SDR 2025 and Malaysia: Adapting to the new defence landscape
THE release of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) 2025 marks a pivotal moment in the United Kingdom's (UK) military and strategic recalibration.
It outlines a vision of a more agile, AI-enabled, and technologically dominant force, prepared for high-intensity conflicts and grey-zone threats alike. It doubles down on NATO leadership, increases readiness postures, and makes heavy commitments to defence industrial growth, innovation, and autonomy.
For Malaysia, while the geostrategic theatre differs significantly from Europe, the undercurrents of SDR 2025 are deeply relevant.
The Indo-Pacific is undergoing its own transformation: rising great power competition, cyber threats, grey-zone coercion, and the militarisation of disputed maritime areas particularly in the South China Sea.
As such, the SDR 2025 offers critical lessons for Malaysia to consider, both in structure and substance.
Increased readiness and force modernisation
The UK's focus on 'readiness at scale' centres on enhancing the ability to rapidly deploy forces, shorten mobilisation timelines, and maintain equipment and personnel at a high level of combat preparedness.
This strategic shift is supported by significant investments in logistics resilience, rapid deployment infrastructure, and a more capable reserve force, enabling the UK to respond swiftly and effectively to emerging threats across multiple domains.
In contrast, Malaysia's current defence posture remains primarily oriented toward peacetime deterrence, border security, and internal stability.
This traditional approach is increasingly insufficient given the growing complexity of regional security dynamics, particularly in the maritime domain and the broader Indo-Pacific theatre.
To meet these evolving challenges, Malaysia must undertake a substantial recalibration of its force readiness model.
One key step is to establish modular, rapid-reaction units that are capable of operating in hybrid threat environments.
These units should be designed for quick deployment and tailored for operations in and around critical maritime choke-points such as the Strait of Malacca, where the risk of grey-zone activities and asymmetric threats is rising.
Furthermore, Malaysia should increase investments in military mobility and logistics infrastructure, particularly in East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) due to their proximity to potential flash-points in the South China Sea.
Pre-positioned supplies, forward-operating facilities, and improved transport networks would significantly enhance operational flexibility and response times.
Therefore, the expansion and modernisation of the Territorial Army (Askar Wataniah) should be a priority.
This includes not only strengthening traditional reserve components but also creating new hybrid reserve forces trained in emerging domains such as cyber operations, drone warfare, and electronic warfare.
These capabilities would allow Malaysia to build a more adaptive, resilient force structure better suited to the demands of modern conflict.
Technology-led warfare and AI integration
The SDR 2025 places strong emphasis on artificial intelligence (AI), drones, uncrewed systems, and data as the foundation of modern combat power.
The United Kingdom is actively investing in these areas, establishing a Defence Uncrewed Systems Centre, accelerating AI integration across all military domains, and expanding its arsenal of autonomous platforms, ranging from underwater drones to AI-powered intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems.
Malaysia, however, remains behind the curve in adopting these transformative technologies. AI integration into defence systems, local drone manufacturing, and the digitalisation of battlefield operations are all still in their infancy.
To address this gap, Malaysia must begin by establishing a dedicated Malaysian Defence AI Centre. This entity is potentially housed under the Defence Ministry's Science and Technology Research Institute for Defence (STRIDE) that could serve as the central hub for AI projects, defence-focused data analytics, and the coordination of emerging technology initiatives.
Alongside this, Malaysia should develop a comprehensive national drone strategy tailored for defence needs.
This strategy should prioritise the development and deployment of surveillance UAVs to enhance maritime domain awareness, particularly in contested waters, and explore capabilities such as loitering munitions and AI-assisted targeting systems to bolster operational effectiveness.
Equally important is fostering a defence innovation ecosystem. Malaysia should incentivise local tech startups, university spin-offs, and research institutions to co-develop dual-use technologies that can be rapidly prototyped, tested, and fielded.
Lessons can be drawn from Ukraine's model of agile defence innovation, where close collaboration between the military and civilian tech sectors has yielded impactful solutions in record time.
Embracing such a model would position Malaysia to better respond to the fast-evolving nature of future warfare.
A moment for strategic courage
SDR 2025 serves as more than just a roadmap for the UK's military development as it signals a broader transformation in global defence thinking.
The future of warfare is increasingly defined by digital technologies, autonomous systems, and resilient multinational alliances.
While Malaysia may be geographically distant from NATO's operational theatres, it is undeniably situated within the Indo-Pacific, a region at the heart of emerging strategic competition.
To remain relevant, secure, and operationally capable in this rapidly evolving environment, Malaysia must embrace a fundamental shift in its defence posture.
This requires thinking innovatively, investing decisively in next-generation capabilities, partnering strategically with like-minded nations, and modernising urgently across all domains i.e., land, sea, air, cyber, and space. ‒ June 24, 2025
R. Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters.
The views expressed are solely of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: Pipeline Journal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
11 hours ago
- The Star
Poland's Duda arrives in Ukrainian capital Kyiv to meet Zelenskiy
FILE PHOTO: Polish President Andrzej Duda speaks during a press conference during a NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands June 25, 2025. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo WARSAW/KYIV (Reuters) -Polish President Andrzej Duda arrived in Kyiv on Saturday for a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Duda's office said, as Kyiv aims to build support among allies at a critical juncture in its grinding war with Russia. Duda, a vocal supporter of Ukraine whose term ends in August, was greeted at the train station by Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, who called the Polish leader "Ukraine's true friend". Ukraine is struggling to fend off Russian advances on the battlefield and intensifying missile and drone attacks on its cities as diplomatic efforts to end the war, now in its fourth year, have faltered. Duda's successor, President-elect Karol Nawrocki says he remains committed to helping Ukraine's defence effort but opposes Kyiv joining Western alliances such as NATO. (Reporting by Marek Strzelecki in Warsaw and Dan Peleschuk in Kyiv; Editing by Aidan Lewis, Alexandra Hudson)
The Sun
14 hours ago
- The Sun
From tweets to tectonics
IT began, again, with a tweet. Donald Trump, from his digital podium, declared that Iran and Israel had 'come to him' asking for peace and that he was promising a future of 'love, peace and prosperity'. The post went viral. Commentators scrambled. Headlines reframed. But beneath the performance lay the more troubling reality: real peace is nowhere in sight and never was. Just hours after this so-called peace overture, Israel unleashed another wave of airstrikes. Yet, we already know Israel's operations are routinely underwritten by US logistics and satellite support. Emir Research has long highlighted this conceptual bifurcation within the US, now increasingly visible even to the most unscrupulous observers. On one side, a political class desperate to appear in control; on the other, a war economy that no longer answers to democratic oversight. These bombings expose not only Israeli aggression but also the extent to which Washington has become operationally fragmented. But perhaps the most revealing element is not the gap between Trump's rhetoric and reality but the possibility that this gap is intentional. What if Trump's apparent incoherence is not a miscalculation but a method? His declarations of peace are routinely followed by orchestrated escalation. Not because he controls outcomes but because he wants the world to see that he does not. The deeper message is strategic: that America cannot guarantee anything because it cannot even govern itself. Treaties signed today are disavowed tomorrow. Not that we did not know this before but with Trump the exposure becomes grotesque. Trump's theatre serves a darker purpose: to collapse the perception of US reliability. His actions – whether on foreign entanglements, tariffs or climate withdrawal – teach the world that American leadership is structurally incoherent. The chaos is not accidental; it is a form of exposure. And this is not lost on foreign capital. Even long-time allies now quietly ask: If the American state cannot ensure internal coherence, how can it offer global stability? If its wars continue without presidential oversight and its treaties collapse with each administration, what does it mean to be aligned with Washington? It is in this disillusionment that real geopolitical recalibration begins. While bombs fell and tweets spiralled, the Nato summit convened with all the theatre of importance but none of the coherence. Once a cornerstone of postwar Western security, the alliance now resembles a museum exhibit: elaborate, well-lit but out of time. South Korea's absence was not a matter of disengagement. As reported by the South China Morning Post, it reflected a pragmatic diplomatic recalibration. Across the Global South, Nato is viewed increasingly as a relic: obsessed with 2% defence spending while the world burns from climate shocks, cyber threats, pandemics and migratory collapse. Even Nato members struggle to meet its goals. Reuters reports only a few are on track for the 2% target by 2025. The rest offer rhetoric, not readiness. Yet, rather than recalibrating, Nato has now endorsed a new goal of 5% defence spending by 2035. This shift reflects more about worldview than actual threat. Many in the Global South are asking: Containment of what, exactly? Is Nato defending the world or defending its relevance? The problem is not just strategic. It is existential. Nato's core logic – big-state militarism, fixed enemies, endless deterrence – is ill-suited to a world of decentralised threats and non-linear crises. The alliance now projects the image of an inward-looking bloc. Across Latin America, Africa and Asia, new coalitions are forming around infrastructure, energy resilience, digital sovereignty and climate action. These are not military alliances but post-Western lifelines. If Nato wants to remain relevant, it must shift from fortress to forum. So far, the signs are unconvincing. Something deeper is unfolding behind the theatrics of war and summits: a realignment not of blocs but of meaning. Across countries, the question is no longer whom to side with but whether the old story still holds at all. Take Iran. Its administration is probably far from universally embraced, even domestically. But its refusal to collapse under sabotage, sanctions and psychological warfare has turned it into a symbol of dignity under siege. From South Africa to Indonesia, Pakistan to Latin America, solidarity with Iran stems not from ideology but from memory. It comes from a shared experience of being coerced, demonised, dehumanised and denied narrative parity. Across Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Latin America, political leaders and civil society voices increasingly point to a common view. Iran is not being punished for aggression but for independence. The pattern is familiar: covert interference, sanctions and media vilification. These pressures mirror what many postcolonial nations face for refusing alignment with dominant powers. What the Global South is registering is a declaration of strategic sovereignty. In this climate, Malaysia has found its own voice. It does not project force or fund proxy wars. What it offers is narrative clarity. Through consistent diplomatic positioning, Malaysia has argued that peace without accountability is a false peace. Israel's nuclear ambiguity, Western impunity and the systematic erasure of Palestinian dignity are no longer seen as unfortunate contradictions. They are becoming untenable pillars of a collapsing order. In this emerging terrain, narrative is the new front line. The Global South is no longer waiting for permission. It is reframing what dignity, deterrence and diplomacy mean in a world unmoored from Western centrality. What we are witnessing is not just a contest of weapons but a reckoning of words. The old order relied on language to mask contradiction. Today, those words no longer conceal. They expose. The Nato summit only magnified irrelevance. Its metrics, even if not false, are out of sync with the world's pulse. Climate collapse does not ask for battalions – nor does a broken food system or digitally displaced generation. As for the US, the facade of unity has never looked thinner. It is no longer a singular actor but a split organism – one hand tweeting peace, the other fuelling war. This is not a strategy; it is entropy. And in the margins of this collapse, a new world is taking shape. Multipolar networks are forming not through grand treaties but through quiet refusal. These actors refuse to be lectured, intimidated or ignored. If a new system emerges, it will not be born in Cold War summits or Nato declarations. It will be built on the courage of coherence and on the dignity of those once silenced who are now speaking in full. The Global South, long treated as an audience, is now writing its own script.
The Sun
14 hours ago
- The Sun
Trump's peace tweets mask deeper global power shifts
IT began, again, with a tweet. Donald Trump, from his digital podium, declared that Iran and Israel had 'come to him' asking for peace and that he was promising a future of 'love, peace and prosperity'. The post went viral. Commentators scrambled. Headlines reframed. But beneath the performance lay the more troubling reality: real peace is nowhere in sight and never was. Just hours after this so-called peace overture, Israel unleashed another wave of airstrikes. Yet, we already know Israel's operations are routinely underwritten by US logistics and satellite support. Emir Research has long highlighted this conceptual bifurcation within the US, now increasingly visible even to the most unscrupulous observers. On one side, a political class desperate to appear in control; on the other, a war economy that no longer answers to democratic oversight. These bombings expose not only Israeli aggression but also the extent to which Washington has become operationally fragmented. But perhaps the most revealing element is not the gap between Trump's rhetoric and reality but the possibility that this gap is intentional. What if Trump's apparent incoherence is not a miscalculation but a method? His declarations of peace are routinely followed by orchestrated escalation. Not because he controls outcomes but because he wants the world to see that he does not. The deeper message is strategic: that America cannot guarantee anything because it cannot even govern itself. Treaties signed today are disavowed tomorrow. Not that we did not know this before but with Trump the exposure becomes grotesque. Trump's theatre serves a darker purpose: to collapse the perception of US reliability. His actions – whether on foreign entanglements, tariffs or climate withdrawal – teach the world that American leadership is structurally incoherent. The chaos is not accidental; it is a form of exposure. And this is not lost on foreign capital. Even long-time allies now quietly ask: If the American state cannot ensure internal coherence, how can it offer global stability? If its wars continue without presidential oversight and its treaties collapse with each administration, what does it mean to be aligned with Washington? It is in this disillusionment that real geopolitical recalibration begins. While bombs fell and tweets spiralled, the Nato summit convened with all the theatre of importance but none of the coherence. Once a cornerstone of postwar Western security, the alliance now resembles a museum exhibit: elaborate, well-lit but out of time. South Korea's absence was not a matter of disengagement. As reported by the South China Morning Post, it reflected a pragmatic diplomatic recalibration. Across the Global South, Nato is viewed increasingly as a relic: obsessed with 2% defence spending while the world burns from climate shocks, cyber threats, pandemics and migratory collapse. Even Nato members struggle to meet its goals. Reuters reports only a few are on track for the 2% target by 2025. The rest offer rhetoric, not readiness. Yet, rather than recalibrating, Nato has now endorsed a new goal of 5% defence spending by 2035. This shift reflects more about worldview than actual threat. Many in the Global South are asking: Containment of what, exactly? Is Nato defending the world or defending its relevance? The problem is not just strategic. It is existential. Nato's core logic – big-state militarism, fixed enemies, endless deterrence – is ill-suited to a world of decentralised threats and non-linear crises. The alliance now projects the image of an inward-looking bloc. Across Latin America, Africa and Asia, new coalitions are forming around infrastructure, energy resilience, digital sovereignty and climate action. These are not military alliances but post-Western lifelines. If Nato wants to remain relevant, it must shift from fortress to forum. So far, the signs are unconvincing. Something deeper is unfolding behind the theatrics of war and summits: a realignment not of blocs but of meaning. Across countries, the question is no longer whom to side with but whether the old story still holds at all. Take Iran. Its administration is probably far from universally embraced, even domestically. But its refusal to collapse under sabotage, sanctions and psychological warfare has turned it into a symbol of dignity under siege. From South Africa to Indonesia, Pakistan to Latin America, solidarity with Iran stems not from ideology but from memory. It comes from a shared experience of being coerced, demonised, dehumanised and denied narrative parity. Across Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Latin America, political leaders and civil society voices increasingly point to a common view. Iran is not being punished for aggression but for independence. The pattern is familiar: covert interference, sanctions and media vilification. These pressures mirror what many postcolonial nations face for refusing alignment with dominant powers. What the Global South is registering is a declaration of strategic sovereignty. In this climate, Malaysia has found its own voice. It does not project force or fund proxy wars. What it offers is narrative clarity. Through consistent diplomatic positioning, Malaysia has argued that peace without accountability is a false peace. Israel's nuclear ambiguity, Western impunity and the systematic erasure of Palestinian dignity are no longer seen as unfortunate contradictions. They are becoming untenable pillars of a collapsing order. In this emerging terrain, narrative is the new front line. The Global South is no longer waiting for permission. It is reframing what dignity, deterrence and diplomacy mean in a world unmoored from Western centrality. What we are witnessing is not just a contest of weapons but a reckoning of words. The old order relied on language to mask contradiction. Today, those words no longer conceal. They expose. The Nato summit only magnified irrelevance. Its metrics, even if not false, are out of sync with the world's pulse. Climate collapse does not ask for battalions – nor does a broken food system or digitally displaced generation. As for the US, the facade of unity has never looked thinner. It is no longer a singular actor but a split organism – one hand tweeting peace, the other fuelling war. This is not a strategy; it is entropy. And in the margins of this collapse, a new world is taking shape. Multipolar networks are forming not through grand treaties but through quiet refusal. These actors refuse to be lectured, intimidated or ignored. If a new system emerges, it will not be born in Cold War summits or Nato declarations. It will be built on the courage of coherence and on the dignity of those once silenced who are now speaking in full. The Global South, long treated as an audience, is now writing its own script. Dr Rais Hussin is the founder of Emir Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research. Comments: letters@
