The Middle East needs Grand Strategy

Alphen, Netherlands. 18 May.  This weekend chickens began coming home to roost.  A Libyan ‘minister’ warned that not only was ISIS using the Mediterranean migrant crisis to smuggle its fighters into Europe, the militants were profiting from the trade.  And, the EU moved to establish a mission that would interdict the traffickers close to the Libyan coast and perhaps within Libya.  Today, news comes that the Iraqi city of Ramadi has fallen to ISIS.  The Middle East is as unstable and dangerous as at any time since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.  Worse, the threat such instability poses to the region and beyond is growing, symptomatic and axiomatic of a new systemic struggle.  As such the defeat of ISIS will require far more than its military eclipse. 

Now, few who know me would call me naïve and yet I know what I am about to venture will seem precisely that.  For all the excellent work being done to counter ISIS I am struck by the absence of a political strategy for the Middle East. ISIS is as much a symptom of several interlocking conflicts that are feeding off each other as the cause and will only been seen off in time by a new settlement in the Middle East that will itself demand the kind of political ambition and vision that none of the key leaders seem to have, be they in the region or without.  Nothing less than the re-establishment of strong, legitimate states across the region will suffice; states that able and willing to meet the needs of a burgeoning but deeply divided people.  

Something more clearly must be done.  The first phase of the mission of the sixty-nation “Global Coalition to Counter ISIL” to “blunt ISIL’s strategic, tactical and operational momentum in Iraq” has met with some limited success.  However, there appears little or no consideration concerning the political objective vital to the achievement of a more stable Middle East.  Worse, Saudi-led Gulf Co-operation Council air-strikes in Yemen are indicative of an emerging regional-systemic struggle in which the fundamentalist threat posed by ISIS is merging with the struggle for regional supremacy between Iran and a host of other actors. 

There is a very real danger that the current struggle between Middle Eastern (and increasingly European) states and anti-state elements could be but the curtain-raiser to a wider Middle East war between states, fuelled and intensified by mistrust between elites and peoples, the mutual hatred of Shia and Sunni factions, Iran and many Arab states and possibly between Israel and an Iran-inspired, proxy-led coalition. Such a war would have profound consequence for the region and the world.  For example, Europe is particularly vulnerable to loss of energy supplies from the region and to the further de-stabilisation of its societies by AQ/ISIS-inspired Islamic fundamentalism. Moreover, key Western allies such as Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon are facing profound risks from the current instability that show no signs of abating.

An important first step is to understand the cause of the current conflicts. Arab elites talk much nonsense about the brief colonial period as a way to avoid the consequences of their misgovernment.  However, Europeans must bear some responsibility. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in May 1916 the Anglo-French Sykes-Picod agreement was struck.  Under the terms of this agreement the Middle East was carved up to serve British and French interests via a series of ‘protectorates’ none of which was strong enough to dominate the region, but all of which inherited ancient disputes and grievances.  During the period of de-colonisation in the 1950s and early 1960s it appeared that Arab nationalism would become the expression of an emerging ‘Arab nation’.  However, defeats by Israel in 1967 and 1973 and the perception on the Arab Street that Arab governments were in the pocket of a West was inimical to Arab interests enabled the steady rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the creed of the Caliphate as an alternative to the ‘failed’ state.  The rise of fundamentalism was further enabled by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia which sought to buy AQ elements off by funding Salafi jihadism both in the region and beyond. The collapse of Syria and the Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq created the conditions for Islamic fundamentalism to mutate into ISIS which now poses a threat to all the states in the region and many beyond.

Achieving a new political settlement will require Herculean leadership and strategic patience, neither of which the West and its leaders possess in abundance.  Morevore, there would be many barriers in the way of any such strategy towards such an end: There is no grand strategic political vision for the region; little or no strategic unity of effort and purpose between the US and its European allies; little or no political ownership of any such strategy at the highest levels in the region, the White House and/or European chancelleries; and whilst there is some focus on the ‘tactical’ challenges posed by ISIS (such as trafficking), there is little or no political desire to consider the bigger strategic picture.  Worse, behind the headlines there is a profound lack of willingness by leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to properly engage political capital, strategy thinking and/or invest in a stable Middle East. 

Therefore, what ‘strategy’ exists is essentially a ‘containment’ strategy.  Indeed, in spite of air strikes ISIS is being made to appear stronger than it is and thus able to exploit divisions by choosing when, where and how to act.  Sadly, it is inadequate ‘strategy’ made worse by elite European ‘political correctness’ concerning the defence of Europe’s legitimate interests in the region.  The situation is further complicated by the new geopolitics and the growing tensions between China, Russia and the West preventing the drafting of political strategy in the UN Security Council.

However, for all the above the status quo is not an option. Therefore, the West must act.  If not the current struggle will see one or a combination of the following outcomes: some form of Caliphate in parts of the region which will lead to a protracted struggle (possible and extremely dangerous); some form of hybrid Caliphate and/or hybrid states all of which embrace Islamic fundamentalism (extremely dangerous); states propped up by the West (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, PA) the elites of which are despised by their populations subject to AQ, ISILSpropaganda and a range of Iranian-inspired proxies (very plausible, simply postpones collapse of state structure); and/or a general Middle Eastern war which pits Iran against the Gulf States, but which also includes Israel in de facto support of the Gulf States (increasingly likely and very dangerous).

The strategic aim must be re-furbish the state in the Middle East, with the focus some form of political stability in the Levant.  Thankfully, most people do not want to live under a Caliphate and loyalty to the state (if not elites) remains strong.

Therefore, the Global Coalition needs a new political mandate that would see the following:  re-doubled efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian struggle via some form of two-state solution (yes, I know); Iran locked out of much of the Middle East through the blunting of its proxies and a carrot-and-stick approach to dealing with Tehran that combines containment and encouragement (the Nuclear Framework Agreement is a first step);  the reinforcement of friendly Middle Eastern states with aid and development and support for security sector reform (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, PA) and with political support (Gulf States) as a bulwark against a general collapse; the discreet promotion of political reforms; support for the Arab League to create/install a new regime in Damascus; and enhanced support for an enhanced Arab League to defeat of ISIS.  The proposed Rapid Reaction Force is a good first step but an overt and early victory is needed.

As I said at the top of this blog many of my proposals will seem utterly naïve to seasoned Middle East watchers.  However, it is precisely the ambition implicit in such a strategy that will be needed if the Middle East and much of North Africa is not pose a growing threat to itself and all of us.  Efforts thus far have simply not been up to the strategic challenge.  Critically, the scenarios and the challenges outlined above capture both the scope and the nature of the current struggle and if not properly gripped and quickly will lead inevitably to a general Middle Eastern war.  The most that can be hoped for from current ‘political’ strategy is a Middle East that remains inherently instable.  Given the proliferation of dangerous technologies the prospect that such a struggle will be increasingly shaped by enemies – state and non-state – means the current policy of containment will in time be doomed to fail.  

The bottom-line is this; all of the conflicts in the Middle East and their consequences are joined up. it is about time that the response of the 'international community' (however so defined) is also better joined up. 

Machiavelli once said: “All courses of action are risky.  So prudence is not in avoiding danger (it is impossible) but calculating risk and acting decisively.  Make mistakes of ambition, not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do things, not the strength to suffer”.

Julian Lindley-French

Brexit: Where ‘Europe’ Really Began

Alphen, Netherlands. 15 May.  The Brexit debate is now fully underway with lies and complete nonsense already being told on both sides of the argument about the ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ of a British exit from the EU.  For the record the political and economic costs to both Britain and the EU of a Brexit would be significant.  However, with common political sense both Britain and the EU could emerge strengthened by a new relationship in which everybody felt more comfortable about the relationship and indeed the real issue at hand for most British people – the growing distance between power, principle and people the EU implies.  Therefore, given the stakes it is also worth reminding ourselves where modern ‘Europe’ really began.

Speak to the Brussels elite and they have very clear views on where ‘Europe’ began.  ‘Europe’ was the brainchild of an ‘enlightened’, mainly French elite. Given that French elites really do do elitism very well their Brussels descendants claim it was the likes of Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann who inspired ‘Europe’.  They clearly established the ethos of the EU we know and not-so-love today; an enarquiste, top-down, elite-led, ‘we know better’ culture that has hung around Brussels ever since like a fart trapped in a duvet.  Indeed, Brussels elitism and the Euro-federalism it underpins is the one thing that really worries me and which if not checked will in time destroy the EU, and possibly force me to vote for a Brexit. 

However, ‘Europe’ was not born of or among elites.  ‘Europe’ began on VE Day seventy years ago in Dulverton, small Somerset town in the lee of Exmoor, on the south-western peninsula of England.  My father hails from Dulverton.  On 8 May, 1945, then some twelve years old, he was attending Tiverton Grammar School.  Just before midday the Headmaster ordered the entire school to gather in the school hall. A small table was then brought in draped in the Union flag and placed on the imposing stage and a radio placed upon it.  At midday precisely the clipped, dulcet upper-class tones of BBC presenter John Snagg came on air to announce that the war in Europe was at an end.

The headmaster then announced that the school was closed and ordered all the pupils home.  Now, you might think this all well and good.  In fact this caused a problem for my father as his train to Dulverton, the wonderfully-named Exe Valley Rattler, which ran on a line long-since closed, was not due to depart until 5pm. Thankfully, a lorry from Dulverton saw mill happened to be driving along the road which linked Tiverton Grammar School to the station. The driver saw my father, picked him and some other Dulverton lads up, and drove them back home.

As the lorry crossed the River Barle into Dulverton my father heard the town band striking up on the steps of Dulverton Town Hall.  My grandfather had already hung the flag of the Royal Navy outside their house (he had recently been invalided out of the Navy having been sunk twice during the war).  A crowd was gathering on Dulverton High Street and people began to dance.  However, and here is where ‘Europe’ was born, it was not just the English who were dancing.  My father recalls how Italian and German prisoners-of-war, who had been working in the fields around Dulverton, were allowed to come into the town and join in the festivities.  Soon people of many European nationalities were dancing together in a small English town; enemies one moment, friends the next.  This is where ‘Europe’ began and it was a Europe of the people.

Pain was still everywhere and deeply felt.  Indeed, my father also told me how in 1944 my great-uncle Walter left from Dulverton to rejoin his ship, the destroyer HMS Quail. Four weeks later the Quail struck a mine in the Mediterranean and my uncle went down with his ship.  Tragically, my grandmother had seen Walter, her brother, on a train across the platform at Tiverton Station. However, it pulled out just before she could say hello.  She never saw him again.  She too danced on those steps with her fellow Europeans that fateful day. 

It is not economics but governance that is the defining factor for me in the forthcoming Brexit vote.  And, it is not 2017 but 2037 that really concerns me. My bottom-line is this; I am a European but I really do not want to live in some form of super-elitiste European super-state in which the European Commission claims (but is not) to be MY government, the European Parliament claims (but is not) to be MY parliament, and Britain is reduced to being little more than an aged member of a much-reduced European Council/Senate; a European version of the pointless and toothless House of Lords. 

Therefore, end Euro-federalism and the threat to my freedom and representation it entails and I will vote for Britain to stay in the EU.  ‘Europe’ really began on the steps of Dulverton Town Hall as an act of reconciliation between ordinary people from different European countries.  It is precisely there ‘Europe’ should and must remain.

Julian Lindley-French

Eastern Partnership Goulash

Alphen, Netherlands. 13 May. The Eastern Partnership is an attempt by the EU to enhance stability on the EU’s borders by assisting Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus in the areas of prosperity, trade, travel, anti-corruption and the just rule of law.  Last week I attended and spoke at a fascinating conference in beautiful Budapest at the Central European University entitled “Eastern Partnership and its Prospects”, which had been jointly organised by my good friend Imants Lietgis, the former Latvian Defence Minister and Latvian Ambassador to Hungary.  At the same time I enjoyed real Hungarian goulash soup for the first time and heartily recommend it.  Goulash soup basically involves lumps of meat floating around in a clear broth.

Regular followers of my strato-dump know that the focus is all matters strategic.  For much of the time that involves things that go bang and which burn huge amounts of tax-payers money normally far away and very usually very rapidly.  Important though armed forces are they are not the real stuff of ‘strategy’.  The real stuff (or should that be “The Right Stuff”) is the kind of engagement for which the Eastern Partnership was designed back in May 2009 when it was launched in Prague.  

The Eastern Partnership goes right to the very heart of the community concept of international relations the EU pioneered and reflects and built on a fundamental principle of self-determination and the right of free, sovereign people to make free sovereign choices.  All well and good?  Well, no actually.  There are three main problems with the Eastern Partnership and they can be thus summarised; Russia, the Eastern Partners, and EU member-states. 

Let me deal with Russia first.  All six of the Eastern Partners sit in and around Russia’s western and southern borders.  At the heart of Russia’s current grumpiness is a fundamental clash of ideals.  Whereas the EU seeks to support partners in the belief that whether or not a state is an EU member, aspirant or partner all European states should be part of a community of states in which standards of governance, rule of law and development are aspired to collectively.  Moscow rejects this idea of community, believing instead that all the Eastern Partners, as former members of the Soviet Union, are firmly in Russia’s sphere of influence and should stay that way. Now, Moscow has created the Eurasian Economic Union to at least give a fig-leaf of legitimacy to its power ambitions, but Russia’s credo is essentially one of power does as power will – Realpolitik.

And then there are the Eastern Partners.  Armenia and Azerbaijan are on the verge of war over Nagorno-Karabakh.  Georgia has a large Russia military presence on its territory and fought and lost a war with Russia in August 2008.  Moldova faces immense challenges from corruption and the proximity of serious criminals to government, Ukraine is being dismembered by the Russians at present (still) and Kiev itself is doing nothing like enough to combat the endemic corruption, and Belarus is well Belarus; a one-man, one-vote, once dictatorship.  All six face huge problems and all six seem unwilling to do much about them.

And then there is the EU and its member-states. During the conference I suggested that in parallel with the Eastern Partnership the EU needed a Western Partnership.  Attend any meeting in Central and Eastern Europe and one thing rapidly becomes apparent – the conflict-crushing soul of the EU, the very reason for which it was created, has moved east since the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Western Europe is tired and sees itself as broke and has little or no appetite for the kind of grand stabilisation implicit in the Eastern Partnership.

However, the central and eastern Europeans do not exactly inspire confidence in the fulfilment of a Partnership that was in many ways their own creation. During the conference I also suggested that now is the time for them to lead and the Eastern Partnership is precisely the issue on which to lead.  Sadly, my idea crashed and burned amid the petty splits and divisions between the Central and Eastern Europeans that were all too plain to see at the conference.

So, the Eastern Partnership has become the strategic equivalent of goulash soup – a few meaty bits floating in a sea of political indifference - big vision, little or no political substance.  In other words yet another of those grand strategic EU initiatives that do make strategic sense, launched at an expensive summit, but which are then routinely  undermined by politics, a lack of resolve and an absence of cash. 

This is a real shame because at heart the Eastern Partnership offers a real alternative to the power cynicism of Moscow which if unchecked will in time spread like a contagion across much of Central and Eastern Europe. So, in spite of the forthcoming Riga summit the Eastern Partnership looks like becoming yet another strategic EU initiative that raises hope only for it to be dashed on the rocky shores of Europe’s own political cynicism.

Make no mistake the Eastern Partnership is the twenty-first century equivalent of the European Coal and Steel Community that way back in 1950 began the long road to post-war European reconciliation and hope. It also sits the front-line between hope and cynicism.

It was an honour to attend and to learn.  The soup was good too.

Julian Lindley-French 

Exodus: Don’t Come but if You Do Stay

Alphen, Netherlands. 12 May.  Walk round Rome on a normal day and the consequences of mass uncontrolled migration is plain for all to see.  Young men seeking to flog chintzy souvenirs hang around every piazza.  The BBC said recently that are some 500,000 migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean, with some 500,000 people believed to be on the move towards Europe.  According to the EU 80% of these people are economic migrants seeking a better life, with only 20% refugees from conflict zones, with 80% of those travelling young men.  Yesterday, the European Commission, on the heels of the British election, moved to impose quotas of migrants on each EU member-state.  And, whilst EU foreign policy supremo Federica Mogherini was in New York trying to get the UN Security Council to allow the forces of EU member-states to interdict traffickers close to the Libyan coast, there is no strategy worthy of the name to deal with this exodus, even under existing international humanitarian law.  Indeed, the EU ‘policy’ can be best summarised as “don’t come, but if you do stay”.  What must be done?

Grasp the scope of the challenge: According to Global Strategic Trends 2014 the world’s population will grow from 7.2bn people today to between 8.4bn and 10.4bn by 2045.  97% of that growth will occur in the developing world with 70% in the world’s nine poorest countries. Driven by demographic pressure, conflicts, globalisation and organised transnational crime the world is witnessing the first wave of strategic mass migration with profound and destabilising structural implications for geopolitics and societies. And, such migration is likely only to increase. Indeed, with states collapsing and in distress across North Africa, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and much of Asia the imperative of people to move will grow rapidly and massively. 

Support front-line states:  87% of all refugees are in the developing world and although massive Europe’s challenge is only part of a global mass movement.  Moreover, whilst there are some 230,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees in Europe, there are still some 3m still in the region placing a huge strain on already-weakened countries such as Jordan and Lebanon.  There are already 1.1m registered Syrians in Lebanon and some 0.5m unregistered.  Syrians now represent some 30% of the population and many Lebanese fear this massive influx will destabilise an already fragile state.  This week Lebanon will impose visas on Syrians. Supporting front-line states with aid and expertise must be a priority.

Render asylum fit for purpose: Again, 80% of those making the perilous journey are not refugees but people seeking a better life and whilst no-one can blame people for that most basic of human instincts the sheer numbers involved such an exodus must be controlled. Sadly, there is little or no control.  However, if host populations are to accept those with a right to stay they must be confident that those with no right to stay are returned to their country of origin.  This is not the case at present as too often lawyers can use existing legislation to frustrate humane return policy. Those third countries who refuse to take back their nationals and who receive EU/national aid must understand the consequences of a refusal to co-operate. 

Recognise migration as a Europe-wide challenge:  It is utterly unfair to expect hard-pressed countries like Spain, Greece and Italy to cope with such flows on their own.  As regular readers of this blog know I am wary of more Europe, but mass migration is one area which needs a common European position.  Relations between EU member-states are already suffering due to a lack of either policy or effective enforcement.  Italy is no longer finger-printing many new arrivals who simply move untracked to other parts of Europe.  France, which under EU rules should be dealing with the migrants seeking to enter Britain from Calais, is threatening to push UK border controls back to Dover to force the British to deal with the problem.  Britain refuses to deal with many of the so-called ‘pull factors’ which make the UK such an attractive destination. Equitable resettlement across Europe is needed to avoid beggar-thy-neighbour national immigration policies. 

Make agencies work together:  A critical element is the interdiction and prosecution of human trafficking gangs.  Europe’s attempt to deal with the traffickers has thus far been lamentable.  Moreover, often migrants refuse to identify their country of origin. However, language and dialect cannot be hidden.  The EU and its member-states must therefore establish a system for quickly identifying the country of origin to help better distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. Schengen Area external border controls must also be strengthened by in turn strengthening Frontex, which is responsible for assisting EU member-states with an external EU border. At present Frontex has only 300 employees in Warsaw.  Much greater effort must also be made to ensure Europol and Frontex work together effectively together which is not the case today.

Recognise the link between immigration and security policy: The focus of late has rightly been on the need to prevent people drowning.  Indeed, it is a disgrace, worse a preventable tragedy, that so many people are losing their lives crossing the Med. However, given the huge cohort of young men amongst the migrants European governments must also take seriously the threat posed to European societies by such immigration.  In February 12 Christian migrants were cast overboard by Islamists.  With ISIS pressing Europe’s borders it would be absurd and dangerous if Europe’s leaders (again) refused to see the link between immigration policy and security policy. 

European politicians and their electorates are both wrong about the exodus. Politicians are wrong to wish the issue away.  Electorates are wrong to believe there are any quick fixes.  The essential dilemma for Europeans is how to maintain humanitarian principles, and at the same time protect societies from the extremism, social instability, wage suppression and crime which unfortunately such mass migrations also spawn.  If this dilemma is not addressed then the whole idea of free movement within Europe could also fail.  Free movement within Europe was sold to the people on the basis that effective controls would be in place to prevent illegal free movement into Europe.  The current ‘policy’ of ‘don’t come but if you do stay’ not only encourages mass illegal migration, it risks breaking the last vestige of trust on this matter between Europe’s leaders and Europe’s led.

Managing mass migration is a strategic issue and as such must be dealt with strategically and honestly through the proper application of existing law. Mass migration must lead to mass returns.

Julian Lindley-French  

Little Britain: Cameron’s True Test

Alphen, Netherlands. 11 May. Friday was David Cameron’s VE Day – Victory over Ed Day.  It was therefore fitting that the three main party leaders Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, together with the successful Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) leader Nicola Sturgeon, honoured their commitment to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in London but a few hours after the British electorate had delivered their crushing verdict.  And, it must be said all four demonstrated British politics at its very best acting in a way that for once did credit to their much-derided profession.  Equally, honouring Britain’s war dead should at the very least have concentrated David Cameron’s mind.  For the past five years he has slipped, slid and spun his way through his premiership, using coalition government to avoid hard decisions beyond the mantra of deficit-reduction.  No more!  With Scotland still threatening to secede from the United Kingdom and with much of England seeking to secede from the European Union the next five years will demonstrate whether David Cameron is a real Prime Minister or the PR-Meister many take him to be.

Scotland must sooner or later be faced down.  The 5 million Scots must be posed a simple question (again) by the 60 million rest of us; are ye wi’ us or agin’ us? “A Scottish lion has roared”, screamed Alex Salmond, the SNP’s bombastic former first minister, as it was announced that the SNP had taken 56 of the 59 Scottish parliamentary seats (out of a UK total of 650).  In fact it was the English lion that roared last week, a lion that lives modestly and by and large quietly in Middle England.  However, when roused it is a far bigger and more ferocious beast than its Scottish cousin and it is getting increasingly irritated by the Scottish pussy cat telling it what it is it demands.   The bottom-line is this; with a £7.5bn black hole in the Scottish budget the SNP’s fantasy leftist, public service addicted economics only make sense if the English, Northern Irish and Welsh continue paying for them.  Cameron must not appease the SNP.

However, it is Britain’s place (or otherwise) in the EU that will come to define his premiership.  With a 2017 in-out EU referendum now a certainty the first two years (at least) of his new term will be dominated by a possible Brexit…as it will dominate the EU.  If Cameron is to successfully generate EU reforms which he could genuinely defend to the British people as real change he will also have to address questions fundamental to the very existence of the EU.  Indeed, the only reform that really matters concerns the safeguarding of British parliamentary sovereignty against future incursion by sovereignty-eroding federalists.  To do that Cameron must destroy what I call the Delors Assumption. 

The Delors Assumption is an elite, Euro-federalist assumption that “ever close union” is inevitable.  And that in time national parliaments will be replaced by the European Parliament, national governments will be replaced by the European Commission, whilst the European Council evolves into a Senate in which heads of member-states/provinces sit.  In other words, Cameron is about to engage in an existential struggle about the nature and future of the EU. 

If he is to succeed he will also have to distinguish between what the EU does and what would have happened anyway in a Europe of relatively rich liberal democracies irrespective of whether Brussels existed or not.  It is certainly the case that the attempt by Brussels to by-pass London and deal directly with Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland via a “Europe of the Regions” has weakened the UK, as was the intent of its architects.  That must be stopped also.

However, free movement of labour is as much a consequence of victory in the Cold War as the EU and pretty much defined what the Cold War was fought for.  Equally, the up to 1 million migrants now trying to get across the Mediterranean to ‘seek a better life’ or escape war and conflict would be happening anyway.  Therefore, it is utterly implausible to believe that as a friend and ally of states like Italy Britain would simply leave them to cope with this influx.

There is however another issue that links both the Scottish and EU questions – Britain’s place in the world.  Some Dutch colleagues of my wife at Tilburg University said that the whole idea of the Brexit referendum was ridiculous because Britain could not survive without the EU.  Apart from demonstrating breath-taking ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of how power and politics works they simply had no idea that Britain is still the world’s fifth largest economy and one of its leading military powers.

There are several reasons for this Little Britain syndrome.  The French and Germans never have nor never will allow Britain to play a role commensurate with its weight in Europe.  Indeed, both Berlin and Paris have long conspired to reduce a first-rank European power to second-rank status and if Britain leaves the EU they will need to bear some responsibility. The Americans take Britain for granted.  Indeed, the Obama administration in particular has treated Britain too often as the 51^st state and a state that is more Delaware than California.

However, the ultimate responsibility for the Little Britain syndrome rests with the Westminster political elite.  The fixation with fixing the economy is on the face of it sound. However, to believe as Cameron seems to that the only thing that matters is austerity at whatever cost to Britain’s standing in the world has proven to be disastrous for British influence.  There is something else at work here.  Many Scots want to leave the UK because they no longer feel proud to be British.  Many English feel the same way – hence the rise of the much narrower and less noble nationalism all too evident in last week’s general election.  In other words, my wife’s Dutch colleagues believe Britain counts for nothing because that is the message London has been sending and it is precisely what many Britons also believe.

Therefore, if Cameron is to succeed with the economy, in Scotland and/or in Europe and the wider world he will need to make the British people as whole feel proud again.  To do that he will need to think again about the strategic brand that makes Britain an influential player.  For that he need look no further than the Cenotaph and the lines of distinguished British veterans being honoured on VE Day for their famous victory and their sacrifice.   

One key component in Britain’s world-wide strategic brand and critical to a Britain that punches above not below its weight is its world-renowned armed forces.  Even the most cursory of glances around the world suggests the need to reinvest in them.  They also act as identity glue that binds England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales together. Therefore, far from the further defence draining cuts the government is threatening to make in the forthcoming Strategic Pretence and Insecurity Review 2015 Cameron must instead honour his September 2014 NATO pledge and spend 2% of Britain’s GDP on defence.

Little Britain: Cameron’s true test.

Julian Lindley-French  

Victory Day Russia 1945-2015

Alphen, Netherlands. 9 May, 2015. Today is Victory Day in Russia commemorating and celebrating Russia’s crucial and critical role in the defeat of Hitler and the evil scourge that was Nazism.  Let me immediately pay tribute to the role the then Soviet Union paid in the defeat of the Nazis and the enormous sacrifice of its peoples.  Up to 28 million Russians died in the Great Patriotic War with 75% of all Nazi forces engaged by General Zhukov’s and General Rokossovky’s Soviet forces.  For all the sacrifice elsewhere defeat of the Nazi’s would quite simply not have been possible but for the herculean Russian effort.  Today, Russians everywhere have a right to feel proud.  Today, as a Briton I offer my profoundest respect to Russia and Russians.

Which makes what I had to say to a senior Russian in Budapest this week all the more necessary, and sadly, all the more regrettable.  My message was blunt.  As a student of Russian Moscow is today charging down a dangerous, strategic blind alley that can only end in either major conflict or major defeat for Russia…or both.  Indeed, the new ‘war’ Moscow is waging against imaginary ‘fascists’ in the West is utterly ill-conceived and can only end in disaster for Russia and quite possibly all of us. 

  

A week or so ago in Rome I acted as Rapporteur for a big NATO meeting that considered Russia’s use of strategic maskirovka/hybrid warfare – that complex mix of deception, disinformation, active destabilisation, aggression and intimidation in which Moscow is currently engaged. Moscow’s aim is to keep the rest of us permanently strategically, politically and militarily off-balance.  As part of that meeting I chaired three of NATO’s top commanders in a discussion about how best to counter Russia’s use of military intimidation.  Today 16,000 Russia troops will march through Red Square supported by the latest Russian tanks and military aircraft, together with two Iskander M mobile tactical nuclear missile launchers.  The show of Russian military might on show today is meant to send a ‘message’ of Russian might to fellow Europeans like me and my leaders.  The message from my NATO commanders was clear; should heaven forbid a shooting war ever break-out in Europe between Russia and NATO Russia would lose.

President Putin is not simply engaged in strategic maskirovka for the sake of it.  His strategy is clearly designed to lever effects at two levels.  At the grand strategic level President Putin is endeavouring to reinvigorate Russia’s strategic brand and the influence and effect Moscow seeks to exert to its east, south, north and, of course, west.  That is why the guest of honour today is President Xi Jingping of China, with the President’s strategic ‘messaging’ to the West loud and clear.  At the domestic level all of this sabre-rattling and sabre-toying is designed to ensure the survival of President Putin domestically by wrapping the Kremlin in an enormous, nostalgic Russian flag.

And, for the record, I regret the refusal of many Western leaders to attend today’s ceremonies in Moscow. Whatever one thinks of Moscow’s use of hybrid warfare in Ukraine it is Russia’s sacrifice and ultimate triumph seventy years ago that 9 May commemorates.  Moreover, I fully understand that Russia has legitimate interests and rights that must be respected. I am also prepared to accept that President Putin is genuine in his world-view.  The President clearly has a classical view of power and does not accept the ‘community’ concept of international relations pioneered by and implicit in the European Union.  He is certainly not ‘duty’ bound to see the world the same way many other Europeans see it.

However, what saddens me most about Russia’s use of hybrid warfare today is the betrayal of political principle it implies.  Worse, I am witnessing the sad retreat of a country which I hold in the highest regard into political cynicism that goes far beyond political realism.  The struggle against Nazism was essentially about the upholding of norms in international relations; that might for might’s sake is not only not right, but never right, and that free peoples have the right to free sovereign choice.  Then Soviet leader Josef Stalin may have disagreed with me about this but my pious hope has always been that contemporary Russia would demonstrate its greatness by championing such ideals and respecting them.  Russia can never be ‘great’ in the way it is behaving today, and does not need to behave this way.

Therefore, as a friend of Russia, I feel deeply disappointed and concerned to see Russia dragging Europe down into the abyss of power balances and spheres of unwanted influence.  Indeed, Ukraine has become but the front-line of a much greater and even more dangerous systemic struggle, and I say that with due respect to the people of Ukraine and their current agony.

In my latest book Little Britain I berate my own country’s leaders for too often turning am major power into a minor one. Russia is also a great country, a great power and a great state.  However, at present it is acting like a stupid one.  As I said in Budapest, there can be no European security without Russia and all of us want Russia to take its rightful place as a leader of the European family.  And, to see that happen we are prepared to be patient and sit down and address sensibly Russian grievances. However, Moscow must understand one thing; we will not negotiate with Russia with a Russian gun pointed to our heads.

There is a reason why Russia celebrates Victory Day on 9 May whilst the rest of us celebrate VE Day on 8 May that is itself indicative.   After British Field Marshal Montgomery took the surrender of all Nazi forces in north-west Europe on 4 May a period a wrangling then took place as to where the final, final, final surrender should be signed.  On 8 May the Nazis surrendered (again) at Rheims to Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force General Dwight D. Eisenhower.  However, at Stalin’s insistence the Nazi’s surrendered (again) in Berlin on 9 May in a ceremony organised and overseen by the Red Army.  Complex though it was the multiple surrenders culminating as they did in the main signing in Berlin was, given Russian sacrifice, entirely appropriate. 

In honour of Russia’s fallen; Za Rodinu! Za Rossiya!

Julian Lindley-French

Victory in Europe

“Yesterday morning at 2:41 a.m. at Headquarters, General Jodl, the representative of the German High Command, and Grand Admiral Doenitz, the designated head of the German State, signed the act of unconditional surrender of all German Land, sea, and air forces in Europe to the Allied Expeditionary Force, and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command.

General Bedell Smith, Chief of Staff of the Allied Expeditionary Force, and General Francois Sevez signed the document on behalf of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, and General Susloparov signed on behalf of the Russian High Command.

Today this agreement will be ratified and confirmed at Berlin, where Air Chief Marshal Tedder, Deputy Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, and General de Lattre de Tassigny will sign on behalf of General Eisenhower. Marshal Zhukov will sign on behalf of the Soviet High Command. The German representatives will be Field-Marshal Keitel, Chief of the High Command, and the Commanders-in- Chief of the German Army, Navy, and Air Forces.

Hostilities will end officially at one minute after midnight tonight, but in the interests of saving lives the "Cease fire" began yesterday to be sounded all along the front, and our dear Channel Islands are also to be freed today.

The Germans are still in places resisting the Russian troops, but should they continue to do so after midnight they will, of course, deprive themselves of the protection of the laws of war, and will be attacked from all quarters by the Allied troops. It is not surprising that on such long fronts and in the existing disorder of the enemy the orders of the German High Command should not in every case be obeyed immediately. This does not, in our opinion, with the best military advice at our disposal, constitute any reason for withholding from the nation the facts communicated to us by General Eisenhower of the unconditional surrender already signed at Rheims, nor should it prevent us from celebrating today and tomorrow as Victory in Europe days.

Today, perhaps, we shall think mostly of ourselves. Tomorrow we shall pay a particular tribute to our Russian comrades, whose prowess in the field has been one of the grand contributions to the general victory.

The German war is therefore at an end. After years of intense preparation, Germany hurled herself on Poland at the beginning of September, 1939; and, in pursuance of our guarantee to Poland and in agreement with the French Republic, Great Britain, the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations, declared war upon this foul aggression. After gallant France had been struck down we, from this Island and from our united Empire, maintained the struggle single-handed for a whole year until we were joined by the military might of Soviet Russia, and later by the overwhelming power and resources of the United States of America.

Finally almost the whole world was combined against the evil-doers, who are now prostrate before us. Our gratitude to our splendid Allies goes forth from all our hearts in this Island and throughout the British Empire.

We may allow ourselves a brief period of rejoicing; but let us not forget for a moment the toil and efforts that lie ahead. Japan, with all her treachery and greed, remains unsubdued. The injury she has inflicted on Great Britain, the United States, and other countries, and her detestable cruelties, call for justice and retribution. We must now devote all our strength and resources to the completion of our task, both at home and abroad. Advance, Britannia! Long live the cause of freedom! God save the King!”

Radio broadcast by Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill, 8 May, 1945

High Politics, Low Politicians - Beware Britain’s Strategy Crisis

This is a big week for Britain.  It is also a big week for the US and NATO as Britain’s ugly baby election campaign stumbles towards its UK-busting nadir on Thursday.  Last week Steve Erlanger wrote an insightful piece in the New York Times that considered Britain’s steady drift from the world stage.  By way of response to Steve’s piece below is a piece I submitted to the NYT in March that explains more deeply the causes of Britain’s precipitous decline which looks as if now it will end in only one possible conclusion – the dismantling of what was perhaps the most influential state in World history over the last five hundred years. 

The slide in British defence investment has been too-easily written off as a consequence of the 2008 financial crash and the need to balance Britain’s books.  In fact, Britain’s defence cuts mask a much deeper existential question; what kind of power should Britain aspire to be in the twenty-first century.   Britain is locked deep in a strategy crisis which if unchecked threatens to destroy the transatlantic security relationship and, in time, NATO.  Washington has slowly begun to recognise the threat, or at least its symptoms.  However, the US is doing nothing like enough to help pull its old friend and ally back from the edge of the strategic precipice over which London now peers.  

In January President Obama warned Prime Minister Cameron about the continuing decline in British defence spending.  In March Britain announced it is joining the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Both events are symptoms of a crisis over the future direction of British national and defence strategy that is tearing London’s High Establishment apart – both political and bureaucratic.

Indeed, London’s much-politicised High Establishment is split between those who believe that soft power is the future and that Britain should accept its place as yet another soft EU power and those that believe Britain can and should still count as a power – political, economic and military. The tired idealists believe that American military adventurism has led Britain to disaster.  The frustrated realists believe that Britain remains a world power, albeit modest in size and ambition, and as such hard military power should remain the bedrock of all British influence and strategic effect.  It is a philosophical and political divide worsened by a strategically-illiterate, inward-looking political class who routinely confuse strategy with politics and who have abandoned any sense of British patriotism to pursue narrow sectarianism.  It is a confusion all-too evident in this most depressing of general election campaigns.

Britain’s EU-leaning foreign policy is run by a generation of politicians and diplomats who have built their career making the little, daily deals that are the stuff of Brussels.  As a group the tired idealists are wholly unprepared for the return of the grand geopolitics implicit in Russian aggression and Chinese assertion or the super-insurgency ISIL is driving across swathes of the Middle East.  Many in this group come from a school which also believes and accepts that Britain’s decline is inevitable and that their job is to manage Britain’s decline ‘successfully’ so that ‘Europe’ can rise in its place. Dream on.

The realists believe that the UK, one of the world’s top five economies and military powers, remains a power to be reckoned with in the world. They also believe that the special relationship with the US is not only Britain’s most important strategic partnership, but the anchor relationship in the wider transatlantic relationship and thus the strategic bedrock upon which NATO is established.  As a group they are by and large unromantic about the US and the much-exaggerated ‘Special Relationship’ but recognise that if the US remains central to British security and defence policy Britain must be able to influence Washington. However, they also understand that much of that influence will be dependent on the capability and capacity of Britain’s sorely-pressed armed forces.

Prime Minister Cameron has been the catalyst for Britain’s strategy crisis but he is not the cause of it.  Equally, Cameron’s determination to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is revealing in and of itself because the only ‘national strategy’ that he seems to understand is mercantilism – his belief that the only ‘strategy’ in world affairs is trade.  This reflects what Labour leader Ed Miliband’s calls Cameron’s “pessimistic isolationism”, and not without reason.  Certainly, Cameron’s government at times bears a striking similarity to Stanley Baldwin’s depression-era appeasement government of the 1930s.  Equally, some of Milliband’s pronouncements reflect the fantasy, unaffordable Utopia into which much of the British political Left have retreated.

NATO is the big loser from Britain’s strategy crisis.  At the September 2014 NATO Wales Summit David Cameron committed Britain to spending at least 2% of its GDP on defence.  The statement was pure Cameron; meant for the moment but nothing more.  If re-elected of Thursday Cameron’s current spending plans suggest that defence will again be savagely cut.  Worse, Cameron has instructed his eminence grise Oliver Letwin to find ways to make it appear Britain is spending 2% of GDP on defence post 2017. Letwin is the architect of Cameron’s retreat from strategy into politics.

The Obama administration has not helped.  The repeated lectures from Washington that Britain must not consider leaving growth-deficient, regulation-hidebound, equally strategically-illiterate Brussels and accept its place in an EU that is deeply ambivalent about its relationship with the U.S. has deepened the divisions in London’s High Establishment.  Clearly, Washington must make up its mind.  The US can either continue to treat Britain like the 52^nd state of the US, insist on a Little Britain remaining embedded in an uncertain and counter-strategic EU. Or, the US can move to preserve the ‘Special Relationship’, help rebuild British strategic self-confidence that the US has helped to crush and again see a Britain that leads in Europe, rather than scuttling away into a rat-hole of declinism which is where Britain is today headed, and which would help no-one.

The bottom-line is this; with US forces stretched thin the world over it is vital that Washington’s NATO allies become effective first-responders in and around Europe.  That was the message of the big NATO conference for which I acted as Rapporteur last week in Rome.  For the sake of the Alliance Britain must be in the vanguard of such a NATO-centred effort.  If Britain is not in NATO’s military vanguard London will become simply another other Europeans; all too happy for the US taxpayer to bear the true cost of Britain’s defence.  Why?  Over the next decade the rise of illiberal military power threatens to eclipse liberal military power.  The Anglo-American special relationship is not what it was.  However, the strategic alignment of these two powers still has within its gift the capacity to stabilise a dangerous world and if needs be strike and punish.

As a British strategist watching my country being led down the plug-hole of history by London’s High Establishment the struggle between tired idealists, frustrated realists and plug-hole politicians is perhaps the most depressing professional event of my now long career.  Those that take a perverse pleasure in seeing the fall of the country that prevented tyranny in Europe twice this past century, and there are many such fools, may wish to pause. Britain’s strategy crisis is not just America’s strategy crisis, it could also mark the end of NATO and mark the end of political balance within Europe.

High politics, low politicians. It is not just Britain's future that is at stake on Thursday.

Julian Lindley-French

Hybrid Warfare: NATO needs a Stoltenberg Doctrine

Rome, Italy. 1 May. Manfred Wӧrner had one. George Robertson had one. NATO needs a Stoltenberg Doctrine – a galvanising and clarifying statement of intent that would define Secretary-General Stoltenberg’s tenure. The need is pressing in the face of the new threats the Alliance is facing. A Stoltenberg Doctrine would be thus: the re-forging of a true political-military alliance via the regeneration of strategic and political unity of effort and purpose to combat the wars being waged against the seams of Allied societies and polities by the likes of Russia and Islamic State.  Critically, a Stoltenberg Doctrine would help close perhaps the most dangerous of NATO’s many seams – the growing gap between Alliance political and military leaders.  Russia’s use of so-called hybrid warfare; the planned and skilled mix of disinformation, destabilisation and intimidation is a dangerous gambit to force Eastern European states back into Moscow’s sphere of influence. 

My reason for being in Rome was to act as Rapporteur for a high-level conference at Major-General Bojarski’s excellent NATO Defence College entitled NATO and New Ways of Warfare: Defeating Hybrid Threats.  It was an outstanding conference as testified by the twenty-six pages of notes I must now forge into a coherent and concise report. However, excellent though the conference was I was struck by the absence of any politician from any of NATO’s twenty-eight nations, and not for the first time.

The gap between political leaders and those charged with military leadership is an ever-more apparent and dangerous phenomenon.  The result is what I call “summititis.”  No, it is not some form of urinary tract infection, but it can be even more painful.  Rather, “summititis” is where political leaders agree to Sherpa- drafted declarations that they neither understand nor own. The 2014 Wales Summit Declaration saw a particularly painful dose of “summititis” contracted.  David Cameron’s ‘do as I say, not what I do’ exhortation to other NATO leaders to spend a 2% of GDP on defence which he had no intention of fulfilling was particularly painful.

Stoltenberg I would see the re-invigoration of the 2010 NATO Strategic Concept at the 2016 Warsaw Summit through the realignment of collective defence, crisis management and co-operative security (although why the Warsaw Summit is being held just before the 2016 US presidential elections strikes me as both bad strategy and even worse politics).  Both Russia and IS are exploiting the implied division between the three pillars of the Strategic Concept by destabilising the home political base of Alliance nations upon which NATO defence solidarity is founded.  

Stoltenberg II would realign ill-thought through Alliance initiatives/sound-bites that have dripped into Alliance planning since 2010, more often to fill a political void that galvanise action.  These include Smart Defence, NATO Forces 2020 and the Connected Forces Initiative none of which have any real planning traction. The focus for Stoltenberg must be the full spectrum implementation of the Readiness Action Plan agreed at the Wales Summit to provide credible forward deterrence and implied forward defence for Eastern European allies.  My sense at the moment is that the Alliance has simply created yet more acronyms but no more forces. Indeed, as someone said at the conference, “when in doubt form a committee”.

Stoltenberg III would offer something genuinely new; the creation of an Alliance concept of hybrid warfare.  Ironically, ‘hybridity’ is itself nothing new.  To paraphrase Clausewitz, hybrid warfare is simply the continuation of naughty politics by nefarious means via a defection from the rules and norms that render international relations peaceful. Thus, the best way to counter hybrid warfare is hybrid warfare, i.e. the exploitation of the political and societal seams of an adversary.  Take Russia.  If Moscow continues to intimidate NATO’s Baltic allies with snap exercises then NATO should devote at some exercises that imply the swift removal of Kaliningrad from the Russian strategic and political orb, even if that means calling Russia’s bluff over its implied use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Above all, a Stoltenberg Doctrine would provide a coherent strategic ‘message’ demonstrating NATO’s comparative advantages to political masters.  In effect, a Stoltenberg Doctrine would offer a compelling vision for a new balance between strategy, military capability and capacity, and all-important value-for-money affordability.  The reason NATO leaders are paying only lip-service to the Alliance is that NATO is NOT a political priority.  Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its destabilisation of “NATO Strategic Direction East” is seen as politically inconvenient for the main thrust of debt-ridding austerity in Europe.  The raging scourge of IS in “NATO Strategic Direction South” is seen as politically inconvenient because politicians would rather not face the seams that have opened up in many Alliance societies by a failure to integrate minority communities.  Both threats must be confronted and whilst NATO could not prevail alone NATO still has a vital role to play is Europe’s borders are again to be stabilised.

Winston Churchill once said: “True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous and conflicting information”.  That is the essence of the hybrid warfare challenge which will dominate Secretary-General Stoltenberg’s tenure at NATO’s political helm.  Since his October 2014 appointment Stoltenberg has rightly taken time to consider NATO’s position in the changing geopolitics of Europe and the world.  However, the honeymoon period is now over. NATO needs a Stoltenberg Doctrine and fast.

And, I suppose, I had better get on and write that report.

Julian Lindley-French