The world’s biggest military powers are all jockeying for position in and around the Arctic, starkly illustrated by Donald Trump’s demands for the US to buy Greenland even though it’s  already NATO territory.

Sitrep explains the melting pot of strategic positioning, potential trade routes, and natural resources that are driving shows of military force, including by the UK, in the High North.

Arctic expert Professor Caroline Kennedy-Pipe tells us the US can already put as many military bases as it wants in Greenland, but that the race for minerals also really matters for military power. And Professor Michael Clarke reveals the weapon of choice for Canadian troops in the Arctic, to defend themselves from polar bears.

The head of NATO says nothing can replace the US nuclear umbrella as the ultimate guarantee of our security,  and “Europe needs to know Uncle Sam still has our back”

But amid doubts about US commitment there is talk creating a comprehensive European nuclear capability without American-owned weapons.  Could the UK and France really provide a Europe only deterrent?  And if so, should they?

Sitrep compares our capabilities with the rest of the world and explains the complex thinking behind history’s bluntest and most powerful weapons.

Former NATO arms-control director William Alberque tells us why his thinking today is different, and Professor Michael Clarke explains why he has, very reluctantly, changed his view on Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

The head of the Army has spoken of his “anger and shame” after more than a thousand women shared stories of harassment, bullying and much worse while they served their country.

Another set of changes have been announced to try to stop unacceptable behaviours, including a tri-service unit to take over the most serious complaints from the chain of command. But is it enough?

Sitrep explains the detail of the changes and talks to two veterans, who are also leading advocates for women in the forces.

Former Conservative MP Sarah Atherton and Commodore Steve Prest share their own experiences to assess the scale and causes of unacceptable behaviours, and how culture can be changed to prevent bullying, harassment and discrimination.

Sitrep assesses how the 30-day ceasefire, offered by Ukraine, could work in reality.  Would troops just stay in place and dig in, or might they have to pull back from a buffer zone?

It is a tactical trade-off by Kyiv which gives it back US military aid and intelligence, and forces Russia onto the diplomatic back foot.

Professor Michael Clarke explains which side has most to gain from a pause to rest and re-equip while former head of the Army, General Lord Dannatt, shares lessons from Bosnia suggesting even the most junior soldiers will have to fully understand the terms of any deal.

Kate and Mike also talk to former UK National Security Adviser Lord Peter Ricketts to assess the UK’s role in getting to this point, and the possibility of British troops being part of any longer-term peace plan.

The highest command in the world’s most powerful military alliance has always been held by a top American officer, almost always with a British deputy.

But as the Trump administration tells Europe the US will do less, and we’ve got to do much more for our own defence, should the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) become a European job?

Kate Gerbeau talks to General Philip Breedlove, who was SACEUR from 2013-2016, about what the role involves, how much influence it wields, and how much difference the change could make.

He also reveals how during Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine (2014) he used his other role, as a US commander, to deliver action that had been resisted from within the alliance. 

Whatever you think of how President Trump said it to President Zelensky, the fact is Ukraine is not in good position. 

That was made worse by the freezing of US military aid, and crucial moment-by-moment intelligence.

Sitrep explains how that has left Ukraine “blindfolded with one hand tied behind its back”  and assesses its options to stay in the fight or even strengthen its position for any talks.

Former UK military attaché to Ukraine John Foreman tells us the country’s ground capability still remains a key point of leverage, and Sitrep’s Simon Newton details how and when the sudden stop to US hardware flows will bite.

We now have a deadline for the UK to spend 2.5% of national income on defence and it’s much sooner than anyone expected.  But cash doesn’t just turn into military might.

There are many things you could spend it on. People? Hardware? Training? The real question is what you should spend it on, for the right capabilities at the right times.

There are urgent priorities to rapidly improve defence of our own doorstep as the US pulls back, but we still need to plan for long term battle-winning edge.

Professor Michael Clarke explains why ‘invisible’ capabilities will be favoured over heavy metal, while Matthew Savill from RUSI assesses how hard it will be to deliver the Defence Secretary’s priority of “arresting the long-term fall in numbers of service personnel”.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s the UK typically spent 4-5% of its national income on Defence, but what did that money buy and what did our Armed Forces spend their time doing?

Kate Gerbeau and Professor Michael Clarke talk to historian Ian J Sanders, host of the Cold War Conversations podcast, for a history lesson on how we deployed our military capability to protect Europe from a Russian led threat.

Times may have changed a lot, countries like Poland and Estonia which were part of the enemy bloc back then are now staunch allies who we help defend, but some things stay the same.

So Kate, Mike and Ian assess what lessons we should be taking right now from our victory in the Cold War.

[You can see more about the work of British forces in the cold war in our series Real Cold War Spies: BRIXMIS - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeQQkbf45pQM7fhBI5Lv_DvSanxy-bfw0]

[You can listen to Ian’s podcast Cold War Conversations here - https://coldwarconversations.com/]

Despite the many uncertainties about a possible peace-deal for Ukraine, Britain’s Defence Secretary says the detail is being developed for a European led security guarantee.

Former head of the Army General Lord Dannatt warns that while the Prime Minister is ready and willing to commit British troops, the Army is willing but not ready.

Sitrep assesses how many people and what equipment it might be required, exactly what the role of such a force could be, how long it might be needed for, and what alternatives there are  to international ground troops.

Plus Professor Michael Clarke explains how the Sir Keir Starmer will try to persuade President Trump to commit a US backstop that would support Ukraine’s security from outside its territory.

Donald Trump’s tried to take Ukraine’s future out of its own hands by opening negotiations with Russia, and telling Kyiv that NATO membership and getting all of its land back are hopeless ambitions.

So what should Ukraine do now? Could focussing on the fight still improve its negotiating position, or has it reached its high watermark in the war? Professor Michael Clarke and retired General Sir Richard Shirreff assess the battlefield balance of power.

America’s Defence Secretary says “stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being primarily focused on Europe”. The UK’s stepping up as the US steps back, but how much more will we do to lead from the front?

And as some of the world’s most powerful defence and security figures gather at the Munich Security Conference Sitrep explains why this private talking shop has become a marketplace for some of the world’s most consequential decisions.