This Means War

John Hemmings, an expert on U.S. defense strategy, and Malcolm Davies from Aspian Australia, provide insightful perspectives on the AUKUS partnership. They discuss the complexities and slow progress of this pivotal security agreement since its inception. The conversation highlights the urgent need for enhanced military capabilities and the challenges posed by political dynamics in both the U.S. and Australia. They stress the importance of industrial capacity and STEM workforce development to ensure the partnership's effectiveness in a changing global landscape.

Professor Julian Lindley-French, a national security expert and conference convener, shares insights from a recent gathering of international defense specialists. They discuss the critical need for Western militaries to adapt to emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing to counter threats from nations such as China and Russia. The conversation highlights the strategic disconnect in European military investments and stresses the urgency of increased spending and cooperation within NATO. Lindley-French also emphasizes the importance of educating policymakers on modern warfare dynamics.

Some states face complex calculations in balancing their reactions to wars happening around them. Many (perhaps most?) governments of the day are approaching wars with less of an eye to the region and the future, and more towards domestic agendas and opinions. That is certainly the case in Europe. Importantly, decisions on foreign policy alignment are far more precarious for regional actors. For the conflict in Gazza following the terrorist atrocities conducted by Hamas in Israel in October 2023, understanding why Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are making the decisions that they are is important. After all, perhaps it is only through their eyes that we can see who is really winning.

We live in a guarded society. Humanity seems to have adopted fortification on the battlefield and in our homes and cities at an unusual scale. Forming an intrinsic part of positional warfare, urban combat, and modern warfare (from Iraq to Ukraine), the ideas around fortification have been long ignored by research in the national security community. Professor David Betz from King’s College, London talks to Peter about his research and latest publication highlighting the continuities of this fortification zeitgeist across human evolution. The take away is about valuing more our engineers, our CS, our CSS, and our architects. But also in thinking a little more about the values we attribute to risk mitigation. We probably need to think some more about the reasons for failures in liquid modernity too.

Most people will not have missed the visit North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, to Russia last month. What went without comment was the significance of the realignment with Moscow and not Beijing. As the first foreign visit after three years of self-imposed pandemic national lockdown, the message was very clear: The Russia-Hermit Kingdom relationship is important. Russia needs ammunition and rockets for its on going war in Ukraine; the North Korean shopping list is more varied. It already has the diplomatic support needed at the UN and food aid continues to be delivered, so the cost to Russia is more likely to be material and knowledge based – satellite and military technologies trump that list. Nuclear demands probably are lower down since it appears that DPRK is already making preparations for its 5th test (under Kim Jung Un). What is a good response for Taiwan and the US? This was the question for Ankit Panda to ponder.

Beijing seems to have an insatiable appetite for increasing the scale and pace of military operations around Taiwan: from embargo operations to large scale, set piece amphibious exercises, busting median line airspace agreements and live missile firings. As Ralph Cossa, president emeritus of Pacific Forum, describes it, “Xi Jinping seems to be tactically clever but strategically foolish”. The US, by comparison, continues a doctrine of strategic ambiguity over American policy. If more operational clarity is required to effectively deter China and the PLA, it would also add to the dilemma facing Beijing as it contemplates timelines for further action. In Taipei meanwhile, the reality of making the country into a ‘poisoned shrimp’ (the Asian equivalent of a porcupine strategy) is already in action on the ground.

How do companies, businesses, and industry make investment decisions in a war zone? There is no shortage of international funding committed to the rebuilding phase of Ukraine in a post war era yet most companies simply don’t want to wait until hostilities have ended. Indeed, societies and the people can't wait that long either. So how do companies make decisions about investing into war zones? When do they make the decision and how long do they wait? How are boards influenced by politics and events on the front line? Peter is joined by Mike Longstaff, MD of the security arm of Audere Group, to explain how it all happens.

In this engaging discussion, Professor Beatrice Heuser, an expert in International Relations from Glasgow University, delves into the complexities of ending wars. She shares insights on the historical evolution of peace and conflict, debunking myths about war's inevitability. The conversation touches on the delicate balance of national integrity in Ukraine and the implications of territorial concessions with Russia. Heuser also examines past peace efforts, reflecting on the current geopolitical landscape and the challenges in achieving sustainable resolutions.

Franz-Stefan Gady, a commentator on modern warfare and maneuver theory, challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding deep battle strategies in military conflict. He questions whether adversaries are even structured for systems warfare as envisioned by Western militaries. The discussion delves into the complexities of Ukraine's tactics, the crucial role of engineering in modern warfare, and historical lessons from the Wehrmacht's strategies during WWII. Gady advocates for a reevaluation of current doctrines to better prepare future military leaders.

Professor Tony King, an expert in manoeuvrist theory, provides keen insights into the decline of maneuver warfare in modern conflicts. He stresses the increasingly limited opportunities for its application on today's complex battlefields. The conversation explores how technological advancements have shifted tactics toward positional and attritional warfare, particularly in the Russia-Ukraine war. King's critique highlights the need for military education to adapt, focusing more on effective alternatives rather than strictly adhering to manoeuvrism.