This Means War

The continual changes to British defence acquisition and procurement processes, frameworks, doctrines, strategies and plans have wreaked havoc with the military equipment plan for decades. Various – and sometimes radical – reforms have been tried to evolve a system that is ubiquitously criticised from everyone inside (and outside) the national security community. No one is happy, yet most people actually involved in it are trying very hard to make it work. This is not a uniquely British problem however: There is nowhere in the world that people are content with their procurement system - each one could be faster, buy better kit, deliver imporved value-for-money and quality, pleasing taxpayers as well as the people who use the kit. Given that the on-going UK SDR must try and come up with some recommendations to make it ‘better’ (hopefully in a different way than every other one has promised to do since 1997), what are the opportunities and risks this time around? Dr Andrew Curtis helps us think thus through with some sage advice: how about starting by implementing all the bits of some previous attempts at reform?

Tom Karako, a global missile defense expert from CSIS, shares his insights on the UK’s missile defense inadequacies amidst growing threats. He discusses the evolving landscape of missile capabilities stemming from recent global conflicts and the necessity for stronger defense infrastructures. Tom highlights the challenges faced by European militaries in modernizing legacy systems, and he dives into the potential of non-kinetic technologies like lasers. His pragmatism offers a roadmap for future defense strategies and success metrics for upcoming UK capabilities.

Inigo,:""'""""""""""""""""""""""""''""""""""""""""''""""""""''""""''"''""""!`""!`""""!`""!`""!`""!`""!""!"!""!"!"

In this engaging conversation, Maria de Goeij Reid, a Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University, dives into the complexities of national security. She argues for the importance of strategic empathy in understanding adversaries and emphasizes a shift from 'convenient threats' to 'inconvenient threats' like pandemics. Maria highlights the necessity of nuanced behavioral analysis in understanding adversarial intentions and calls for enhanced societal resilience and interdisciplinary approaches to better prepare for unpredictable global challenges.

Professor Tony King, an expert on contemporary military threats and author of 'Command' and 'Urban Warfare', explores the evolving landscape of warfare. He discusses the implications of a potential Trump presidency and highlights the rise of state-sponsored proxies. Key topics include the challenges posed by new weapons, the intricacies of decision-making, and the crucial role of AI. Tony emphasizes skepticism regarding AI's promised efficiencies, advocating for human oversight and innovative military strategies to adapt to fast-changing threats.

Paul Cornish, a Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Exeter, dives into the complexities of contemporary warfare and the shortcomings of the UK's national security strategies. He criticizes the oversimplified narratives surrounding modern threats, emphasizing the need for genuine strategic thinking. The conversation highlights evolving issues like cybercrime and climate change, alongside a caution against over-reliance on technology in military contexts. Cornish also draws parallels between today's challenges and pre-Cold War dynamics, advocating for a comprehensive understanding of defense.

This mini series about NATO has taken some people out of their comfort zone: nonetheless, there has been a lot of positive feedback about the honesty of these conversation about the Alliance. In the final episode of this series, Peter talks again to Professor Julian Lindley French about NATO’s friends and enemies and tackle some questions from listeners. In the end, they address the thorny question of a second Trump presidency and what that could mean for the Alliance.   The series has been is co-sponsored by NATO Public Diplomacy Division. It’s reassuring to know that the Alliance has the self-confidence to foster an honest and open debate about NATO. That’s not something you would find from lesser organisations. Chapeau!

NATO is rarely covered by mainstream news outlets between annual summits yet the work goes on constantly. In this episode, Peter talks to Professor Julian Lindley-French about the unsung heroes of the Alliance: the PermReps, the MilReps, the International Staff, the International Military Staff, and the Chairman of the Military Committee. Whilst the Sec Gen and SACEUR get all the headlines, it is this team of dedicated professionals who make deterrence and denial actually happen. Kudos to them.   This episode is co-sponsored by NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

NATO is often trumpeted as the most successful military Alliance in human history: a grand claim indeed. The reality is less definitive. NATO did not win the Cold War alone nor has it had military success in every campaign; it was not responsible for the end of piracy off Somalia and the training missions in the Middle East did not deliver what was promised. The Alliance can be disfunctional, self-serving, and procedural inept too. Yet it has also delivered the underpinnings of peace and security for 75 years to member states. What has made it successful and what has undermined the other bits? Peter talks to Professor Julian Lindley-French about political leadership and strategy, the failure of advice, the inability to implement plans, and the European problem of only recognising as much threat (to national security) as you can afford.

Professors Peter Roberts and Julian Lindley French try and put the 75th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty in perspective: how much of the history of the Alliance remains relevant today? NATO is certainly an impressive organisation on the surface – but it isn’t perfect. What does the future hold? What of Old Europe/New Europe, American isolationism, and what does Chinese imperialism means for NATO? Much covered and debated in an episode that looks at the least-worst Alliance in military history. This episode was co-sponsored by NATO Public Diplomacy Division.