A guest post from AJ
US / NATO alliance
There is a policy shift on the horizon, and it is not necessarily a positive one for the UK, or indeed the rest of Europe. America is making noises about shifting its defence agenda away from NATO.
The US is underwhelmed by European investment in Defence, and is no longer prepared to prop up the defence capabilities of these countries. Indeed, the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, abruptly said as much in his last major speech before retirement.
Headlines run by The BBC, Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Economist range from US Secretary of Defence ‘Blasts NATO’; ‘Warns of dim future’; or ‘Questions capabilities of the alliance’.
What he said was: “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence,”
This thought has been in the background for a couple of years already, with the US complaining about the lack of European defence expenditure, but it has now been thrust into the public domain for all to see. While it can be taken with a slight pinch of salt – Gates is on the way out, and therefore can be a bit heavier with his comments – his speech must serve as a warning shot to Europe and The UK. Gates will not be alone in this assumption, and he most certainly would not have made those comments off the cuff – they would have been strategically planned.
While Governments across Europe, and the world, are having to make significant budget cuts to deal with large financial deficits, The US has taken the stance that Defence is a budget that will not be cut; one that is too important to disrupt. Europe has taken a different view.
A recent study commissioned by the European Parliament, ‘The Impact of the Financial Crisis on European Defence’, has concluded that Europe’s security ambitions are being severely hampered by the global economic crisis, with some countries set to lose the ability to shape defence policy altogether.
This, coupled with the changing rhetoric from the US, suggests a bleak future for Europe’s military capabilities, and suggests that the European defence industry could start heavily focusing on the emerging markets such as Brazil, India, and Saudi Arabia.
The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)
All this has some potentially wide reaching ramifications, not least for The UK. The UK SDSR was conducted under the proviso that any future involvement in future conflicts would be largely supporting a US-led operation. However the change in rhetoric must serve as a strong warning that this may not be the case in the future. The Libya conflict is laying this to bear.
The MoD budget was always going to be the most difficult to manage and cut amongst the Government departments, with its £38 billion black hole, and complicated procurement systems. The SDSR set about identifying and managing the process of cuts and was undertaken with key themes ingrained into all decisions. One was that the UK should maintain a dynamic, streamlined and yet strong military capability. Another, as mentioned, was the assumption that where the UK trod militarily, the US would be leading the way financially and militarily.
Air Marshall Stuart Atha, Head of Joint Capability pointedly said recently that the US stance on Libya is proof that “the strategic calculus is changing”. Financially, Libya is not a primary MoD headache as the Treasury reserve fund is funding the offensive. However, from a capability point of view it points to a renewed questioning of the SDSR and the cuts being enforced.
In recent weeks, The First Sea Lord, the Head of the RAF, and the Head of the Army have questioned the UKs forward capabilities. These are not voices to be taken lightly. While the Prime Minister warned that they should do the fighting, while he does the talking, the defence industry should take note of this. If these voices get any louder, how long will it be before strategic decisions are re-evaluated?
The UK, along with France, is the major military power in Europe. Whilst this is not likely to change, the overall military and strategic power of Europe is waning, which is having a direct impact on NATO. One thing is certain.
Defence is fast becoming a headache for The Prime Minister. One that from an international relations view point is an important one and one that he cannot afford to dither on.
“The US has taken the stance that Defence is a budget that will not be cut”
On the contrary I’m sure that some massive cuts are headed for the DoD.
The US has never been happy with European defence spending. The US will as ever follow its interests. In the Cold War we needed one another, know, as the world shifts its focus there will be times when we do not need each other.
A parting of interests is to be perfectly expected when one party abuts onto a part of the world that Europe does not. Whilst we definately should not burn our bridges neither should the policies of the United States always be our focus.
Completely wrong about the US defence budget. It will be cut, but like every other part of the US budget politics is ensuring it will not be yet. Secondly, a dramatic wind down of US operations in Middle East would result in considerable reductions without having to chip away too hard at the main DoD budget.
As for the SDSR, event have not cast doubt on it. What has undermined it is that whoever decided to put the word “Strategy” in the title had not bothered to find out what it means. The document contains nothing on strategy and is utterly unrevealing on the subject of UK foreign policy.
Overall, I agree very much with what you say. America is becoming increasingly disenchanted with bearing the brunt of NATO commitments and will act decisively before long.
However, being slightly dull-witted today, I am not really sure what you are driving at in the following statements:
“In recent weeks, The First Sea Lord, the Head of the RAF, and the Head of the Army have questioned the UK’s forward capabilities. These are not voices to be taken lightly . . . If these voices get any louder, how long will it be before strategic decisions are re-evaluated?”
“Defence is fast becoming a headache for The Prime Minister. One that from an international relations view point is an important one and one that he cannot afford to dither on.”
Will the strategic decisions be re-evaluated by an increase in defence spending (something which I and many others want) or are you merely advocating a re-allocation of existing sources so that priority is given to the more important roles, equipments, etc.?
I’m not entirely comfortable with NATO being used as an umbrella for every US involved multi-national task that comes along.
Many countries, politicians and citizens in Europe only see NATO as a device for territorial defence – not as a roving offensive force, finding wars half a world away from any of it’s member states.
Efforts have been made to re-define NATO to keep it relevant, but not all members have moved along with it. Perhaps a new organization is needed.
From agreeing with Bob’s “whoever decided to put the word “Strategy” in the title [of SDSR] had not bothered to find out what it means. The document contains nothing on strategy and is utterly unrevealing on the subject of UK foreign policy” I move onto Phil’s
“parting of interests is to be perfectly expected when one party abuts onto a part of the world that Europe does not”
- they look West
- we look East
… and we meet again, maybe not in the South China Sea, but Malacca Straits
Hi BB,
The same argument as two-speed Europe (which is a valid one!): “Efforts have been made to re-define NATO to keep it relevant, but not all members have moved along with it. Perhaps a new organization is needed.”
- the problem is that WEU was collapsed into EU
- that was on the false premise that EU would have a foreign policy…
- then it could be taken that Defence Policy is only a continuation of foreign policy (by other means)
- when the first one didn’t happen, the other one can’t happen either
- the nations that took it seriously, and invested in kit and training, rather than just double-hatting formations are by now sick and tired of it
- they will withdraw funding
We will not get any peace-making (I am not saying whether that would be a valid concept or not); we are simply back to the Blue Helmets, paid for by UN or some other budget
The purpose of NATO is perhaps in its current form odd, ie attacking people rather then one single threat such as the cold war. But none the less it has all the systems and what not in place to do so, so to go outside of it would be stupid, because you’ll end up replicating it.
What needs to be done about NATO is reform. One which the likes of the USA, France, UK can do war, while the other half such as Germany is defence of its territories. But it needs to be public, perhaps under another name or 2 different organizations which can work together.
As for the US defence budget, it will have cuts, it seems mental they want to rise the debt limit, they’ve got to at at least tackle some of that debt (not halving it in so many years like us, but at least reduce it) This could be anything quite simple as getting rid of a few hundred aircraft, 1 or 2 carriers and then subs. That itself isn’t such a bad thing, you can train soldiers, pilots, sailors, you can store equipment(yes it costs to maintain still, but you still got savings) Problem is you can’t magic nuclear subs and carriers into service because they are very complex and very dangerous, so they still might hang around while future fleet sees reductions.
Europe defence at the moment is all over the place. The UK wants to fight wars but refuses to spend the money and sort it acts at. France is probably less experienced currently compared to the UK but has equipment, but will be affected by less money in europe defence market.
Now the Germans on the other hand are just infuriating. They seems quite happy to flog tanks and aircraft but don’t really have any political will to fight that much! I can see why we hear rumours of the UK doing defence projects with only France!
Oh yeah and sod the EU when it comes to foreign and defence policy, too many cooks etc etc Not going to happen because quite frankly the EU is a con and a mess and I’m pro Europe! I want to do more with Europe but current things like the EU can really put the stick in the spokes.
Oh, I didn’t finish the thought:
The thinking has been, at least for ten years, that for Africa (trouble there) French & British formations can do the spearhead intervention, and the spear will follow
- are we now back to the question whether there is only the spearhead?
- NATO & out of area commitments?
- EU and the same? Including near-abroad
A review of the Pen & Sword book “The Armed Forces of the European Union 2012-2013″ by Charlie Heyman from James Daly’s History Blog
http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/the-armed-forces-of-the-european-union-2012-2013-by-charlie-heyman/
@ ACC
“Near abroad” is a very Russian term……
Hi x
Balkans (I know, EU is creeping in there, far too fast)
- why don’t we have admission tests?
The unpopular desert wars have maybe made people forget that we get more from a military partnership with the US than they get from us.
Mutual back scratching is a big part of our defence posture. If we (the UK, Europe, extra-american NATO, whoever) reach the point of having nothing worthwhile to offer America, then we really will have shot ourselves in the foot.
For each additional billion spent (wisely) on defence here, we potentially unlock ten times that value in US help when the next libya or yugoslavia comes along.
I find little in this post to disagree with.
As pointed out above ‘strategic’ was missing from the recent review. Financial reality will kick the door in on most of the plans for ‘intervention’ capability etc. A lot of the wishfull thinking about our ability to ba any kind of world power is about us hanging on US coat tails.
This announcement is really in the ‘stating the bleedin obvious’ catagory.
@ ACC
There are fiscal tests for EU entry. And with NATO certain command control technologies and protocols have to be introduced into the applicant’s forces.
Hi x,
I was thinking of being a bit more rigorous:
- not sending billions to Bulgarian organised crime to appropriate (Romania has done better, or is at least trying); both were let in as part of the “promise” to liberate them from the “evil” Russians (thanks America; can we send the bill?)
- with ex-Jugoslavia there actually seems to be some kind of policy; except that we liberated the Albania/ Kosovar gangs that no one, now, seems to be able to stop from infiltrating the rest of Europe… when the well known destination for stolen hi-spec Mercs finally was forced to take action on them, three ministers were left without carriage
And then, about fiscal tests, the Greeks cooked the books; EU knew about it; it was politically expedient… and look where we are now
x, are you sure you did IR (with economics)?
I was a security studies bod. I only ended up doing GPE (not true economics) for a semester for timetable reasons.
Hi x,
This is a good place, we all come together and share.
My security studies ended when I volunteered for the national military intelligence (the deputy head was my friend’s father): we don’t take volunteers, might get infiltrated, you know
Next; a paratrooper then (in this case it is really about recce or guerilla actions, rather than any air assault)
- a loose kidney; rejected again (would die by hopping off anywhere higher than 3 m)
What did I end up with: Marine recce – what a miserable job, always wet (regardless of the weather being in minus or plus degrees)
@ ACC
Why would anybody want to jump out of a perfectly good serviceable aircraft? The mind boggles.
hmmmm, going slightly off track here, if the US wants to mothball stuff to save money (i’d actually read that as well), would it be worth banging in an offer for some upgraded A-10Cs. Now i know i’m opening myself up for a slating here but timmy tornado is struggling, typhoon is ‘kin expensive to run. A slack handful could easily replace some tornados one for one, we’ve using them for ages in the stan (and my opinion better than tornado for A2G support for guys on a 2 way range)so our FAC’s have experience, me personally i hope they do have a fire sale must be oodles of stuff AAV-7 for the commandos anyone? (runs away and hides)
Try this for EU economics!
EU budget= 134bn Euros and rising.
Every year half (Half!) of this budget cannot be readily accounted for. The European Commission itself states that 10%-20% of the EU budget is spent fraudulently, that’s between 13bn and 26bn Euros a year up in smoke!
If George Osborne is serious about re-balancing the UK economy and building a manufacturing base, I would strongly suggest defence manufacturing be given a very high priority. Not least because if U.S defence companies scale back in the face of DOD cuts, the last place I would be looking for greater defence co-operation would be the financially illiterate EU.
“The UK SDSR was conducted under the proviso that any future involvement in future conflicts would be largely supporting a US-led operation. However the change in rhetoric must serve as a strong warning that this may not be the case in the future.”
I’m not sure this is strictly true, the US was pretty heavily involved in the SDSR, at least in so far as consultation is concerned, so while Libya might have been a surprise i don’t think the US’s reaction will have been.
@ Paul G
I would love a ride in an AAV7. But I wouldn’t want to go to war in one. No sir. Have you ever seen footage of AAV diving off the aft ramp of LSTs?
@ Jedi
Yes I thought that too about SDSR and the US. I think we are still trusted by the US. If for no other reason than we are Air Strip One for Europe. The US will be a global player for a long time yet.
Where you from ACC?
A10s are very potent. But they are a one trick pony and not even the US can indulge in one trick very much anymore. We should have bought them when they were new and cheap.
I understand that the US was consulted about the SDSR, but it doesn’t mean that the liked the outcome. They probably helped to keep the budget at 2% though.
@TD, I think you are right to question the underlying assumptions of the defence review. To me, both the assumption that US / UK strategic objectives will always align and that NATO is a cornerstone of our defence are shaky to say the least.
The primary purpose of NATO (defence of Europe from Russia) is not required anymore. It has tried to find new roles (e.g. Afghanistan) but this is only taken seriously by the few top members. For me it is time for it to go and be replaced by a joint EU defence treaty (not single EU defence force mind). This is something all EU nations can sign up to and play their part.
UK worldwide capabilities will then be primarily focused around close interoperability with France (and to a lesser extent the Netherlands). By this I mean that each will mirror each other’s capabilities so will able to conduct limited operations independently, but can easily join for larger scale interventions. They will also share overseas bases and patrolling duties.
Partnership with the US will still remain important, but not on an every day basis as now, and also in tandem with the French. Commonwealth ties will also play their part though on the whole more through foriegn policy than defence. The only exceptions to this would be Canada, Australia, Singapore and NZ where closer defence training and bilateral treaties should remain.
I have been promoting this kind of line “it is time for it to go and be replaced by a joint EU defence treaty (not single EU defence force mind). This is something all EU nations can sign up to and play their part.
UK worldwide capabilities will then be primarily focused around close interoperability with France (and to a lesser extent the Netherlands). By this I mean that each will mirror each other’s capabilities so will able to conduct limited operations independently, but can easily join for larger scale interventions. They will also share overseas bases and patrolling duties.”
- the last bit is becoming more and more important, on the lines that the French host a US base in Djibouti and UK/USA share the Ascencion airfield (just a staging post,though).
Hi Phil,
I have deep sympathy with other “northerners” (I’m from Finland, known to the long time readers of the site).
@ repulse – “For me it is time for it to go and be replaced by a joint EU defence treaty (not single EU defence force mind).”
I argued the same in the article critical reaction commissioned me for.
But, not purely for the sake of european defence, rather as a way of maintaining influence with the US by being able to assemble and lead european coalitions of joint atlantic interests.
Our interest in influencing washington will not go away, they will remain the worlds foremost and most active military and diplomatic power for the next fifty years, for at least a generation after the lose the crown of biggest economy.
To return to my favourite speech – Houghton to the Washinton brass in the days after the SDSR was published:
“But first, I would like to make some general points about where the SDSR leaves our relationship with the US
Our analysis of future threats matches closely that of the US – no doubt a reflection of our shared perspectives and priorities. We have worked closely with the DoD during its drafting. There have even been Department of Defense officials working within our Strategy Unit – just as we have in theirs.
The relationship has been based on working extremely closely in the military, intelligence and nuclear spheres.
Britain expects to continue to play a major role in world affairs. Otherwise the government could not have justified spending 2% of our GDP on defence at a time of financial difficulty.
We recognise that we need to invest in enablers if we want to be capable of acting around the globe, alone if necessary and as a credible major player in coalition operations.
The UK government will, as a priority, seek to help to stabilise the world, to prevent and contain conflict.”
http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/articles-and-analysis/sir-nick-houghtons-speech-to-the-centre-for-strategic-and-international-studies-washington-dc-2nd-november-2010
I have always said this speech deserves more attention.
repulse, jbt:
“For me it is time for it to go and be replaced by a joint EU defence treaty (not single EU defence force mind).”
See the Treaty of Lisbon:
“Article 42:
7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_treaty
It’s already ratified; all it needs is some public attention to this article…
I am aware of that Sven, but such credibility as it has rests on the back of the national commitments of constituent NATO nations, all else is just words.
But, and we return to your bugbear, what is being referred to here is not purely national defence, rather it is how we can create a credible actor out of european nations when it comes the elective use of military power.
European Geostrategy would argue that this can only be achieved by a federal EU:
http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2011/06/21/a-new-long-telegram/
I would argue that would be counter productive.
But that is goal.
It would be better to have a smaller NATO, made up of countries that were singing in harmony, than the current set-up.
Leave the territorial defence issues to another treaty, as suggested above. NATO would then be better placed to fulfill the wider aims that were set out in the 1990 London declaration and others since – to respond to the more abstract crises that may arise.
‘”The UK government will, as a priority, seek to help to stabilise the world, to prevent and contain conflict.”’
No strategic over stretch there then…
Brian Black
That is an idea I had not considered it would sem to have many attractions, if you like a ‘Coalition of the willing’.
“It would be better to have a smaller NATO, made up of countries that were singing in harmony, than the current set-up.”
It has been suggested that NATO ditch unanimity for non Article 5 events, allowing coalitions of the willing to use nato for elective objectives……..
“…the elective use of military power.”
That’s usually a stupid idea, save for anti-genocide interventions. But even those can go very wrong.
The cost:benefit ratio sucks. Stupid politicians grab into many hornet’s nest thinking they’re honey kegs … all the time.
Simply don’t do wars of choice, and don’t ever dare to sum them up in a “defence” context. Wars of choice are neither about national security nor about national defence.
They’re about bullying others.
that is the essence of R2P, yes.
whatever the justification, the politicians want significant expeditionary effect, and until that ambition is curbed that is what defence planners must provide…….. even if it means a less ’rounded’ defence capability.
Can someone give me some links re R2P? I had never heard of it until I came here and would obviously like to brush up.
Here we go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1674
- UN keeps a data base about the goings-on, but i don’t think it has much impact on proposals/ decisions
@jedibeeftrix
“But, not purely for the sake of european defence, rather as a way of maintaining influence with the US by being able to assemble and lead european coalitions of joint atlantic interests.”
I think this where are views part. Europe is collectively rich and technologically advanced enough to defend itself. This is a point of principe and a necessity with US focus turning west. The legal framework may be in place, but we are not aligning capabilities or organizing ourselves to make it a practical reality.
Libyia is showing NATO to be a fragmented organization. The fact that through it we are reliant on joint services such as in flight refueling shows that it is not fit for the UK / French global interventionist view of the world. We should effectively split NATO into two.
The first part is the EU defence pact. This would involve all European nations and it’s sole existence would be defence. If European defence procurement and structures were in place the UK could effectively spend less than half it’s current budget on defence of the UK itself.
The second would be a joint UK / French global defence capability which would be responsible for protection of overseas dependencies and interventions either with or without the US. There is fundamental opposition from other European nations to do this at an EU level.
We have often talked about splitting the mod’s structure into Coastal and Expeditionary commands, but the above lends itself to this argument.
@ Repulse –
“We should effectively split NATO into two. The first part is the EU defence pact. This would involve all European nations and it’s sole existence would be defence. The second would be a joint UK / French global defence capability which would be responsible for protection of overseas dependencies and interventions either with or without the US.”
While I have no problem with this, we might want to ask eastern europe whether they think european defence on the Western Steppes is anything more than moralising and posturing from Prima-Donna pacifists in western europes?
I think those on europes periphery, particularly those trapped between the 20th century Great Powers, will tell us quite bluntly that ESDP is worthless nonsense, and that anyone relying on such a flimsy construction is a dangerous fool.
Their security is guaranteed by the US and NATO, and that is a deadly serious position that we in this island nation (oops, sorry admin), perhaps do not give sufficient understanding to!
@ Phil –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
I think this is case of adding apples and pears and coming up with carrots.
The US isn’t withdrawing from Europe because they are peeved with the lack of spending by Europeans; they are simply recognising that Europe is no longer anybodies front line and they are taking their assets to the new front line in Asia and elsewhere. Given that reason for the drawdown of US forces in Europe the logic isn’t in that aspect to argue that Europeans are not spending enough on defence.
The issue is that to the US things military, including NATO, are all about confronting the enemy wherever the enemy exists. To the Europeans NATO was all about defending Europe. If Europe doesn’t need defending then the European view is ‘what’s the problem in not spending so much money?’ What Gates is getting at is that as the US moves to a new front line elsewhere on the globe they know that the Europeans have no intention of going with them.
Talk of re-opening the SDSR because the US is leaving Europe lacks basis for the same reason. Is someone suggesting the UK should replace the assets the US withdraws from Europe. Why would you do that?
Richard W
I agree with everything you have said, however much of UK policy since Suez has been ‘whatever uncle sam wants uncle sam gets (if we can give it to him).’
The US leaving europe rather punctures our pretensions, unless we are prepared to shape up and equip to follow him.
@jedibeeftrix,
I’ve often wondered if the US is part of the problem when it comes to Eastern Europe. Would Russia feel less threatened by the EU tor example. The fact is that organised properly (with a nuclear deterrent) the EU is more than a match for Russia. The US gives it an agressive edge which is no longer needed. I’m not saying the EU does not need to grow some balls, but it is time Europe stood on its own two feet.
“The fact is that organised properly the EU is more than a match for Russia.”
And that just there is the core of the problem, and eastern europe remains justifiably sceptical.
Russia has been suspicious of the West for 1000 years. Soviet defence policy was essentially the same as Tsarist defence policy. Platitudes from some third rate politicians from an alliance that doesn’t have legitimacy from below is hardly going to calm their fears.
Russia, because of its size and its position will always remain relevant on the international stage. It can reach every important region by land and has access to the Pacific, Atlantic and Mediterranean Oceans. It also has huge natural resources.
It has been the bogeyman of Europe for many centuries, waxing and waning over the years but always having that latent potential because of its size and position.
You therefore have this world giant, and a very fearful world giant, with a completely legitimate security fear from their point of view and indeed probably from the point of viewpoint of any international realist.
At the moment, because of great demographic and economic and political woes this great potential power is slumbering. And I say slumbering and not dormant because every now and then it will flex its feeble muscle, which, even for its feebleness still threatens to locally and instantly overwhelm nearly a quarter of a century of defence thinking and posture.
It is entirely within the realms of possibility that the Russian Northern Fleet could start to use its submarines in an aggressive Cold War manner almost overnight, there are pictures of Typhoons intercepting Bear aircraft for example. These acts represent no great change in the strategy of the Russian Federation (merely their scale has changed) but would undermine the defence postures of Europe and the US.
We have moved on, the Russians have not.
And when they regain their strength, which they will at some point, we will all be dragged back to an era we thought we had left behind, the era of continental congress, of great alliances, of balances of power, in short, the bread and butter of the post Westphalian settlement.
The Russians are powerful, they are fearful and they are likely at some point in the future to become dangerous for those very reasons again.
Europe is no backwater just because its main threat is slumbering at the moment and focus can shift elsewhere. It is an innovative, pluralistic, democratic, stable and free continent which translates to enormous potential power – economic and military. It also has a sad record of able to become rabidly vicious if interests are fundamentally threatened.
My point is that whilst whatever Russia does we remain a country that is globally engaged, as is Europe as a whole, we have been given the luxury of being able to focus on this engagement without having to worry about our front door. We think the situation has changed, but the power that has the ability to sharply bring our focus back to Europe, doesn’t think a damn thing has changed apart from the fact that the West is now an even bigger threat than it has ever been, encroaching more and more into its sphere of influence.
It is an example of how things on the international stage can change so much but still, at its core, stay the same. This is why we must keep a flexible posture and one that remains able to regenerate in the medium to long term.
Russia’s size and position will always make it an important player, but its population and economy will ensure it stays third rank players.
Carnegie predict it to be only the tenth largest economy by 2050.
HSBC predict it to be only the fifteenth largest economy by 2050.
Citi-Group optimistically predict it to be the seventh largest economy by 2050.
None of that alters it’s physical position, natural resource reserves or its mindset and thus its latent threat to our interests. Nor do I particularly think that basing power entirely on predicted economic performance has much to recommend it. Power is much more than just money. But in anycase I am merely using it as an example of the variety of considerations that must be taken into account in defence planning. We all think we have left an era behind but a potentially powerful state doesn’t see this at all, it sees the world as as much if a threat as ever even if some of the details have changed. They are still thinking in the same way. And it wouldn’t take too much effort for them to begin forcing us back to thinking in terms of inter state conflict on the cold war / post Westphalian model ie fighting a general war.
Bugger can’t edit.
Anyway, we can concentrate on global engagement at the expense of planning for a general war only at the pleasure of Russia. In other words, our defence planning is a slave to potential threats and a resurgent Russia of some kind is one of those threats. Now that may seem fanciful but who in 1917 would have thought that thirty years later that a Communist regime based in Moscow would have destroyed its former enemy and gone on to dominate a huge chunk of Europe and menace the rest of it.
One needs an open and receptive mind to adequately plan for the future, especially in defence since so many of its capabilities can take some time to regenerate.
On a grand strategic basis if you like, Russia could potentially represent a renewed and credible threat to European security, a threat that the United States cannot possibly ignore since neither continent can continue to exist in the fashion it has become accustomed to without the other. Our fates are interlinked. One might say the same of China and the United States in the near future, and that would be true also – and then we have the nightmare scenario for the US of a grand strategic threat on two fronts, in the Pacific and Europe if Russia were to recover its military strength – the same nightmare scenario of 1941.
Times and details change often and emphasis and interests change and evolve, but certain underlying and fundamental geopolitical realities remain constant for much much longer.
“In other words, our defence planning is a slave to potential threats and a resurgent Russia of some kind is one of those threats”
I take no issue with that, but there is a reason it is classed as a tier 3 threat:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Factsheet2-National-Security-Risk-Assessment.pdf
I never said it was anything other. I just argued that it is a potential threat. And indeed as you point out it is also seen as one by Govt. But of course that is now. The policy recognises the need to be flexible. Japan would no doubt have been a tier three threat in the early twenties. But it’s potential wasn’t lost on many.
NATO is dead.
If we act quickly, we can save the NATO Standards that will allow multinational battlegroups to act seamlessly, componant assets communicating as easily and completely as one nation.
We wont, and a few years from now, all of our gear will be speaking different languages, and cooperation will be lost.
The idea that Germany will be suffering three million dead to save Poland from Russia is laughable, at the moment, its more likely to partition it again