Ten Baltic and Scandinavian (and the UK) have agreed to come together to form a multi-national maritime force for crisis response around Northern Europe, specifically on the maritime border with Russia. All parties are NATO members, and members of the Joint Expeditionary Force – itself a NATO framework organisation. Ed Arnold from the D Group explains why this is about operationalising the JEF when the politics of it is wandering. But the credibility of the UK is being pressed hard when command commitments are growing, diverse, geographically spread, and rely on too few qualified and experienced people. Why should the UK command? Why should others follow? Why is Northwood the right place? And, how will the UK balance the long-standing habit of using US C2 systems with an announcement that declares an intent to command on whatever system European Allies favour? Ed Arnold answers all these questions and queries. Underlying the discussion sits some uncomfortable concerns about UK command credibility, the need for continued momentum if the Northern Navies Initiative is to survive, and the desperate need for some form of political prioritisation of tasks from London.

There is a tendency (particularly in militaries) to view machines as less fallible than humans. The rapid and passionate adoption and use of AI tools in military headquarters is a notable manifestation of machine/automation bias: to operate at machine speed is viewed by many in uniform as the panacea and—according to doctrine—offers those with it a preordained right to victory. The critical lessons identified in the IDF use of 'Lavender' and 'Where's Daddy?' in Gaza from 2024, and apparently now built into the US military's MAVEN tool, have been ignored. According to Dr Elke Scharwz, militaries really need to start understanding and embracing human agency in decision-making: something that was present for millennia but is now actively being forgotten as AI tools and systems replace people. The lack of friction, debate, argument, dissension, and human discussion over targets and targeting should concern us all. As humans feel increasingly inferior to the AI tools they create, the old idea of Promethean Shame raises its head again: Elke advocates taking back control of technology instead of simply adapting ourselves to it. Per Christopher Coker "We must choose our tools carefully, not because they are inhumane (all weapons are) but because the more we come to rely on them, the more they shape our view of the world". Warrior Geeks (Hurst, 2013).

The rise of Agentic agents in military headquarters is a foregone conclusion. Understanding how they perform, where they may hallucinate answers, and their requirement for credible and reliable data sets sit at the heart of their utility. Henrik Sommer, a retired Brigadier General with the Danish military, explains some of the potential, vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and opportunities that AI can provide, including from Systematic's new Wingman AI tool, something already embedded in the Sitaware system. The importance of coders, teachers and trainers of algorithms, and how we prompt AI come out as clear markers in this conversation, as does the core question: how much should we trust AI in the military?

Russia has become adept at directing the attention of its adversaries by triggering national security responses to small, sometimes insignificant activities, distracting Western leaders from Moscow's more important actions elsewhere. The Kremlin understand Western sociology and politics so well that one is hard pressed to do anything but admire their execution of reflexive control over external national security systems: The Wests' inability to regain the initiative and to build a more resilient attention economy is disappointing. Dr Ivana Stradner has some answers: in explaining the foundations of Russian C2, Ivana offers real options for Western leaders in regaining a footing in the information war against Moscow.

In 2019, the Dutch municipality of Lochem was hit with a major cyber-attack that impacted everything from welfare payments to the sewage system. The mayor at the time – Sebastiaan van T' Evre – considered that the entire IT system had corrupted including backups. Starting from scratch, and with the help of suppliers and partners, Lochem rebuilt the bare bones within 24 hours. As a journey in civil C2, Sebastiaan recounts his experiences, his decisions, the frustrations, and his objectives during and after the attack, as well as some lessons for the future.

It is rare to find anyone who has been actively engaged in C2 over a 20 year time span, let alone 40. For nearly half a century Michael Holm has been making C2 systems for the military. In that time he has witnessed the change in demands, data, systems, requirements, and opportunities. Michael brings an interesting perspective: as someone who has not served in the military - but has been dealing with them every day - he is able to outline the continuities and shifts in what the military thinks about C2, the systems it wants to use, and how the relationship with industry has changed.

This is a long epiosde - no apologies for that. If you are genuinely interested in how C2 has evolved and changed for Western militaries since the arrival of computers there are few better places to start than this conversation; recorded in Michael's rather swish HQ in Denmark.

If the role of the Corps level is in setting the conditions for Divisions to win, how are Divisions and subordinate commands going to conduct their own battle (and command it)? What are their roles in the tactical battle? Where does the line get drawn between levels? Is it doctrinally fixed or dynamic? Modern divisions don't fight like those in WW2, nor as we planned to during the Cold War, certainly not in the same way as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. This isn't about simply faster Combined Arms warfare: For all the talk about Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) in the US Army – and those equivalents elsewhere in Western militaries – trying to understand the US Army concept for operations during their "Continuous Transformation" isn't easy. Step forward Colonel Ethan Diven, Provost of the US Army University and Commandant of the Command and General Staff Course to explain what this might look like, how commanders and their staff will need to prepare, and what US PME is doing about the new challenges facing the military leaders at the tactical level today, and for tomorrow.

If Europeans have been swiftly divesting themselves of real amphibious capability, the reverse has been true of the ADF in recent years. Ray Leggatt, the first true Commander Amphibious Task Force of the Australian Amphibious Force, talked through his experience in putting together an amphib capability for a state that had not done this sort of operation in a couple of generations. Ray provides a remarkably honest and frank set of assessments about the capability when he was CATF, the essential trust and relationship needed with the Commander Landing Force (CLF), and the realities of doctrine versus practicality necessary to make a nascent capability tangible.

Most people in the C2 world who would acknowledge the Goldwater Nichols reforms of the US military as one of the big muscle movements in command and control over the last 75 years. It provided the framework for how the US would run wars after 1986 and has had mixed success. But in organising the world of conflict along geographic lines, in prioritising the fights of today over preparing for the conflicts of tomorrow, and in – perhaps – ceding strategy to the military, there is a growing urgency in the need to rethink this structure and some of the organisational principles that US C2 is founded on. Eliot Cohen, doyen of US strategy and history, shares his views on why the reforms of 1986 came about and where the system needs amending.

It is the responsibility of the Corps level of command to set the conditions for a favourable and unfair fight at the tactical level: so says Major General Mike Keating, Chief of Staff at Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. The scale, complexity, and enduring nature of combat on land requires a structure that can enable divisions to fight and prevail, enabling subordinate formations to focus on the immediate and near term with the resources necessary to succeed: recognition of that has seen a renaissance in the Corps level in NATO, and more widely. HQ ARRC was deployed and employed in Afghanistan during the COIN era, but the skills and functions were different; political, and immediate. Today, the Corps has changed. Mike explains how – and what the future holds for the highest level of tactical command and control.