This Means War

The modern interpretation of manoeuvre theory for warfare holds the deep battle as a central avenue to success. Indeed, Western militaries have become so invested in this thinking that force designs and procurement prioritise capabilities for this over almost anything else. Yet, as Franz-Stefan Gady points out, what if our adversary is just not structured for the type of systems warfare that successful use of manoeuvre warfare necessitates? What if the deep battle doesn't matter, or – and this be heresy to many – centres of gravity just not relevant? Have we even thought about alternative approaches, let alone started educating the next generation of the profession of arms in them? A discussion that starts to turn our theory of battle upside down.

The opportunities to use manoeuvrist theory on contemporary battlefields are scarce, if they exist at all. Professor Tony King talks to Peter about the three conditions he believes are necessary for it to be successful (movement and scale, defining will and cohesion, and delegated command). Given the geometry, topography and telemetry of today's battlefields we would perhaps be better off educating leaders about alternatives to manoeuvrism.

There is a disturbing undercurrent in Western PME – demonising anything not termed 'manoeuvre' or 'manoeuvrist' as stupid, dated and irrelevant. Ukraine's generals have been lambasted by Western counterparts on occasion for not embracing more manoeuvrism in their strategies. Yet the reality is that manoeuvre has simply become a catch-all for almost anything to do with modern combat. Not even the guidelines provided by Martin Van Creveld really help. Peter is joined by Amos Fox as they start season 3 to pull manoeuvre apart.

Going into the NATO summit at Vilnius, NATO had a three tier membership structure and lacked the political leadership and will to make hard decisions. There are some good examples of things going well at the tactical, military end (the CDCM systems in the Baltic that make that region one with a compelling A2AD challenge for Russia, for example) but behind the veneer of platitudes and handshakes, the Alliance looks less solid. Indeed, as described by Professor Julian Lindley-French, it has become an 'anything-but-war' grouping of states, full of pretence and appeasement. In this discussion we cover the underlying issues with the Alliance and are left wondering whether today's NATO leaders have the courage to get out of the Potemkin village they have sleep walked into.

Surrounded by three potential adversaries, hampered by a history that prevents deep alliances with neighbours, and a below-optimal command integration arrangement with the US, Japan took stock and realised it needed a reset in defence and security. Peter is joined by Japan specialist Dr John Hemmings from Hawaii to talk through some of the detail and intricacies of Japan's national security strategy, hard power spending, constitutional changes, collective warfighting capabilities in the Pacific.

For decades, politics, security and economics in the Middle East has been inextricably linked to the USA. Today, however, Washington increasingly views the Middle East as a fly-over region – one that is largely absent from US policy. The space where America is now absent has been occupied by both China and Russia: the former having successfully negotiated a new era of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia (not an unsubstantial achievement). Peter talks to Mike Stephens about what we might have missed in the Gulf, and why – despite inherent instabilities – there is cause for hope.

After 20 Shangri La dialogues, it is not difficult to say that the world has changed – certainly in the Indo Pacific. In 2002, scholars and global leaders were talking about the 'Peaceful Rise' more than the 'China Dream'. They were wrong, but so too might the predictions of economists forecasting an economic uber-power in China that completely overshadowed the rest of the world. Yet the CCP and the PLA are not backing down. If anything, the rhetoric – and the actions – of Chinese politicians and military forces continue to raise the temperature. In this episode Peter talks to grand strategist Dr Peter Layton about what this feels like from Australia – somewhat closer to the action than London. And it's not just about China and Taiwan: Beijing's influence in DPRK and Pakistan complicates matters considerably. Especially when there are nuclear weapons on the table.

The price of military equipment and people means that many militaries are having to make decisions about trade-offs between force elements. Taking a 'capability holiday' might not be fashionable language anymore, but it does reflect the reality – even with the significant promises in defence budgets. In France, a Euro413Bn spending promise over 5 years can't deliver much when the price of equipment, people and a nuclear programme recapitalisation are already on the cards. It means, as explained by scholar Michael Shurkin, that the philosophy of manoeuvre, technology, a light footprint, perfect logistics and engineering, independence of thought, and French military elan remain central to French force design. Accompanied, foremost perhaps, by the interests of the French defence industrial base. In this conversation we examine the reasons why traditional European military powers adapt in the way they do (or don't).

The Black Sea has been called a Russian lake before. Perhaps it was again after 2008: Russia used the Black Sea for its invasion of Georgia, as a key avenue for attack during the annextion of Crimea (2014), for actions in Syria (2015 onwards), and for the latest attacks on Ukraine (starting in 2022). Yet despite a burgeoning military presence, the Black Sea is now a leading stage for competition between regional powers - not just Russia and Ukraine, but also Turkey, Georgia, Bulgaria and Romania too. Indeed, Turkey plays a really significant role both at sea and ashore, able to act as a regulator on Russian military activities at sea - but this is best done in concert with NATO and the EU. Natia Seskuria, founder and executive director of the Regional Institiute for Security Studies, talks to Peter about Russia's aspirations in the Black Sea, and is still able to "walk and chew gum" in the region. Natia talks about what sort of 'grey zone' activity Moscow continues to engage in, how effective it is, and what measures could be taken to counter Russia - if the West really wanted to.

Poland is an outlier in Europe: a state that has been willing to resource the national security statements of political leaders made in 2022, and cognisant of observations about high intensity combat being seen in Ukraine after the latest Russian invasion. Unlike other European capitals, Warsaw has funded a recapitalisation of its military based on a philosophy that puts aside a promsied future of military nirvana, replacing it with a pragmatic approach towards the good enough. Sound contracting for specific items, mainly from the US and South Korea, has ordered an impressive list of equipment, with additional equipment being lined up - all with a keen eye on the soverign benefit of onshoring production. And the contrast to the modest plans of Germany, France or the UK is stark.

Yesterday I had the pleasure to talk to Jakub Knopp, a young researcher who has recently published an excellent article on this topic. Jakub was also cautious in his assessment of the costs of these acquisitions over the next decade. It was a pragmatic and revealing insight into the differences between Poland and their geographic neighbour, Germany.