Warfare is changing by the day, but Britain is still decades behind
When Lord George Robertson led the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in 1997, the GDP of the UK was greater than those of China and India combined. America reigned supreme, the only other superpower, the Soviet Union, having slowly dissolved after losing the Cold War eight years previously.
Lord George is back as one of three leads of the latest SDR, widely expected to be published on Monday. But the geostrategic landscape is very different now. No longer can we afford to luxuriate in that uni-polar moment of Western and Nato supremacy. China, Iran and North Korea are functioning surprisingly well as a de facto alliance in supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine.
And that is a real war of national survival, not the politically caveated, limited military interventions of the global war on terrorism. This is war at speed and scale, a war mixing the timeless requirements of industrial production with the cutting-edge technologies of the digital age: smart sensors, big-data, cloud connectivity, artificial intelligence, robotics.
The new ways of warfare are evolving at dizzying speed. Technical evolution, the obsolescence cycle, is now measured in weeks. Dual-use technology – that with civil and military utility – is blended with more conventional munitions; decades-old assumptions are upended overnight; the ways and means of warfare are being comprehensively disrupted. Historically, this is a change that happens every century or so: Napoleon's Levée en Masse, sail to steam, the aeroplane. That a superpower's navy has, in the Black Sea, been defeated by a country without a navy is a wake up call to all.
And here lies the big risk – the victor's paradox. 'Top Dogs' are loath to shed that which put them on top, that in which they have made big investments and of which they are masters. Paradigm shifts are the opportunity for smart challengers to abandon the previous, flagging chase and master the emerging world quicker than the current champions can adapt.
China, especially, has had a plan to do exactly this for the last few decades, with massive investments in, inter alia, cyber, AI and hypersonic missiles to add a technological edge to the military mass it has built in parallel: its navy now has more ships than America's. It is using Ukraine, and Kashmir, as a proving ground. Russia has learned (slowly, as it is a corrupt kleptocracy) with grim determination the lessons of modern warfare – exemplified by its recent invention of fibre-optically steered drones. It also knows how to mobilise a war economy.
In contrast, and despite much pumped-up rhetoric, most of Nato, including the UK, has demonstrated a reluctance to abandon the old paradigm. Yes, we have bought some drones, but we have bought them as if we were buying sophisticated manned warplanes. We may be buying them slightly quicker now, but these are percentage changes on a system that still takes years, and millions of pounds, to buy tens. Ukraine is on schedule to make four million drones this year.
Allied to that is that Western militaries have mirrored a society that has become ever more regulated and risk averse. The British Army is down to 14 artillery pieces, which were bought as stop-gaps. There is still no certification and so no clearance to fire them on a UK range. Similar restrictions apply to innovative drone training – but what if one crashes?
The paradox here is that by trying to eradicate every small risk we make the big one – war – more likely. Ultimately we aim to deter, and deterrence depends on credibility. Credibility hinges on the proven military capability to win and the political will to engage with force and see it through. Small forces, a limited production capacity and supply chain to rapidly expand and evolve them, and a risk averse culture that trains and employs them will not impress allies or deter enemies.
The SDR's other authors alongside Lord George are Fiona Hill, a proven free-thinker, and General Richard Barrons who was one of the first to write about this changing paradigm ten years ago. Their SDR should not be read as recent reviews have been – a relative tally of platform numbers and the size of the residual, 'bonsai' military. That paradigm was already broken several defence reviews ago – tweaking it is but to fiddle with the increasingly irrelevant.
The reader should ask instead: to what extent is this a root and branch reform of our now sclerotic system, and to what extent is it going to re-orientate our whole Defence Enterprise – MOD Head Office processes and accountabilities, agile adaptation and procurement, secure supply chains, rapid adoption of technological advances, expansion of reserve forces?
If it charts a clear path to a revised 'theory of winning' that can credibly generate a wartime force with the mass and lethality to defeat our foes then it will be a good review. If it continues the usual horse-trading between the individual services over their peacetime structure then it will have been a missed opportunity. With the US making it clear that Europe must look after its own defence we have no safety net if we get it wrong. But America's position gives us an opportunity as well: the chance, the obligation, to show genuine leadership in Europe.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
35 minutes ago
- New York Times
Nearly All Remaining Voice of America Employees Could Be Fired in Proposed Restructuring
The Trump administration notified Congress this week of a plan that would eliminate nearly all of the remaining employees at Voice of America, a federally funded news network that provides independent reporting to countries with limited press freedom. The staff count at Voice of America would shrink from roughly 1,400 journalists and administrative staff to less than 20 as part of the proposed restructuring, according to a letter dated Tuesday and addressed to Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. About a third of those 1,400 workers have already been laid off, however, as the administration has moved rapidly to dismantle a media organization President Trump has attacked as 'the voice of radical America.' The letter, reviewed by The New York Times, was signed by Kari Lake, a key ally of President Trump and a senior adviser for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America. The proposed reorganization is in line with Mr. Trump's orders to slash the size of the federal work force. But the president and his allies have also been harshly critical of the outlet's coverage. He accused the outlet, which delivers news in countries with authoritarian governments such as Russia, China and Iran, of spreading 'anti-American' and partisan 'propaganda.' The letter states that the latest round of firings would lead to 'the deletion' of other news services provided by Voice of America, which broadcast in 49 languages to nearly 100 countries for more than 350 million listeners and readers until March. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Why Trump has struggled to get Xi on the phone to talk trade
For months, President Donald Trump has suggested his personal relationship with China's Xi Jinping will be what unlocks the world's most consequential trade dispute. Yet he couldn't get Xi on the telephone for weeks. The long period of silence between the leaders will — at least in the White House's telling — come to an end this week. A string of US officials have all but confirmed a call between Trump and Xi is imminent and could occur as early as Thursday, even though Beijing remains tight-lipped. 'I am afraid we don't have comments for you right now,' a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington said in response to questions about the forthcoming conversation. The discrepancy in how each side was talking — or not talking — about the call ahead of time only underscored the widening gulf between the world's two largest economies. Each side seems convinced the call could fall through at any moment. And it's not only fights over tariffs, critical minerals, jet engine parts or computer chips that have caused a rift. It's also a matter of the two leaders' vastly different styles. While Trump is eager to apply his dealmaking tactics directly with Xi, his model of leader-to-leader haggling is entirely at odds with how Chinese officials approach global negotiations. Deeply wary of Trump's unpredictability and track record of putting foreign leaders in awkward or embarrassing situations, Chinese officials had put off a phone call, according to people familiar, even as Trump stated on multiple occasions this spring that he expected to speak with Xi soon. His Oval Office ambushes of Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa caught the attention of officials in China, those people added, and officials wanted to avoid anything similar, even in a private conversation. Former Trump and Biden administration officials describe meetings and calls with Xi as heavily scripted. Little is left to chance, they said, and even the small items – like timing and translation – are heavily negotiated among staff ahead of time. When President Joe Biden met Xi outside San Francisco two years ago, details as minute as the type of flowers sitting on the table between the two men were subject to delicate and intense discussions between the two sides, officials said at the time. On phone calls with US presidents, Xi typically reads directly from prepared talking points that are often verbatim of what he's said in previous conversations, the former officials said. When Xi briefly put down his script to offer off-the-cuff reminiscences during his final meeting last year with Biden – a man he'd known for more than a decade – US officials regarded it as a major show of respect. The stilted format makes it nearly impossible to delve into specifics that haven't been agreed to ahead of time. Any actual negotiation on trade deals or joint statements often happens among staff weeks or months ahead of time. That is not how Trump prefers to operate. As his press secretary said this week, his is a 'top-down approach,' where policy discussions originate from the Resolute Desk. 'He's very much involved in literally every policy discussion and decision that takes place,' Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday when questioned about a reduction in the size of Trump's National Security Council. That has been especially true on China, according to officials. Trump regards securing a new agreement with Beijing both as a critical component of his broader trade agenda and as a necessary follow-up from his first term, when trade deals with China got derailed during the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump views his relationship with Xi through a personal lens, harkening back to their interactions during his first term. It only took 76 days after Trump's 2017 swearing-in for Xi to fly to Mar-a-Lago, where he was served a 'beautiful' piece of chocolate cake and serenaded in Mandarin by Trump's granddaughter. Xi has proven far more difficult to reach in Trump's second term – and he's shown no similar rush to pay a visit to Florida, frustrating the US president. The last time Trump is known to have spoken with Xi was on January 17, days ahead of his second inauguration. 'It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately,' Trump said afterward. But the problem-solving did not start immediately. Instead, the relationship between the two countries quickly worsened after Trump applied stiff new tariffs that eventually rose to 145%. China retaliated, creating a tit-for-tat trade war that has expanded over the course of Trump's five months in office. Talks last month in Geneva, which were intended to alleviate tensions, at first appeared to yield some progress – both sides vowed to lower some of the tariffs. But weeks later, the US accused China of reneging on an agreement to ease restrictions of certain critical minerals used to produce magnets. And instead of improving, the trade war has expanded into a battle over supply chains, which both countries see as essential to their respective national security needs. Trump has expanded punitive measures toward China to include revoking visas for Chinese students studying at American universities and restricting the export of certain software used to design advanced semiconductors. The worsening tensions emphasized the need for the two leaders to speak directly. 'The trade teams on both sides have determined that this needed to be elevated to the top,' a senior White House official said of the impending call. Trump is expected to bring up the pace at which China is exporting critical minerals – he believes Beijing is intentionally moving slower than promised during the Geneva talks, that official said. Another official said they expected Trump to do some level-setting: Trump has said publicly that China will suffer from the lack of a trade deal, a belief held by many administration officials, which in their view gives them leverage in talks with the superpower. 'I'm confident that when President Trump and Party Chairman Xi have a call that this will be ironed out,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said over the weekend. For his part, Trump seemed to be mulling the looming conversation in the wee hours this week. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social at 2:17 a.m. on Wednesday.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Why Trump has struggled to get Xi on the phone to talk trade
For months, President Donald Trump has suggested his personal relationship with China's Xi Jinping will be what unlocks the world's most consequential trade dispute. Yet he couldn't get Xi on the telephone for weeks. The long period of silence between the leaders will — at least in the White House's telling — come to an end this week. A string of US officials have all but confirmed a call between Trump and Xi is imminent and could occur as early as Thursday, even though Beijing remains tight-lipped. 'I am afraid we don't have comments for you right now,' a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington said in response to questions about the forthcoming conversation. The discrepancy in how each side was talking — or not talking — about the call ahead of time only underscored the widening gulf between the world's two largest economies. Each side seems convinced the call could fall through at any moment. And it's not only fights over tariffs, critical minerals, jet engine parts or computer chips that have caused a rift. It's also a matter of the two leaders' vastly different styles. While Trump is eager to apply his dealmaking tactics directly with Xi, his model of leader-to-leader haggling is entirely at odds with how Chinese officials approach global negotiations. Deeply wary of Trump's unpredictability and track record of putting foreign leaders in awkward or embarrassing situations, Chinese officials had put off a phone call, according to people familiar, even as Trump stated on multiple occasions this spring that he expected to speak with Xi soon. His Oval Office ambushes of Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa caught the attention of officials in China, those people added, and officials wanted to avoid anything similar, even in a private conversation. Former Trump and Biden administration officials describe meetings and calls with Xi as heavily scripted. Little is left to chance, they said, and even the small items – like timing and translation – are heavily negotiated among staff ahead of time. When President Joe Biden met Xi outside San Francisco two years ago, details as minute as the type of flowers sitting on the table between the two men were subject to delicate and intense discussions between the two sides, officials said at the time. On phone calls with US presidents, Xi typically reads directly from prepared talking points that are often verbatim of what he's said in previous conversations, the former officials said. When Xi briefly put down his script to offer off-the-cuff reminiscences during his final meeting last year with Biden – a man he'd known for more than a decade – US officials regarded it as a major show of respect. The stilted format makes it nearly impossible to delve into specifics that haven't been agreed to ahead of time. Any actual negotiation on trade deals or joint statements often happens among staff weeks or months ahead of time. That is not how Trump prefers to operate. As his press secretary said this week, his is a 'top-down approach,' where policy discussions originate from the Resolute Desk. 'He's very much involved in literally every policy discussion and decision that takes place,' Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday when questioned about a reduction in the size of Trump's National Security Council. That has been especially true on China, according to officials. Trump regards securing a new agreement with Beijing both as a critical component of his broader trade agenda and as a necessary follow-up from his first term, when trade deals with China got derailed during the Covid-19 pandemic. Trump views his relationship with Xi through a personal lens, harkening back to their interactions during his first term. It only took 76 days after Trump's 2017 swearing-in for Xi to fly to Mar-a-Lago, where he was served a 'beautiful' piece of chocolate cake and serenaded in Mandarin by Trump's granddaughter. Xi has proven far more difficult to reach in Trump's second term – and he's shown no similar rush to pay a visit to Florida, frustrating the US president. The last time Trump is known to have spoken with Xi was on January 17, days ahead of his second inauguration. 'It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately,' Trump said afterward. But the problem-solving did not start immediately. Instead, the relationship between the two countries quickly worsened after Trump applied stiff new tariffs that eventually rose to 145%. China retaliated, creating a tit-for-tat trade war that has expanded over the course of Trump's five months in office. Talks last month in Geneva, which were intended to alleviate tensions, at first appeared to yield some progress – both sides vowed to lower some of the tariffs. But weeks later, the US accused China of reneging on an agreement to ease restrictions of certain critical minerals used to produce magnets. And instead of improving, the trade war has expanded into a battle over supply chains, which both countries see as essential to their respective national security needs. Trump has expanded punitive measures toward China to include revoking visas for Chinese students studying at American universities and restricting the export of certain software used to design advanced semiconductors. The worsening tensions emphasized the need for the two leaders to speak directly. 'The trade teams on both sides have determined that this needed to be elevated to the top,' a senior White House official said of the impending call. Trump is expected to bring up the pace at which China is exporting critical minerals – he believes Beijing is intentionally moving slower than promised during the Geneva talks, that official said. Another official said they expected Trump to do some level-setting: Trump has said publicly that China will suffer from the lack of a trade deal, a belief held by many administration officials, which in their view gives them leverage in talks with the superpower. 'I'm confident that when President Trump and Party Chairman Xi have a call that this will be ironed out,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said over the weekend. For his part, Trump seemed to be mulling the looming conversation in the wee hours this week. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social at 2:17 a.m. on Wednesday.
