Ministry of Defence - Strategic Trends: Future Character of Conflict (2015)

 

Introduction

 

There are a number of options available to a government seeking to achieve its policy objectives. These options include the use of soft and hard power involving activities across the diplomatic, economic and military levers of power. This paper seeks to describe what military forces are likely to experience in future conflicts, and provides pointers to those areas which will be essential to their success. Conflict follows a natural cycle of adaptation and response, but its evolution is neither linear, nor constant. Much in the last Defence Review remains valid. However, while we have adapted well to some of the demands of current operations there is a growing sense that aspects of Defence are out of phase and lagging; we are still optimised for the conflicts that we fought in the past. Future conflict will be increasingly hybrid in character. This is not code for insurgency or stabilisation, it is about a change in the mindset of our adversaries, who are aiming to exploit our weaknesses using a wide variety of high-end and lowend asymmetric techniques. These forms of conflict are transcending our conventional understanding of what equates to irregular and regular military activity; the ‘conflict paradigm’ has shifted and we must adapt our approaches if we are to succeed. From the evidence collected for this paper, it is clear that the challenges of the future will demand even greater institutional agility in the face of major resource constraints and some profoundly worrying dications that the West may be losing the initiative in terms of dictating the way war is fought. This paper, which draws upon the recently updated National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Department for International Development (DFID) White Paper, will offer a view on the future character of conflict and then identify the broad implications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ministry of Defence - Integrated Operating Concept 2025 (2021)

 

Foreword

 

The strategic context is increasingly complex, dynamic and competitive. We live in an era of strategic competition in which long-held assumptions are challenged daily. Old distinctions between ‘peace’ and ‘war’, between ‘public’ and ‘private’, between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ and between ‘state’ and ‘non-state’ are increasingly out of date. Our authoritarian rivals see the strategic context as a continuous struggle in which non-military and military instruments are used unconstrained by any distinction between peace and war. These regimes believe that they are already engaged in an intense form of conflict that is predominantly political rather than military. Their strategy of ‘political warfare’ is designed to undermine cohesion, to erode economic, political and social resilience, and to compete for strategic advantage in key regions of the world.

The Integrated Operating Concept is designed to deal with this challenge. It updates our thinking on deterrence, recognising that our rivals are seeking to win without eliciting a warfighting response. Hence it establishes the need to compete below the threshold of war and it distinguishes between ‘operating’ and ‘warfighting’. It emphasises the importance of integration with allies, of the levers of statecraft, and across the five operational domains – multi-domain integration. This requires a transformation of the military instrument, including the need to structure forces to operate that can be adapted at graduated readiness to warfight while retaining some forces, including the Reserve, that are optimised to warfight. The ability to warfight is fundamental to our credibility.
Defence is confronted with two imperatives. We must establish a strategic culture, posture and ‘way of warfare’ that is fit for purpose in this new era of global competition; and we must modernise at the pace of relevance to be able to handle future threats. The Integrated Operating Concept is designed to guide our approach to addressing these challenges in the immediate term and represents a significant shift in military philosophy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Intelligence Council - Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (2008)

 

Executive Summary

 

The international system—as constructed following the Second World War—will be almost unrecognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic power from West to East, and the growing influence of nonstate actors. By 2025, the international system will be a global multipolar one with gaps in national power2 continuing to narrow between developed and developing countries. Concurrent with the shift in power among nation-states, the relative power of various nonstate actors—including businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and criminal networks—is increasing. The players are changing, but so too are the scope and breadth of transnational issues important for continued global prosperity. Aging populations in the developed world; growing energy, food, and water constraints; and worries about climate change will limit and diminish what will still be an historically unprecedented age of prosperity.

Historically, emerging multipolar systems have been more unstable than bipolar or unipolar ones. Despite the recent financial volatility—which could end up accelerating many ongoing trends—we do not believe that we are headed toward a complete breakdown of the international system, as occurred in 1914-1918 when an earlier phase of globalization came to a halt. However, the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks. Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments, and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th century like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion, and military rivalries.

This is a story with no clear outcome, as illustrated by a series of vignettes we use to map out divergent futures. Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor, the United States’ relative strength—even in the military realm—will decline and US leverage will become more constrained. At the same time, the extent to which other actors—both state and nonstate—will be willing or able to shoulder increased burdens is unclear. Policymakers and publics will have to cope with a growing demand for multilateral cooperation when the international system will be stressed by the incomplete transition from the old to a still-forming new order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATO - 2030: United for a New Era (2020)

 

Preface

 

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Meeting of Heads of State and Government in London in December 2019, Alliance leaders asked the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to undertake a Forward-Looking Reflection Process to assess ways to strengthen the political dimension of the NATO Alliance. To this end, in April 2020, Secretary General Stoltenberg appointed an independent Reflection Group co-chaired by Thomas de Maizière and A. Wess Mitchell and consisting of John Bew, Greta Bossenmaier, Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen, Marta Dassù, Anna Fotyga, Tacan Ildem, Hubert Védrine, and Herna Verhagen.

The Secretary General tasked the Group with providing recommendations in three areas:

1) Reinforcing Allied unity, solidarity, and cohesion, including to cement the centrality of the transatlantic bond;
2) Increasing political consultation and coordination between Allies in NATO; and
3) Strengthening NATO’s political role and relevant instruments to address current and future threats and challenges to Alliance security emanating from all strategic directions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATO - Cognitive Warfare (2020)

 

Info

 

As global conflicts take on increasingly asymmetric and "grey" forms, the ability to manipulate the human mind employing neurocognitive science techniques and tools is constantly and quickly increasing. This complements the more traditional techniques of manipulation through information technology and information warfare, making the human increasingly targeted in the cognitive warfare. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NATO - Cognitive Warfare: An Attack on  Truth and Thought (2020)

 

Executive Summery

 

Warfare has shifted dramatically over the past several decades, moving away from the physical threats of conventional warfare. War now moves towards the social and ideological threats brought about by mass media and advances in technology. The advent of this new type of warfare is different from anything we have seen before. Although it takes elements from previous types of hybrid warfare, the reach and level of impact it possesses make it far more dangerous than its predecessors. We have dubbed this new way of war cognitive warfare.