From a geo-political and military strategist perspective the last few months have been momentous but equally it can be argued that little has actually changed. At times the whole world order seemed to be tottering towards the edge of some unknown abyss, and the peace, security and freedoms we have all lived under seemed more tenuous than ever.
The leader of the free world, of a country that for generations has honestly believed it had a moral obligation to be the ‘good guy’ often at often huge financial and human cost, acts more like a comic book gangster insulting friends, threatening economically ruinous tariffs and making bizarre loyalty demands all in equal measure. The role of the United Nations is being undermined both financially and by a new Board of Peace.
The acknowledgement of the role of international law is being subjugated to the doctrine ‘might is right’. The centrality of Nato Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) is publicly questioned, not just by the US president but by those countries most at risk of attack. For many of us, me included we can be forgiven for a general sense of foreboding and of a concern of what does this all mean, if not for us, for our children? This list isn’t exhaustive and added to this is the endless media coverage which perhaps means that many feel the sword of Damocles is hanging over us all. I feel this has created a huge rise in uncertainty, fear and mental health issues, but we also need to look at the facts behind some of the headlines.
The war in Ukraine has not materially changed and it continues extracting a high toil in casualties on both sides for little gain. The uneasy peace in Gaza remains but with little trust on either side and a glacially-slow process to any long-lasting deal that would provide security to the Israeli people and enable the rebuilding of the ruined strip. President Maduro of Venezuela was spirited out of Caracas but his long-term deputy and military power base remains in place. The anti-government demonstrations in Iran have petered out with hundreds dead and thousands imprisoned but with the Islamic regime still in place. Greenland hasn’t been invaded. The Chagos deal hasn’t been signed and may or may not be; if it is, it will be from my military perspective, a major geo-strategic blunder. Tariffs, on so many countries for so many reasons, have been threatened then quietly reduced or removed. Our national economies have continued, and real-world cost-of-living and inflation haven’t been hugely impacted.
I hope readers will forgive me, but I would like to focus, as an example of this hubris, on the comments that British (and Allied) soldiers didn’t fight in the front line in Afghanistan. The statements by President Trump that Nato would not come to the aid of the US is just factually wrong. Only the US has invoked Nato Article 5 and their allies answered the call. In the UK this was often at domestic political cost, irrespective of whether it was a Labour or Conservative government. Equally the statement that allies’ soldiers weren’t on the front line is factually wrong; trust me, I was there in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This statement caused immeasurable anger amongst veterans and our families; especially of those wounded or killed. But our anger wasn’t at the US as a nation, and most certainly it wasn’t with the US service personnel we fought, bleed and cried with. If anything based on the messages from the US friends I served with, they were more shocked and upset than we were. Then we had a retraction from President Trump, not an apology, but welcome nevertheless even if it required the King’s personal note to achieve it. But as quickly as we were questioning the role of Nato, the role of the US within Nato and our ‘special relationship’ the issues seemed to have dissolved away. Nato remains, and the secretary general Mark Rutte deserved major credit for navigating these issues. I use this as an example of the new political reality we are living in. Grandiose if bizarre statements or threats, a period of real anxiety and fear, a reversal to a more reasonable position, and then (and this is a huge generality) things continue pretty much as before.
So, am I saying we shouldn’t be worried? That we shouldn’t take too seriously the somewhat bizarre approach by the US administration to geo-politics and their allies? Actually, no I am not. My message is somewhat more nuanced around the risks we are now living through.
Politics by social media or press conference (President Trump’s preferred mediums) isn’t diplomacy. It doesn’t make a leader look strong or trustworthy, it actually makes a leader look weak, vainglorious and lacks credibility. I am not overly concerned about how the US president, or indeed any world leader, wants to perceive themselves. But credibility and capability are the crucial risks as they are the basis of deterrence; the US has the latter, but the former is I believe now open to question.
Ask yourself why hasn’t President Putin come to the negotiating table earlier? Russia has suffered catastrophic losses in men and material, is probably in a major recession (official figures aren’t being published) in a war of limited value. The US administration, including President Trump, has spent considerable time, effort and political capital trying to bring the war to an end. The US has the capability (military, economic and diplomatic) to do so but seemingly lacks any credibility. This undermines the traditional approach to deterrence and diplomatic coercion known as the Roosevelt doctrine of ‘speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far’.
Putin knows, or can reasonably assume, that if he just holds on he will be able to extract a better deal. If Putin feels this about Ukraine, why would he not assume the same lack of credibility of the US commitment to protect the Baltic states? The linked risk is the vainglorious leader. A leader who believes they are infallible, or righteous, or both. That type of leader is more willing to take big risks as they have a huge optimism bias of how things will play out and they will not listen to alternative advice or facts.
Unfortunately. as the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq shows us, ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ and you are no longer solely in control once the fighting starts.
So, I hope readers will concur with me that things aren’t as bad as we might first assume. We shouldn’t take at face value or overreact to the seemingly endless rounds of, sometimes offensive, soundbite diplomacy. Equally we also shouldn’t just ignore the current hubris as there is a real and present risk of miscalculation leading to conflict. So traditionally allied governments to the US are all taking measures to mitigate this risk. There are three core levers of power to managing national risks: diplomatic, economic and military.
The UK government I believe is taking a primarily diplomatic approach to managing the Trump administration and the wider risks geo-political risks we now have, whereas other governments are placing greater emphasis on the economic or military levers of power. The Polish, German and Baltic governments are re-arming at a pace that is far faster and more focused than the UK. While all three levers of power all have an important role, I do believe the UK needs to place greater emphasis on defence. It is the final insurance policy when everything else fails. Extending reserve service to 65 years of age or a commitment to increase defence spending to 5% in the next parliament just doesn’t cut it.
If we want to feel safer in an uncertain world, we need more ships, more aircraft, and more fighting divisions – and quickly.
