Whitehall Papers – serie

NATO’s Northern members are increasingly concerned about Russia’s military activities. This Whitehall Paper contains perspectives from prominent authors across the region, showing how member states are responding, individually and collectively, to Moscow’s resurgence. Overall, it identifies the common but differentiated responsibility that member states have for security in the Alliance’s northern regions.

Airpower remains the cornerstone of NATO’s military advantage, so maintaining the ability to win air superiority over peer opponents in a conflict is key to long-term deterrence stability in both Europe and the Pacific. This Whitehall Paper examines the various modernisation and future capability development efforts being undertaken within NATO, and analyses the major threat systems and overall modernisation trends of the West’s main peer-competitors – Russia and China.US airpower capability development efforts are increasingly focused on countering the growing challenge from the Chinese military in the Pacific. To meet this challenge, the Pentagon is planning to transform the way it operates across all domains over the next 15 years. New platforms, weapons systems and increasing automation of command and control threaten to leave NATO allies behind.Current acquisition and modernisation plans of European air forces may eventually close the capability gap with current US theatre entry standard capabilities, but by then the US will have leapt ahead once more. Furthermore, many of the airpower capabilities which the US is pursuing for the Pacific theatre are significantly less relevant for the demands of deterrence against Russia in Europe. Given continuing dependence on US enablers on the part of other NATO members, a significant divergence in capability plans threatens to undermine crucial Alliance interoperability if not recognised and managed early.

Future NATO looks at the challenges facing NATO in the 21st century and examines how the Alliance can adapt to ensure its continued successFor more than 70 years, the North Atlantic Alliance has helped to preserve peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. It has been able to adjust to varying political and strategic challenges. We must ensure that NATO continues to be effective in the future. This requires looking ahead, challenging habitual approaches, exchanging ideas, and advancing new thinking. I highly recommend Future NATO to policymakers, military professionals and scholars alike, as it offers necessary critical and constructive analysis of current and future challenges posed to our security and defence.Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Minister of Defence, GermanySince 1949, NATO has successfully upheld common principles and adapted to new realities. As Future NATO examines, the Alliance is facing a new set of external and internal challenges in the decades to come. The Alliance and its partners need to remain committed to future changes. I recommend this excellent study to all, but especially to the younger generation of scholars and future policymakers. Trine Bramsen, Minister of Defence, DenmarkOver the last 70 years, Europe has lived in peace and prosperity because of NATO, with unity as our most important weapon. We may have our differences, but we will continue to work on our common cause to promote peace, security and stability. To effectively do so, NATO needs to continuously adapt to changing security situations. An important current challenge is to ensure European Allies take more responsibility for their security. But we also need to look at future challenges and find innovative solutions for them. Future NATO offers a useful analysis that can help us prepare for what is to come for the Alliance. Ank Bijleveld, Minister of Defence, The Netherlands

Using hard power in the context of an expanding set of threats is complex, expensive and risky. European medium powers, especially, must make tough choices on the future capabilities, roles and equipment of their armed forces, as well as their ability to act independently of alliance partners. Decision Points: Rationalising the Armed Forces of European Medium Powers examines these trade-offs and calls for policymakers to approach each key decision on the future of their country’s armed forces with a clearer sense of the consequences for the state’s foreign policy.

A new era of great power competition places a strategic premium on the efficiency with which states can pursue their aims. There is therefore likely to be an expanded scope for partnered operations. Partner force capacity building has a long history, with very mixed results, yet there is little historical memory in the institutions tasked with carrying it out. War by Others’ Means uses archival research, interviews with practitioners, and observation of capacity building to understand why states undertake it, how they should select, train and equip their partners, and how they should manage the generation and withdrawal of trainers.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks prompted a new urgency in efforts to deal with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear proliferati on. The potential acquisition and use by terrorist groups of such weaponry was suddenly a much increased threat. The G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction subsequently encouraged some twenty-two countries and the European Union to pledge up to $20 billion to address this challenge. The creation of the Global Partnership was the first time so many countries agreed to collaborate on a range of non-proliferation, security and nuclear safety programmes, as well as commit such an amount of resources to them. Based on extensive primary research, this Whitehall Paper assesses the success and shortcomings to date of the Global Partnership, and suggests how the mechanism can be bolstered and taken forward.

In 2006, British forces entered the Helmand Province of Afghanistan in what would become one of the defining military campaigns of the decade. At great cost in blood and treasure, the UK waged a protracted counter-insurgency against a resurgent Taliban. But how was the decision taken to commit Britain to such a difficult and drawn out campaign? The Afghan Papers is the result of private interviews with and frank contributions by some of the most important actors in the fateful decision. Former generals, politicians and civil servants contribute to an original RUSI analysis that provides a startling insight into the decision to commit the UK to a war – a decision wracked by conflict, incoherence and confusion.

Defence reform has been a major component of Bosnia’s stabilisation and nation-building. Though true for many cases of post-conflict transition, it is especially so for Bosnia, which arguably has the most complex state structure in Europe. Ten years on from the start of Bosnia’s defence-reform process, Destination NATO records and reviews the Bosnian experience of defence reform. The monograph offers policy-makers, practitioners and academics knowledge of the specific case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and makes these insights relevant to defence-reform efforts in other contexts.The research is based on original sources and an extensive set of interviews and talks with key individuals including ambassadors, ministers and civil servants, and other senior national and international actors, in addition to discussions with several hundred politicians at local levels, students and NGO representatives. The authors also use their first-hand knowledge and insights to complement the documentation, interviews and discussions.

Despite the rise of ‘new’ security threats like terrorism, cyber-war and piracy, the terrible destructive power of nuclear weapons still hangs over the world. Discussion on further strategic nuclear arms reduction has tended to be dominated by the analysis of possible trade-offs between the US and Russia. But as the prospect of further cuts below ‘New START’ levels is contemplated, increasing attention needs to be paid to the possible shape of a new, multi-power approach to nuclear restraint. While restraint at low numbers goes with the grain of thinking in most nuclear states, correct sequencing will be vital. Using the New START framework, attention could initially be focused on incremental decreases in US and Russian stocks of the most dangerous weapons. Thereafter, the other nuclear powers would need to take steps to limit the size and capabilities of their own arsenals in a process of mutual reductions. If successful, the benefits would be wide ranging: successful restraint amongst existing nuclear-armed states could engender trust, as well as provide mechanisms for reducing the risks of rapid escalation in the event of limited conflict.Less is Better considers the various challenges and opportunities for ensuring restraint at low numbers in today’s complicated web of bilateral nuclear relationships and in the context of the debate on ‘Global Zero’.

The quickening pace of Iran’s nuclear activities has produced an international sense of urgency. Sanctions have intensified, while fears of an Israeli strike abound. Talks have briefly eased the tension, before failing due to fundamental differences between Iran and the West. There seem to be dim prospects for peaceful resolution; the worry is that this long-running dispute could become a permanent crisis.This Whitehall Paper tackles the Iranian nuclear dispute in its full context to determine what possible compromises may exist and how they may be achieved. While the crisis is embedded in a set of overlapping security disputes between Iran on the one hand, and the United States, Arab regional powers, Israel and the broader ‘West’ on the other, it is also important to analyse it in a comparative and thematic context. Iran’s programme is not sui generis: previous experience can help to inform our assessments of how Iran will be affected by, and respond to, intense multilateral economic and political pressure, and what its nuclear posture might be. This study also examines how policy responses by the West should evolve were Iran to resume its alleged nuclear-weapons programme, continue to undertake some degree of near-weaponisation or weaponisation, or test and deploy nuclear weapons.The Permanent Crisis questions the assumptions and logic of alarmist studies – those which see a nuclear Iran as fanatical, unresponsive to deterrence and certain to precipitate a wave of unstoppable nuclear proliferation – whilst outlining the very real risks that would flow from such a failure of Western policy.

Political elites in liberal democracies are showing heightened concern about threats to national security from the overseas political activities of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and its supporters. This Whitehall Paper argues that an effective liberal democratic policy response requires careful disaggregation of distinct sets of risks: to national security; civil liberties; and academic freedom. Although widely cited as a model to follow, Australia’s response to these issues illustrates how aggregation of these diverse risks into a singular national security threat – commonly labelled ‘Chinese influence’ – can produce alarmist public policy discourse, legislative overreach and mismatched institutional responsibilities. The Paper suggests a set of measures for liberal democracies to manage their engagement with China’s powerful and increasingly authoritarian party-state.

Dominant narratives about the changing character of warfare and the revolutionary effect of technological advancement lack nuance and can ultimately be detrimental to the development of a defence capability fit for future purpose.

The resurgence of Russian power in the Arctic and High North will be a key consideration for NATO planners. The Alliance’s northern flank represents both a potential vulnerability due to its relative isolation and an area in which NATO enjoys options for horizontal escalation in a conflict. Moreover, as the effects of climate change create opportunities for both navigation and resource extraction, peacetime control over the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and a contest to establish effective administrative control in this area are likely. Disagreements regarding the degree of Russia’s jurisdiction over the NSR could, for example, simmer into a form of sub-threshold competition. The purpose of this Whitehall Paper will be to examine the balance of power between NATO and Russia in this critical region in order to establish the level of ambition that the capabilities being developed by Russia can support.

The British military spent 20 years fighting in Afghanistan. Considering the UK’s achievements against its objectives, defeat seems the most accurate description of the campaign’s outcome. How institutions respond to and learn from failure is a good measure of their effectiveness. But Britain's war in Afganistan also saw considerable tactical and operational learning to solve complex problems. Not only are some of the solutions valuable, but the processes by which they were derived bear study. The question is whether these lessons will be retained. This Whitehall Paper delves into some of the many valuable and hard-won lessons that can be derived from a study of British operations in Afganistan, beginning a conversation as to their relevance for future British miliatry undertakings.

Force structures around which western militaries were built after the Cold War, with their emphasis on comparatively small numbers of exquisite systems, will not withstand sustained combat with a peer competitor. As a consequence, there has been a growing emphasis on the employment of second tier capabilities alongside existing platforms and systems in a high-low mix spurred by the effectiveness of systems such as converted COTS UAVs in Ukraine. Such capabilities are part of a broader set of capabilities the procurement of which might be described as dissimilar rearmament. While there is considerable promise to second tier systems, enthusiasm can sometimes lead observers to elide over their vulnerabilities and the challenges associated with their employment. These challenges extend from the relative absence of formal tactical and operational concepts for the combination of mass and exquisite capabilities to the current absence of an enterprise level understanding of what would be needed to deliver capabilities at scale in terms of organisational reform, human capital and industrial policy. This Whitehall Paper discusses how dissimilar rearmament might be leveraged as an organising principle connecting R&D, industry and the armed forces across the physical, conceptual and moral components of fighting power. In doing so, it offers a means to reinforce the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area and the tactical, operational and strategic choices which will need to be made in order to realise the promise of new technology.

Western views of southern Somalia are dominated by perceived gaps in the overall liberal order. Classical Western liberalism emphasizes individualism, civil and political liberties, the rule of law, and state structures.Counter-insurgency warfare in former European colonial possessions since the 1960s has been a continuing challenge. Neither in Vietnam, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Iraq did Western armies “win” counter-insurgency wars in a way that left them stable, moderate, peaceful, states. They were left wartorn or under great oppression. Local elites did not share Western aims and did not unify to work together. Liberalism’s aims of peace and progress were not achieved.Every time a large liberal expeditionary force has been dispatched to stabilize a developing state since 1990, the results have been mixed or poor, even after deployments sometimes measured in decades (for example, the United Nations in the Congo since 1999). A detailed examination of the civilian government, international and indigenous military forces, and the police in southern Somalia shows that they are not capable of defeating the Al-Shabaab insurgents. Both the “Sunni Awakening” in Iraq in 2006 and the local clan offensives against Al-Shabaab from 2022 in Somalia offered the hope that a locally empowered approach, however, might make counter-insurgency success more attainable. However, from the situation in southern Somalia, it appears extremely unlikely that liberal counter-insurgency aims can be achieved through a locally empowered approach. Local elites do not share wider Western aims and are intensely divided. More generally, large, transformative, liberal-democratic expeditions into the developing world appear to have virtually no chance of success. First and foremost this is because local elites share neither their values nor aims. These elites are also, generally, bitterly divided and willing to fight for victory over each other’s factions into the indefinite future. The toll of climate destruction is growing, meaning Western resources will be increasingly needed closer to home. Between the very poor prospects of success, and the growing calls on limited deployable expeditionary resources, large, transformative Western liberal expeditions should end.

Russia's extensive campaigns of political subversion represent a strategic front in its efforts to reorder European security. While there has been much analysis of the forms these subversive acts take - bribing officials, hack-and-leak operations, and spreading disinformation - there is less detailed analysis of how the Kremlin orchestrates the range of tools at its disposal. This book, by laying out the methodologies employed by the Kremlin at the operational level and the architecture for implementing them, tries to identify the dependencies of this effort and therefore the opportunities for countering what has become a major threat to NATO and European cohesion.

The relationship between government and the businesses that contribute towards the defence and security of the state is a critical one; it often underscores a modern state’s foreign policy and sense of place in the world. Yet, despite its clear importance, this subject is underexplored and rarely analysed in a rigorous manner. As a consequence, government defence industrial policies, if they exist at all, often seem somewhat contrived, ill-considered and contradictory. The Defence Industrial Triptych systematically analyses the components and drivers of the relationships that bind a government to its defence industrial base by examining three major case studies: the UK, US and Germany, who between them account for over three quarters of NATO defence spending. The features of their defence industrial relationships –whether common or unique – provide vital lessons for policy-makers, industrialists and the taxpayer. As defence cuts bite across NATO and as the UK approaches the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the relationships this Whitehall Paper considers are more important than ever.

The book analyses the renewed importance of the North Atlantic for NATO in the face of new security challengesThis Whitehall Paper explores the renewed importance of the North Atlantic Ocean to NATO’s security through the lenses of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway in particular. These three NATO members form the territorial rim around the North Atlantic and its peripheral seas. All are maritime nations that have historically taken prime responsibility for security in the region and together with Iceland they form the front line to a resurgent Russian maritime capability. These three counties, with support from the rest of the northern region, must take the lead to ensure that NATO and its partners devote sufficient resources to this aspect of NATO’s area of responsibility.

This Whitehall Paper is an examination of China’s relations over its western borders, looking at the interplay between China’s relations with South and Central Asia, and its relations with other great adjacent powers.Based on a two-year research project that included travel and workshops in South and Central Asia, this Paper examines Beijing’s changing impact and relationship with its near neighbourhood. Conceived prior to the announcement of Xi Jinping’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ research for this report was undertaken in the shadow of the September 2013 announcement and the ‘Belt and Road’ ultimately proved to be the driving framework under which this report was drafted. The report sketches out the roots of the initiative, and how it is being felt on the ground, exploring in detail how it is being received in China’s immediate neighbourhood where its impact is most significant for China.

Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), after coming to power in 2002, sought to play a larger diplomatic role in the Middle East. The AKP adopted a proactive foreign policy to create ‘strategic depth’ by expanding Turkey’s zone of influence in the region, drawing on the opportunities of geography, economic power and imperial history to reconnect the country with its historical hinterland. Yet despite early promise, this policy came undone after the Arab upheavals of 2011 and has seen Turkey increasingly at odds with its neighbours and the West.Turkey's New Foreign Policy outlines the key tenets of the AKP’s policy of strategic depth in the Middle East and how this marks a departure from traditional Turkish foreign policy. Particular attention is focused on the Turkish reaction to the political changes that swept through the Arab world – including the Syrian civil war – and presented Turkey with its most significant foreign-policy challenge to date.Based on extensive primary research of Turkish-language sources, this monograph argues that political changes in the Middle East have precipitated a serious decline in Turkish regional influence, reversing earlier gains in influence after the AKP came to power. However, despite these foreign-policy defeats, the AKP has shown little indication that it is willing to scale back its ambitions, insisting that it stands on the right side of history – drawing a clear distinction between Turkey and the West.

The relationship between government and the businesses that contribute towards the defence and security of the state is a critical one; it often underscores a modern state’s foreign policy and sense of place in the world. Yet, despite its clear importance, this subject is underexplored and rarely analysed in a rigorous manner. As a consequence, government defence industrial policies, if they exist at all, often seem somewhat contrived, ill-considered and contradictory. The Defence Industrial Triptych systematically analyses the components and drivers of the relationships that bind a government to its defence industrial base by examining three major case studies: the UK, US and Germany, who between them account for over three quarters of NATO defence spending. The features of their defence industrial relationships –whether common or unique – provide vital lessons for policy-makers, industrialists and the taxpayer. As defence cuts bite across NATO and as the UK approaches the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the relationships this Whitehall Paper considers are more important than ever.

Despite the rise of ‘new’ security threats like terrorism, cyber-war and piracy, the terrible destructive power of nuclear weapons still hangs over the world. Discussion on further strategic nuclear arms reduction has tended to be dominated by the analysis of possible trade-offs between the US and Russia. But as the prospect of further cuts below ‘New START’ levels is contemplated, increasing attention needs to be paid to the possible shape of a new, multi-power approach to nuclear restraint. While restraint at low numbers goes with the grain of thinking in most nuclear states, correct sequencing will be vital. Using the New START framework, attention could initially be focused on incremental decreases in US and Russian stocks of the most dangerous weapons. Thereafter, the other nuclear powers would need to take steps to limit the size and capabilities of their own arsenals in a process of mutual reductions. If successful, the benefits would be wide ranging: successful restraint amongst existing nuclear-armed states could engender trust, as well as provide mechanisms for reducing the risks of rapid escalation in the event of limited conflict.Less is Better considers the various challenges and opportunities for ensuring restraint at low numbers in today’s complicated web of bilateral nuclear relationships and in the context of the debate on ‘Global Zero’.

In 2006, British forces entered the Helmand Province of Afghanistan in what would become one of the defining military campaigns of the decade. At great cost in blood and treasure, the UK waged a protracted counter-insurgency against a resurgent Taliban. But how was the decision taken to commit Britain to such a difficult and drawn out campaign? The Afghan Papers is the result of private interviews with and frank contributions by some of the most important actors in the fateful decision. Former generals, politicians and civil servants contribute to an original RUSI analysis that provides a startling insight into the decision to commit the UK to a war – a decision wracked by conflict, incoherence and confusion.

Between 1991 and 2002, Sierra Leone was wracked by a devastating civil war and the complete collapse of state institutions. Since then, however, the UK’s contribution to post-war reconstruction has been widely held up as an example of successful stabilisation and state-building – particularly of the country’s security and justice institutions. Securing Sierra Leone, 1997–2013 examines how the process of state-building through security-sector reform developed in Sierra Leone, and the impact of this experience on international conceptualisations of such reform as well as on international interventions more broadly. The study is the most detailed of its kind, based on a comprehensive analysis of UK engagement in Sierra Leone between 1997 and 2013, including a host of first-hand accounts from key local and international actors.This monograph shows why the UK intervention in Sierra Leone has been a relative success. However, it also questions the sustainability of state-building efforts that are driven by concepts of the liberal state. In Sierra Leone, critical challenges remain, not least in the combination of a particular vision of what a state should look like and the unrealistic expectations of progress on the part of the international community.

This Whitehall Paper is an examination of China's relations over its western borders, looking at the interplay between China's relations with South and Central Asia, and its relations with other great adjacent powers. Based on a two-year research project that included travel and workshops in South and Central Asia, this Paper examines Beijing's changing impact and relationship with its near neighbourhood. Conceived prior to the announcement of Xi Jinping's 'Belt and Road Initiative' research for this report was undertaken in the shadow of the September 2013 announcement and the 'Belt and Road' ultimately proved to be the driving framework under which this report was drafted. The report sketches out the roots of the initiative, and how it is being felt on the ground, exploring in detail how it is being received in China's immediate neighbourhood where its impact is most significant for China.

The book analyses the renewed importance of the North Atlantic for NATO in the face of new security challengesThis Whitehall Paper explores the renewed importance of the North Atlantic Ocean to NATO‘s security through the lenses of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway in particular. These three NATO members form the territorial rim around the North Atlantic and its peripheral seas. All are maritime nations that have historically taken prime responsibility for security in the region and together with Iceland they form the front line to a resurgent Russian maritime capability. These three counties, with support from the rest of the northern region, must take the lead to ensure that NATO and its partners devote sufficient resources to this aspect of NATO‘s area of responsibility.

India is growing into one of Asia�s most important military powers. Its defence budget has more than doubled in the past decade, and it imports more arms than anyone else in the world. But India is still seen as a land power focused on long, disputed and militarised borders with Pakistan and China rather than the global military force it was in the first half of the twentieth century under British rule. Is this changing? India is acquiring increasing numbers of key platforms � aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, refuelling tankers and transport aircraft � that are extending its reach to the Indian Ocean littoral and beyond. But most accounts of this build-up have been impressionistic and partial. Indian Power Projection assesses the strength, reach and purposes of India's maturing capabilities. It offers a systematic assessment of India�s ability to conduct long-range airstrikes from land and sea, transport and convey airborne and amphibious forces, and develop the institutional and material enablers that turn platforms into capabilities. It draws extensively on the lessons of modern expeditionary operations, and considers how India�s growing interests might shape where and how it uses these evolving capabilities in the future. This study finds that Indian power projection is in a nascent stage: limited in number, primarily of use against much-weaker adversaries, and deficient in some key supporting capabilities. India�s defence posture will continue to be shaped by local threats, rather than distant interests. Indian leaders remain uncomfortable with talk of military intervention and expeditionary warfare, associating these with colonial and superpower excess. But as the country�s power, interests and capabilities all grow, it is likely that India will once more find itself using military force beyond its land borders.