Wednesday 1 March 2017

Britain: World Power?

Sparked by a debate the other day on Twitter and given added emphasis to write again by the pressure of Think Defence recommending me, I'd just like to muse today about the idea of Britain as a world power. It's a subject that comes up fairly frequently in UK defence circles and at times seems to take on a life and importance all of its own. Can't perform mission A? Never mind, at least we're a world power don't you know. Need new equipment or a force structure? Well, what would a world power look for, etc.

It - to me at least - comes across as a quaint hold over from the days of Empire. I think sometimes people forget that the British Empire was built on the foundation of the UK being the pre-eminent economy of its day. Why is the Royal Navy not as big as it was in the days of Nelson? Because we simply can't afford it is the obvious answer. The US military may spend twice what we do on defence as a percentage of its GDP, but that's not the key difference. What's far more critical is the size of US GDP in the first place compared to that of the UK. That is what permits the US to field such a large and powerful force. 

Yet even though our forces are small in comparison to Uncle Sam's mighty band, we still retain a number of quite excellent capabilities. The new Astute class submarines are widely accepted as being powerful combatants, as you would expect from a nuclear powered attack sub. History has given us a glimpse of what such an asset can do against a conventional surface force. We know that the Challenger tank, despite getting a little long in the tooth, has a remarkable combat capability. And we know that Typhoon is - at least on paper - a match for a good chunk of the worlds combat aircraft in a 1 vs 1 fight. 

The question isn't so much one of whether the UK can exert any military force against its potential foes, it quite clearly can. The question is whether the UK can do this on a scale that is truly meaningful. I think this also comes down somewhat to semantics. What does being a "world power" actually mean? At what point do we agree that a country has passed a pre-defined limit and become a world power?

Is India a world power for example? It can project some force at distance if required, but how much force does it need to qualify? It could certainly make a mess of many enemies on its home soil. And if India is not a world power, but the UK could not in a purely hypothetical scenario project enough force to defeat or coerce India in a military conflict, does the UK really qualify as a world power?

The whole debate has more shades of grey than a certain famous fictional franchise and it would appear it's just as easy to get tied up in knots while exploring both.

For me the critical point hinges not on the ability of the UK armed forces at their component level, but rather the scale of what can be brought together at the business end of a military engagement. The Type 45 destroyer taken in isolation is one of the most advanced and capable air defence assets possessed by any navy on Earth. What it might lack currently in the ability to engage ballistic missile and satellite targets, it makes up for in a design philosophy tempered by the Royal Navy's operational experience against opponents that fire back and as such the need to be able to engage low-flying targets like anti-ship missiles as early as possible.

The issue is there's only six of them. As such they can't be everywhere at once and even concentrated together their firepower has its limits. Here for me is where the argument of the UK as a world power falls down; a simple lack of mass. While the UK brought a range of interesting and capable tools to the intervention in Libya back in 2011, it is highly questionable whether the UK would have been able to achieve its political aims without the assistance of its allies. Indeed without the commitment of allies, it's highly questionable whether the UK would even have attempted any kind of military action in the first place, assuming of course that it was indifferent to any kind of political backlash from doing so unilaterally.

Is this what constitutes a world power? A naval task force cobbled together that included ships sailing home to be decommissioned, a composite air expeditionary group that barely put up two squadrons worth of combat aircraft, and a land force that if it had been required and permitted to be used would probably not have reached beyond a brigade in scale?

I'm not convinced. Nor do I think I really need to be. Britain has its place in the world. It is what it is. The ebb and flow of time and geo-politics means that nations will always rise, fall, rise again, and sometimes just float along in the middle somewhere. Without a sudden and dramatic economic surge the UK will not be competing toe to toe with America and China for their pre-eminent global position any time soon. But nor does it need to.

It's ok to successful and prosperous without beating yourself up about not being number one. Of course everyone wants to rise to the top, but right now the gulf between the top two and the next two in global GDP is quite big. There's nothing wrong in being pragmatic about your situation while trying your best to improve it. I would go so far as to argue that unless you can truly appreciate and understand your position, what hope do you have of making it better? How can someone living in the midst of a delusion about their position possibly find the right path to improve it? 

And here is where I see the world power theorists. To assume that the UK is a world power and must have all the tools that a world power requires is to blind yourself to the real status of the UK and its requirements for defence at home and abroad. Not accepting that the days of Empire are over can do nothing but obscure the correct path forward. "Necessity is the mother of invention" as the saying goes, but if you can't see the necessity then how can you expect to begin the process of invention?

Thus instead of viewing the UK through the lens of a world power that tries to flex its muscles and compete everywhere, I tend to view the UK's military position through the lens of a small but highly capable force that needs to husband its resources carefully and focus its efforts where they can achieve the maximum utility. Rather than penny packet an already stretched force across the entire globe, trying to be everyones best friend and to get involved in every brush fire that starts, I'd prefer to see the UK narrow down its scope a little and give more weight (and assistance) where it really matters.

This does not preclude the idea of working with far flung partners. There is no reason why a British army that was more focused on "near abroad" activities couldn't annually send say a company sized unit to go and spend a few weeks in Australia on exercise with the Australian army. There's nothing to prevent the Royal Navy arranging occasional visits and exercises alongside its counterparts in India, Malaysia or South Korea. Narrowing the focus of the UK away from trying to be a world power does not mean giving up on the world any more than leaving the European Union means that the UK is giving up on Europe.

What I'm talking about is simply the idea of letting go of the notion that the UK is or even needs to be a "power". Being a capable and willing ally, having the ability to bring certain abilities to the table when they matter, and focusing on what we do well in the quantities that we can properly support should be more important.

13 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice to see you blogging again! as a foreigner, I will not comment on British medium or great power status. I will rather argue the need for upgrading British participation in European security and regional cooperation’s.

    As I said in the twitter discussion; being able to deploy one brigade east of Suez, is unlikely to offer sufficient mass to be of consequence. Unless Britain can marshal a coalition to flesh out a UK expeditionary force, the British military is (IMO) too anaemic to go it alone. Britain’s best opportunity to rise to great power status (or remain as one) is to become the keystone of various regional cooperation’s.

    I like what you say about having a realistic view of own power and limitations. British focus on farawaystan have isolated it from Europe. The regional cooperation’s in Europe (V4, NORDEFCO Benelux, Baltics, etc.) increasingly look to France, Germany or both for defence/diplomatic leadership. If Britain doesn’t massively upgrade its interaction and participation with these frameworks, they risk being supplanted by a Franco-German partnership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... being able to deploy one brigade east of Suez, is unlikely to offer sufficient mass to be of consequence".

      "Britain’s best opportunity to rise to great power status (or remain as one) is to become the keystone of various regional cooperation’s."

      Basically my entire stance on the matter summarised in two sentences. You should give this writing lark a go Sorings!

      Delete
  3. I look at it in two ways.
    The first, is defence.

    The UK can, with relatively modest expenditure, defend itself against anyone, with the exception of the US, whom we could barely keep out with a war economy.
    China is too far away and couldn't project enough force even if it moved its force that way, same goes for Japan.

    The EU powers don't have the gumption and have bigger concerns defending their eastern border.

    Russia is a paper tiger, for all its bluster, its max sustainable effort in Ukraine and Syria is a reinforced armored infantry brigade, a small flotilla of ships and 36 mixed aircraft. About what we deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, a much longer distance with much less reliable locals.

    The second, if offence.

    I'm going to shoot off on a tangent here.
    The two functions of a military are
    To deter the use of coercive force
    To employ coercive force

    And its here we could come in to our own.
    Obviously, our ability to employ coercive force against the US, China, Japan and the European powers would either be laughed at, ineffective, or mutually destructive. but further down the chain, it gets interesting.

    "Is India a world power for example? It can project some force at distance if required, but how much force does it need to qualify? It could certainly make a mess of many enemies on its home soil. And if India is not a world power, but the UK could not in a purely hypothetical scenario project enough force to defeat or coerce India in a military conflict, does the UK really qualify as a world power?"

    If the UK and India got in to it, the UK couldnt land an army and march on Dehli. But wouldn't have to.
    India, like most nations, except us, has serious local security issues. Its not that they couldnt beat us, its that even fighting us weakens them catastrophically on other, more important, fronts. The Indian Politicians who win the battle of the Arabian Sea, sinking the British Littoral Task Force, and loses the seven sisters conflict, and the seven sisters, to China, isnt going to be remembered as a hero, might even be shot.

    A UK, so inclined, would have no trouble creating and sortieing a force thats more than a match for any power not ruled out above.

    So India has a choice, it sails out to meet us in the open seas, maybe it wins, but its fleet is devastated and its future security in imperiled, or maybe it loses, its fleet is destroyed, and its future security is imperiled.
    Or, it stays in port, and waits.
    The BLT takes up station off the coast of Gujarat and makes a few probing flights, trying to draw India in to a long range engagement. India deploys additional aircraft and air defences.

    The BLT slips away at night and carries out a snap raid on Mumbai and disappears again, all hell breaks loose in the Lok Sabha. More and more aircraft are diverted from normal duties to defend the Capital and hunt down the BLT. It remains elusive, a few planes at the extremes of their search range are lost, they never saw their attackers.

    The Indian Air Force begins to creak under the strain, being neither trained nor equipped to play cat and mouse over the vast oceans.
    A small BLT ground force seizes Agatti Airport, disables the air traffic control tower, mines the airstrip and departs.
    Pakistan and China begin quietly building up their forces on the border.

    And so on and so forth.

    India is rapidly forced to make a choice, does it accept whatever demands the UK has made of it return its forces to their usual positions and maintain its borders, or does it continue its efforts to engage the BLT, and suffer serious defeats on both Northern Fronts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "This does not preclude the idea of working with far flung partners. There is no reason why a British army that was more focused on "near abroad" activities couldn't annually send say a company sized unit to go and spend a few weeks in Australia on exercise with the Australian army. There's nothing to prevent the Royal Navy arranging occasional visits and exercises alongside its counterparts in India, Malaysia or South Korea."
      See, I go the other way on scale. Unless there is a very specific reason, and all that pops to mind is demonstrating a piece of equipment, or having it demonstrated, I dont see the point. We have companies, Australia has companies, I just dont see the concrete benefit in training a British company with an Australian, rather than a Brtish with a British or an Australian with an Australian.
      Australia doesn't have a Carrier and attendant flotilla. If, for whatever reason we contrive, Australia wishes to train against one, its going to need to borrow one.


      "I will rather argue the need for upgrading British participation in European security and regional cooperation’s."
      "Unless Britain can marshal a coalition to flesh out a UK expeditionary force, the British military is (IMO) too anaemic to go it alone."
      "British focus on farawaystan have isolated it from Europe."

      Britain isn't isolated from EUrope, EUrope is isolated from reality. Europe has one military security concern, Russia, and I suppose through Greece and Cyprus, Turkey. It is utterly devoid of realistic planning or procurement to fight the Russian war machine, it mostly complains Russia is cheating and appeals to the UN to put Russia on the naughty step, even if they were to come join the reality based community, what do they bring with them? They're mostly poor versions of us without the fortress to live in.

      Delete
    2. Domo,

      Firstly I think you might be under-selling India and its abilities a little!

      As for working with say the Aussies, the benefits (plural) come from sharing ideas and techniques, learning each others procedures which makes future live operations easier, as well as the unique training environments that somewhere like Australia would have to offer. Australian forces in particular have quite a tremendous combat record and historically have shown themselves to be highly pragmatic and adaptable to new situations and solutions. They're ideal candidates to learn from I would argue.

      Delete
    3. Domo
      I will not argue against European leaders and publics being unserious on security/defence issues.
      But how you can compare draconic sanctions with empty appeals to the UN is beyond me… sure there is the empty rhetoric and UN appeals, but the sanctions are biting.

      EU defence integration have so far been ineffective and talks of an EU army are obstructing defence cooperation, not enhancing it.
      Europe is however going through a pragmatic regionalization. Benelux and Nordic cooperation’s might have the most integrated forces in Europe, and the Polish led Visegrád cooperation is gaining momentum.

      What could these cooperation’s offer? Ideally, if the UK participated actively, it would have a say in future ambitions and developments. Using the existing UKNL naval cooperation as an ideal blue print. Benelux cooperation might provide a larger contingent of Marines and LPDs to the UK/NL AF. I see no way in hell that the UK can build a Triangular division of Royal Marines, but I do see a possibility in nudging the Benelux and Nordic regions. Nudging them into providing a Brigade of Royal Marines + LPDs to a British Commanded Royal Marines Division.

      Delete
    4. Chris
      I see a benefit in embedding officers and grenaders in foreign armies to learn, but I would prefer regular deployments of Battalion Battlegroups (minimum formation) to Australia and Canada to retain personal ties and doctrinary commonality. I would argue Australia should be one of those defence frameworks the UK should integrate into.

      Delete
    5. Domo
      India face threats at every border + destabilising insurrections, I’m more or less in agreement here. What I’m slightly disagreeing with is the Indian capabilities and your underselling of India’s diplomatic power. India’s claim to great power status stem not from expeditionary forces, but its population size, internal market and the assumed future greatness (widely believed assumptions matter).
      I’m also slightly confused by your view of Russia. In this post you call them a paper tiger, in the post below you describe a Russian war machine. A war machine capable of menacing the combined might of (continental) Europe! Which is it? My view of Russia is that she always appears stronger or weaker than she really is (Churchillian saying).
      Lastly, you mention the catastrophic consequences likely to befall India, even if successful in sinking the British Carrier Battlegroup. I wouldn’t be surprised if a UK PM had a (deadly) accident after losing an entire BG! The Royal Navy is already at a size were losing a singular ship might be described “a catastrophic loss” … what do we call losing an entire Carrier Group?

      To clarify, I found most of your post interesting and valid. But as I have nothing to add to your hypothetical war against India (beyond saying it’s a good doctrine for a sophisticated navy) … I choose to focus on my two points of disagreement and one point of confusion.

      Delete
    6. "I’m also slightly confused by your view of Russia. In this post you call them a paper tiger, in the post below you describe a Russian war machine. A war machine capable of menacing the combined might of (continental) Europe!"
      The combined might of continental EUrope is minimal.
      Russia at least has plans for rapidly mobilising 10million men
      EUropes plan might as well start with manufacturing faulty condoms...

      "I wouldn’t be surprised if a UK PM had a (deadly) accident after losing an entire BG!"
      "(beyond saying it’s a good doctrine for a sophisticated navy)"

      Thw first informs the second :)

      Delete
    7. Domo

      You seriously overestimate the power of Russia and the hopelessness of Europe. Europe have world leading industries and strategic dept. Russia doesn’t have that anymore.


      I'm still curious about your: “you guys won’t fight for us” comment. From where I’m sitting, every NATO war have been done at Anglo-American instigation… and we’ve fought in all of them!

      "On the point of us Europeans being unwilling to fight in “your” wars, what the hell where we doing in Afghanistan and Libya? Sweden offered its impressive reconnaissance capabilities (might not be sexy, but it’s quite useful) and the Norwegian and Danish air forces contributed almost 1/3 of the coalition strikes. All the Scandinavian countries sent a battalion strength unit to Afghanistan for a decade of campaigning.
      A functional NORDEFCO could offer a brigade sized formation (same as UK Afghanistan contribution). The Benelux countries are in a similar situation, Dutch and Belgium cooperation could easily muster a brigade. We have already proven a willingness to deploy “out of area”, the point about Frameworks is too create synergy effects through cooperation."

      Delete
  4. Sorings
    "I see no way in hell that the UK can build a Triangular division of Royal Marines, but I do see a possibility in nudging the Benelux and Nordic regions. Nudging them into providing a Brigade of Royal Marines + LPDs to a British Commanded Royal Marines Division. "

    To do what with though? I can see why they want us to commit forces to the defence of Norway, but its not going to be a two way deal, they arent going to fight our war, just let us provide the bulk of the force for theirs.

    "I’m also slightly confused by your view of Russia. In this post you call them a paper tiger, in the post below you describe a Russian war machine. A war machine capable of menacing the combined might of (continental) Europe! Which is it? My view of Russia is that she always appears stronger or weaker than she really is (Churchillian saying)."
    Russia is a paper tiger, its just Europe has become a paper kitten.
    Russia might collapse after a month fully mobilised, but its hard to see a situation in which Europe doesnt capitulate in a week. Especially if "capitulate" comes down to Europe agrees to pay reparations for its sanctions and an ongoing subsidy, maybe tied to minimum import quantity and minimum import price of gas?

    "Lastly, you mention the catastrophic consequences likely to befall India, even if successful in sinking the British Carrier Battlegroup. I wouldn’t be surprised if a UK PM had a (deadly) accident after losing an entire BG!"
    Absolutely

    ReplyDelete
  5. I find it curious that you can concoct scenarios were the UK is in shooting wars with India (or some other rising power), but consider the European balance of power unconcerning. British strategic interests are deeply linked to its “near abroad”. Your ability to roam the world is pointless if your neighbourhood is contested. The last time you tried “splendid isolation”, you awoke to the German Empire and 2 world wars.

    What to do with a triangular Division of Marines + extra escorts and LPDs? Not a navy guy, so not sure if a marine commando division makes sense or not. But I’m fairly certain a Royal Navy with some impressive Queens (in the form of Aircraft Carriers) and a global network of bases and logistics would find extra pawns useful.

    On the point of us Europeans being unwilling to fight in “your” wars, what the hell where we doing in Afghanistan and Libya? Sweden offered its impressive reconnaissance capabilities (might not be sexy, but it’s quite useful) and the Norwegian and Danish air forces contributed almost 1/3 of the coalition strikes. All the Scandinavian countries sent a battalion strength unit to Afghanistan for a decade of campaigning.
    A functional NORDEFCO could offer a brigade sized formation (same as UK Afghanistan contribution). The Benelux countries are in a similar situation, Dutch and Belgium cooperation could easily muster a brigade. We have already proven a willingness to deploy “out of area”, the point about Frameworks is too create synergy effects through cooperation.
    Now, I doubt there is much appetite in Britain to refight the 4th Afghanistan war. So offering land power might not be of future use. That’s why the UK/NL AF is interesting.

    ReplyDelete