastructures and people. However, it would not be THAT different. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><u>Plans, planning and experience</u><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">Helmuth von Moltke the Elder said that, “No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force”. Take the D-Day maritime amphibious invasion of France in June 1944. Portsmouth to the Normandy beaches is a distance of 180km or 110 miles, whilst the distance between mainland China and Taiwan across the Strait of Taiwan is exactly the same. However, prior to D-Day Anglo-American forces had undertaken five major maritime-amphibious invasions. Operation Torch in North Africa in November 1942, Operation Husky in Sicily in July 1953, Operation Avalanche at Salerno in October 1943 and Operation Shingle at Anzio in January 1944.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">Experience gained is the best proof against such failure. Both Britain and the US were long-experienced blue water naval powers with corps of marines that had pioneered and were pioneering such operations both in the European and Pacific theatres of World War Two. Even so, D-Day was a gamble, even though Nazi forces were fighting in Russia and the so-called Atlantic Wall spread thinly from Northern Norway to the Spanish border with France. And yet, five American, British and Canadian divisions landed on D-Day. That D-Day was a success was in no small part because the conditions that were absent for Operation Sealion were in place for Operation Overlord: excellent intelligence, the support of the local population and undisputed Allied control of both air and sea. The ‘only’ contest Allied forces faced was getting ashore and establishing quickly an unassailable bridgehead. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">No doubt the Chinese have studied the extremely extensive and intensive Chiefs of Staff Supreme Allied Command (COSSAC) plans that led to D-Day in their own planning, which they have clearly now completed. However, recent exercises testing Chinese Naval Infantry suggest the force is neither big enough nor experienced enough to successfully assault Taiwan without being effectively destroyed in the process. For all their burgeoning and impressive equipment the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and its air force simply lack the experience of contested blue water power projection and/or massive joint maritime-amphibious operations. Therefore, at present, Chinese planning suggests more Operation Sealion, i.e. an attempt to force a settlement through the threat of invasion, rather than Operation Overlord, an actual invasion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><u>The First Battle of the Next War?</u><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">Early in 2023 Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released the findings of a series of war games entitled, “The First Battle of the Next War” they had conducted simulating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in which the US and Japan was engaged. They suggested that under any scenario the People’s Liberation Army and Navy would see at least 10000 troops killed with tens of thousands more taken prisoner. The Chinese would likely lose 138 ships and 155 aircraft. However, both the US and Japan would also suffer very significant losses, with Taiwan losing its entire navy of destroyers and frigates.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">There is an additional factor President Xi would have to take into account - the ferocity of the defence. This would certainly be the case given the past history between the Chinese Communist Party and Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese Nationalist Party which retreated to then Formosa following the latter’s defeat in 1949. My father once told me a story that had been told to him by my grandfather. In the summer of 1940, at the height of the invasion scare, my grandfather was serving in a Royal Navy destroyer, HMS Mallard, off the south coast of England. He told my father that they were ordered to intercept what appeared to be a commando-style raid by German forces. When they intercepted the German force they discovered they were in wooden boats and were about to take them prisoner when an order came through from the very top of government that there were to be no prisoners. Rather, they were ordered to ring the German force in fuel oil and set it alight as a message to Hitler about the ferocity with which German forces would be met if they attempted to invade. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">My grandfather was not prone to telling lies, but I have never found any corroborating evidence in support of his story, although there are stories of burnt corpses of German soldiers washing ashore. Sadly, any ‘evidence’ if it exists has now been lost to the world of conspiracy theorists. If it is true, the information would probably be covered by a 100 year release restriction because it would have been a war crime, not dissimilar to the murder of 80 members of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment by the Waffen SS at Wormhoudt in June 1940. However, I do know my grandfather lived with the images of what he says happened for the rest of his life. Chinese forces could expect a similar reception if they ever attempted to invade Taiwan.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;">It may be that General Minihan’s leaked memo is simply a general musing to keep his forces focused on their mission. They do that. Still, the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is a real one and must not be discounted. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><b>Julian Lindley-French </b> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.85pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3549597529300225499.post-23050152921347939662022-12-27T14:42:00.002+01:002022-12-27T14:42:32.341+01:00Kontesting Kissinger<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEfJR7fekqAYMoDKEel-pA9YuCdzRXQQ8QvdKzTxiYTi3OVng-gM75em2EQtm2c-3Y4mU9sMwGoB7kJSsItn_smiFMkyE2u5NqFBj_FLl_POpfWMZUmIj3KqI7S9k2INA6Vx3d-X6uqRmhpVjjTm7-Fw1dwF1cjZf35V9eHArfSmMQKTMmF_pcwA/s2539/Kissinger.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2539" data-original-width="1920" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEfJR7fekqAYMoDKEel-pA9YuCdzRXQQ8QvdKzTxiYTi3OVng-gM75em2EQtm2c-3Y4mU9sMwGoB7kJSsItn_smiFMkyE2u5NqFBj_FLl_POpfWMZUmIj3KqI7S9k2INA6Vx3d-X6uqRmhpVjjTm7-Fw1dwF1cjZf35V9eHArfSmMQKTMmF_pcwA/s320/Kissinger.webp" width="242" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><i>“For all its
propensity to violence, Russia has made decisive contributions to the global
equilibrium and to the balance of power for over half a millennium. Its
historical role should not be downgraded”.</i></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Henry
Kissinger, “How to avoid another world war” </span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">December 28<sup>th</sup>.
Over the Christmas excess I read and re-read Henry Kissinger’s essay “How to
avoid another world war”. His core thesis is that Russia must be maintained for
the sake of global equilibrium because there are so many unknown unknowns that
will come at us all in the years ahead. I am in full agreement about the
unknown unknowns and I am trying to know some of those unknowns now. What
I do not understand is Kissinger’s implication that we need to maintain THIS
radically, revisionist, wrecker-ball Russia because if not the worsening
disequilibrium in the international system will only get worse. That begs a
question Kissinger fails to answer: how can an over-armed failing state the
very ethos of which is the exploitation and undermining of the rules-based
system be convinced to become a pillar of said system?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">This paradox
is apparent in the opening paragraphs of the essay when Kissinger likens
today’s situation to that of pre-World War One Europe. The paradox is
that the period pre-1917 was the last time that Russia made any pretence to be
a paragon of a rules-based order. Kissinger’s argument about the causes
of World War One also reveal the conceits of an American Realist of his era.
Kissinger cites Christopher Clark’s seductive but essentially wrong argument
that World War One was caused by all the Great Powers sleepwalking into war.
Kissinger describes World War One as “cultural suicide”, but surely its
consequences were more strategic and political than cultural.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Kissinger
must be aware of Fritz Fischer’s powerful early 1960s book “World Power or
Decline”. Fischer clearly lays the blame for World War One at the feet of
the agrarian Prussian Juncker elite in the then eastern Germany and its de facto
alliance with an emerging industrialist class in western Germany. The
very creation of the German Empire on January 1, 1871 was the power equivalent
of dropping a very large stone in a relatively small pool – it caused waves as
the French found to their profound cost during the Franco-Prussian War of the
same year. One man who understood this was Otto von Bismarck who skilfully
managed Prusso-Germany’s external relations until he was unceremoniously dumped
in 1890 by the unstable Kaiser Wilhelm II. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Thereafter,
Wilhelmine Germany dragged Europe into war by first militarising itself and
then threatening the rest of Europe with hard-boiled nationalism. In the
early 1900s Britain and France were imperfect democracies, but then so was the
United States. They did not want or choose war as they both knew the
consequences of industrial warfare having studied the American Civil War from
1861-1865. What was France expected to do faced with the 1904 Schlieffen Plan,
of which they were aware, and a rapidly expanding Imperial German Army?
What were the British expected to do when the Imperial German Navy began to arm
itself with Dreadnoughts and Super-Dreadnoughts all of which had only the range
to fight a major naval battle in the North Sea against the Royal Navy. In
1916 that battle took place and the German High Seas Fleet lost because Britain
was prepared. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Consequences</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What
Kissinger completely misses in his essay is the changing dynamic within Germany
that drove the Prussian elite to trigger war. The very power they relied upon
for Germany’s external weight threatened the Prusso-German Constitution from
within. The growth of industrial Germany also saw the growth of organised
labour, and most notably the SPD, which began to challenge the power of the
agrarian Juncker aristocracy. World War One was a desperate gambit by the
Prussian aristocracy to preserve their domestic power. Nothing more, nothing
less. On August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 1914 Britain warned Imperial Germany that if it
invaded Belgium it would force Britain to respond under the terms of the 1839
Belgian Neutrality Act, a cornerstone of the then European rules-based
order. On August 4<sup>th</sup>, Berlin ignored London’s ultimatum and
invaded. As for ignorance about the slaughter to come Kissinger is just plain
wrong. During the evening of August 4<sup>th</sup> Sir Edward Grey,
Britain’s Foreign Secretary, said “the lamps are going out all over Europe, and
we shall not see them lit again in our lifetimes’. One only has to listen
to Germanophile Edward Elgar’s sad “I Sospiri” (the sighs) to feel the
foreboding. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Kissinger’s
other conceit is to imply the US saved Europe from itself. First, World
War One was ‘won’ by French sacrifice, the Royal Navy’s blockade of Germany and
the technological and tactical advances of British Imperial Forces on land and
in the air. That is not to downplay the often naïve bravery of the
American Doughboys but they were not the decisive factor. What WAS
decisive was the force and wealth the US could add to the Allied side, albeit
at an immense strategy price for Britain and France. When America entered the
war on April 6th 1917, it was not simply because of Germany’s unrestricted
submarine warfare or the discovery by British Naval Intelligence of the
so-called Zimmerman Telegram and the farcical plan to get Mexico to declare war
on the US. It was also about hard-headed American power and the rise of
the US to global supremacy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">By 1917, the
combatants were exhausted and on the Allied side increasingly dependent on
American munitions and money to continue the war. However, contrary to
Kissinger’s assertion neither President Woodrow Wilson nor his aide Colonel Edward
House made serious efforts to bring about peace. The US Secretary of State
Robert Lansing secretly encouraged the Allies to make peace demands Washington
knew Berlin would never accept just at the moment the German military
leadership of Hindenburg and Ludendorff had secured victory over Romania.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This ensured any hope that German Chancellor
Bethmann Hollweg might have had of purposeful American engagement to end the
war was dashed. Consequently, the Germans made proposal that they too knew the
Allies would never accept, including the permanent annexation of Belgium and
the territories they held in northern France. Why? First, America has never
granted Allies money and weapons. For example, Lend-Lease during World
War Two was precisely what its names suggest – loans and leasing. The
last payment made by the UK to finally bring Lend-Lease to a close was in
December 2006. Second, Wilson’s December 1916 demand that all parties to the
conflict state their war aims prior to any American peace bid was far more to
do with American domestic opinion and getting America into the war, not ending
it, so that when negotiations did finally begin the Allies would be in a
position of overwhelming strength with the Americans primus inter pares. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Putin’s Monday
offer this past few days of peace negotiations to find “acceptable solutions” must
be seen in a similar light.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov confirmed the cynicism of the ploy when he said later
that, </span><span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"Our proposals for the demilitarisation and denazification of the
territories controlled by the [Ukrainian] regime, the elimination of threats to
Russia's security emanating from there, including our new lands, are well known
to the enemy.</span> The point is simple: Fulfil them for your own good.
Otherwise, the issue will be decided by the Russian army."<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Relevance? </span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">What is the
relevance of World War One to today and the Kissinger essay? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Firstly,
because the Kissinger essay reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the
causes of World War One and America’s role in it his subsequent analysis is at
times flawed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Secondly,
too many so-called Realists fail to understand the problem of irrationality and
personality in international relations, particularly when one man has been at
the apex of immense power for too long. Both Putin and China’s Xi Jingping show
signs of megalomania and belief in their own propaganda. Beijing has increased
its military pressure on Taiwan in recent days. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Thirdly,
when aggressive revisionist powers seek to change the established order through
violence there is no alternative for the collective democracies to contain that
threat until it dissipates. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Fourthly,
when new technology threatens to tip the balance of power decidedly and rapidly
in favour of autocrats, democracies need to act decisively. That is
exactly what the British did in 1906 with the commissioning of <i>HMS
Dreadnought</i> and it is exactly what the Alliance and its Partners now need
to do to forge a dominant concept for the use in deterrence of Putin and his
ilk. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Fifthly,
there is little option but to form blocs of some kind or another when the
values and interests of the Great Powers become increasingly opposed. That is
particularly the case when revisionist Realpolitik powers such as China and
Russia seek to tear down a rules-based order. They must first be
confronted with power and only when they have acknowledged that power can the
rules and the structure it bequeaths be discussed. Why? It is because such a
strategy is the only peaceful way back to equilibrium in the international
system. Anything else is appeasement. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Kontesting
Kissinger</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Kissinger is
right. There will come a time when Russia comes to its senses but that
time is not now. He is also right that no-one should seek the
dismemberment of Russia, although Beijing poses a much greater threat to Russia
in that regard than any Western power, whatever Putin’s propaganda says.
However, Kissinger is simply wrong to believe that Putin’s Russia or any Russia
like it can ever be a partner in preserving global equilibrium when it is so
determined to destroy it. It is the only way Putin and his cronies can see a
way to preserve their power and wealth having failed to prepare Russian society
for the twenty-first century, in much the same way Kaiser Wilhelm and his
Juncker aristo-cronies refused to face up to societal change in the twentieth
century. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">I have long been an admirer of Henry Kissinger the
academic, even if I remain less admiring of Henry Kissinger the policy-maker
back in the 1970s. Together with Richard Nixon they took valueless interests to
an extreme and as such were distinctly un-American. Kissinger has made
profound errors of judgement over the years (as have we all). His call for a
protracted stalemate during the 1980-88 Iran‐Iraq War to sustain American
influence and his suggestion in 2012 that in “10 years, there will be no more
Israel” were just plain wrong. In August of this year he said of the Ukraine
War that, “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we
partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s
supposed to lead to.” He has also suggested that Ukraine should relinquish its
claim to Crimea and grant self-government autonomy to the Donetsk and Luhansk
People’s Republics. This is because he is profoundly concerned about
power disequilibrium between China, Russia, and the United States and it is
that disequilibrium that could trigger a Third World War. This is the crux of
my disagreement with Kissinger. Russia may have a lot of nuclear weapons
but it is a small, poor state in a big large country with an exaggerated sense
of its own power and influence. How on earth can a stable ‘equilibrium’ ever be
fashioned with such a state? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">In other words, serious negotiations over Ukraine can
only begin when Russia acknowledges its errors and its failure and Moscow is
convinced of both Western unity and power. Which brings me to perhaps the
greatest paradox of the Kissinger essay: the role of the United States. Kissinger himself might be the master of balance
of power geopolitics but he fails to recognise that American Realism has never
been for purely Realist. The use of
American power has always had an element of the idealism of the Founding Fathers
imbued within it. It is what I call
Liberal Realism – a hard-headed understanding of power and its application in
pursuit of a liberal democratic outcome.
The essay effectively invites Americans to abandon that tradition which
is precisely what China and Russia would want because it would replace the
liberal rules-based order with the bad old-fashioned anarchy of Machtpolitik,
the very stuff of autocratic and fascist ‘order’.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 18.0pt; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">As for the disequilibrium of geopolitics it is
Moscow that has taken a wrecking ball to global equilibrium and because of that
it is Russia, not the West or anybody else, that is downgrading Russia’s
historical role. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Julian
Lindley-French </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></p>Lindley-French's Blog Blasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01634606743670025071noreply@blogger.com7