![Michael Shurkin](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 32
- 150 977
Michael Shurkin
United States
Приєднався 13 гру 2010
Content about international relations, defense and security, Africa, and the Middle East.
The Dilemmas of the British Military
A discussion of the difficult choices faced by the British military.
An interesting discussion of British defense policy, albeit written before Ukraine: amzn.to/477xzau
Some of my past work on the British military and army:
wavellroom.com/2023/05/05/rethinking-british-military-policy/
www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1629.html
Check out my substack:
shurkin.substack.com/
Also:
MichaelShurkin
www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/
Last but not least:
www.michaelshurkin.com/
An interesting discussion of British defense policy, albeit written before Ukraine: amzn.to/477xzau
Some of my past work on the British military and army:
wavellroom.com/2023/05/05/rethinking-british-military-policy/
www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1629.html
Check out my substack:
shurkin.substack.com/
Also:
MichaelShurkin
www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/
Last but not least:
www.michaelshurkin.com/
Переглядів: 5 328
Відео
Channel Announcement: On-Line Classes Anyone?
Переглядів 150День тому
Does anyone have any interest in on-line classes on military strategy, COIN, or African conflicts? Message me or respond in the comments.
What the US Got Wrong About Afghanistan that Doomed the War
Переглядів 2 тис.День тому
A discussion of flawed assumptions that doomed the war. Here's Dobbin's book. It's fascinating. amzn.to/3yJe6jV Here's Karl Marx's fabulous book: amzn.to/3YT63eW Check out my substack: shurkin.substack.com/ MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/ Last but not least: www.michaelshurkin.com/
Judaism and Just War Theory
Переглядів 47614 днів тому
A conversation with Phil Lieberman, a rabbi, scholar, and naval officer. Phil's great new Guide for the Perplexed: amzn.to/3M0hxFI See also here: amzn.to/3M0hBFs Maimonides' laws of war can be found here: www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188343/jewish/Melachim-uMilchamot.htm Check out my substack: shurkin.substack.com/ MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1...
French Counter-Insurgency Doctrine and Mali
Переглядів 2 тис.21 день тому
What is French COIN doctrine, and is that what they were doing in Mali? Stuff to read: Galula : amzn.to/3WZZPZq and amzn.to/3yLoSG5 GEN Armel Dirou's excellent memoire of his time in the Central African Republic: amzn.to/3M8aPNP See also: Trinquier in English: amzn.to/4csrVkm Douglas Porch is critical of French COIN and basically argues Lyautey et al didn't really apply it and mostly just relie...
America in Africa: Talking about democracy and policy with the US Ambassador to Mali
Переглядів 717Місяць тому
A conversation with US Ambassador to Mali, Rachna Korhonen. Some of my favorite books about Africa: Read Howard French, "A Continent for the Taking": amzn.to/3Lsy8BS French, "Born in Blackness," amzn.to/3xWApSL Maryse Condé's "Segu," amzn.to/3zIdJGi Amadou Hampaté Bâ, "The Fortunes of Wangrin," amzn.to/4bM9JC1 Bâ, "Amkoullel, the Fula Boy," amzn.to/3S8SHHf Check out my substack: shurkin.substac...
The American Way of War, Pt 2, The French View
Переглядів 7 тис.Місяць тому
French views on the American way of war. Weigley: amzn.to/3ygId1S Coutau-Bégarie: amzn.to/3A1SGPe Yakovleff: amzn.to/3YmogRM The American Way of War Pt. 1. ua-cam.com/video/-canZtfsRU8/v-deo.html Check out my substack: shurkin.substack.com/ MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/ Last but not least: www.michaelshurkin.com/
The American Way of War, Pt. 1
Переглядів 1,7 тис.Місяць тому
A discussion of the American war of war. Books to read: amzn.to/3YkFkrs amzn.to/4d8qGb2 Check out my substack: shurkin.substack.com/ MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/ Last but not least: www.michaelshurkin.com/
What Americans Should Know About Africa
Переглядів 883Місяць тому
A Discussion of African Realities Read Howard French, "A Continent for the Taking": amzn.to/3Lsy8BS French, "Born in Blackness," amzn.to/3xWApSL Maryse Condé's "Segu," amzn.to/3zIdJGi Amadou Hampaté Bâ, "The Fortunes of Wangrin," amzn.to/4bM9JC1 Bâ, "Amkoullel, the Fula Boy," amzn.to/3S8SHHf Check out my substack: shurkin.substack.com/ MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shur...
Why People Want Israel to be Guilty of Genocide
Переглядів 1,5 тис.3 місяці тому
A discussion of why many people want really badly for Israel to be guilty of genocide. Best recent book on antisemitism: amzn.to/4aMRvjo On Israel-Palestine: amzn.to/4bHswPy My substack: shurkin.substack.com/ michaelshurkin.com MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/
What's a Nation? What's Nation Building?
Переглядів 5603 місяці тому
A discussion of nations, nation building, and flawed U.S. understanding and policy. Dominique Schnapper on nations and national identity: amzn.to/3KlzMVc Schnapper's book in English: amzn.to/4aDqL4z Benedict Anderson: amzn.to/4e9z2Aq Eugen Weber: amzn.to/4bYECU3 Weber in French: amzn.to/3X06KC1 McGovern on Guinea: amzn.to/3QYvVB5 Mona Ozouf: amzn.to/3wJnwuL My substack: shurkin.substack.com/ mi...
What Americans Don't Understand About Democracy Abroad
Переглядів 118 тис.3 місяці тому
Why US attempts to export or nurture democracy abroad so often fail. Stuff to read: Tocqueville! : amzn.to/3WbRuAb amzn.to/3Y2oFZv Check me out at shurkin.substack.com/ michaelshurkin.com MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/
Can Wars Be Won? Part 2: Ukraine
Переглядів 8283 місяці тому
A discussion of the possibilities and risks of a Ukrainian victory. My interview with Hubin about the Ukraine war: ua-cam.com/video/Hn-ivz0toE0/v-deo.html My discussion of Guy Brossollet's concept of defense in depth: ua-cam.com/video/UTINi-6FTXs/v-deo.htmlsi=VpmhTdx9FUUepAwJ Check me out at shurkin.substack.com/ michaelshurkin.com MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-...
Can Wars Be Won? Part 1: Gaza
Переглядів 5074 місяці тому
A discussion of victory in warfare and whether victory in Gaza is possible. Ye Olde Clausewitz: amzn.to/3UsNtGF A must read about Israel/Palestine: amzn.to/3UthdDq My substack: shurkin.substack.com/ michaelshurkin.com MichaelShurkin www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shurkin-ph-d-1397641a/
Ukraine and Why Armies Must Rethink Everything - A Conversation with General Guy Hubin
Переглядів 1,4 тис.4 місяці тому
Ukraine and Why Armies Must Rethink Everything - A Conversation with General Guy Hubin
The TikTokization of War - A Conversation with Ryan Noordally
Переглядів 3994 місяці тому
The TikTokization of War - A Conversation with Ryan Noordally
Counter-Insurgency Doctrine's Fatal Flaw
Переглядів 4365 місяців тому
Counter-Insurgency Doctrine's Fatal Flaw
What I Learned Doing YouTube that Scares Me
Переглядів 5765 місяців тому
What I Learned Doing UA-cam that Scares Me
General Hubin and the Principles of War 2.0
Переглядів 3495 місяців тому
General Hubin and the Principles of War 2.0
Pax Americana: Foch and the Principles of War
Переглядів 5806 місяців тому
Pax Americana: Foch and the Principles of War
Pax American Ep. 6: Gaza and Strategy
Переглядів 2976 місяців тому
Pax American Ep. 6: Gaza and Strategy
Castex and the Servitudes: A Key Insight from France's Greatest Naval Theorist
Переглядів 3316 місяців тому
Castex and the Servitudes: A Key Insight from France's Greatest Naval Theorist
Pax Americana Ep. 3: Introduction to Naval Strategy and why it's more Interesting than you think
Переглядів 3506 місяців тому
Pax Americana Ep. 3: Introduction to Naval Strategy and why it's more Interesting than you think
Pax Americana Episode 4: Conventional Deterrence (plus Beaufre content)
Переглядів 2426 місяців тому
Pax Americana Episode 4: Conventional Deterrence (plus Beaufre content)
Pax Americana Episode 2: Let's talk about Iran
Переглядів 3646 місяців тому
Pax Americana Episode 2: Let's talk about Iran
America is less of a democracy than European countries... The US is reigned by Corporate greed...
The US democracy is anything but a democracy! It´s a fake democratic show, controlled by very few.
This video is in my wheelhouse, I have, in a small way, contributed to the debate here in the UK. Britain has two main problems. The first is political, a lack of consistency in defence policy and this extends back at least a decade before the end of the Cold War, the only constant being nuclear deterrence. The second is structural, an overly powerful Treasury (our finance department), it effectively decides what every other department can spend and always tries to cut spending. Ambition. Britain is a fifth the size of the of the US and wants to have the same capabilities as the US military but a fifth the size. This doesn't work, for a start defence economics doesn't work that way for reasons discussed in the video and also because the UK economy only generates 75% of that if the US per capita. Iraq and Afghanistan showed the failure of attempting to be the US in miniature. The MOD decided Britain could run its own province in both but on a shoestring budget and without providing commanders with the necessary capabilities. The past quarter century has also brought home other realities with which the UK was not equipped to deal. First the problem of partnership with the US in procurement, every so often uk governments go into a transatlantic deal fondly believing they are full partners and they always get a nasty surprise. This time they invested heavily in F-35 development with the promise of an equivalent share of the work. Of course Congress shot that down by cancelling the alternative engine amongst other things. Second was the potential unreliability of the US as evidenced by the Trump administration, this has meant all European powers now require a backup to their backup. Third is Ukraine, where the run down of the British Army has been obvious. To find a path through these dilemmas clear long term policy goals need to be set, ones that provide a doctrine for governments going forward. They should name broad capabilities that we wish to have indigenously, those where we are happy to buy in and simply operate equipment made elsewhere, and those which we will rely on our security partners to provide. UK procurement is amongst the worst in the west but this means it's an area where much improvement can be made. Those responsible for the army have a recent history of making bad decisions and failing to recognise their own sink cost fallacies. Maintaining a small fleet of unique tanks that we no longer have the capacity to design and build is ridiculous, if we are to maintain an armoured force the best solution is to aquire something off the shelf without gold plating it to fit our supposedly unique requirements. This solution goes equally well for all the other combat vehicles the UK has struggled to procure. The RAF has dominated priorities in the recent past and they've pretty much been able to buy the best of everything, this has to change and they fo need to learn good enough is good enough. Naval procurement has been best, we maintain excellent capability to design and build submarines, have had the sense to buy in designs for surface combatants, the exceptions are the troubled carriers and lack of mass. One area where the UK could excel is how we look after our service members. Currently they are badly paid, poorly cared for, and have terrible housing. The first is simply a money question and a commitment needs to be made to keep their pay at an equivalent to a certain level elsewhere, the second requires getting in external HR experts to fix the broken system, and the third requires recognising that investment is more than a defence cost, it improves the general housing stock over the long term.
I agree on all points. Thank you for watching. By the way, a separate video on the British Army will go up this coming Monday at 6:45 Washington, DC time.
@@michaelshurkin613 thank you.
Hmmm, England needs C-130 airlift (200 planes) to move an airborne division (which doesn't exist) to Estonia in anticipation of a offensive into the Baltics which may, or may not occur. That could be Englands contribution to the NATO effort to repel an anticipated "special military operation" into the high north. Those forces could be on station in 18 hours. NATO forces will not arrive by sea-air sooner than that, and won't be there to defend Estonia in 30 days. Sea lanes and rail lines will be interdicted preventing heavy forces from arriving to influence the battle. Go airborne....
I always assume that a military can only really go where the diplomats lead. After all, how can one act kinetically if one has no clue as to context? Or how permissive the environment is? Perhaps we should be looking at the UK's diplomatic footprint to get some idea of future capability and deployability. Am i being naive? I hear dark mutterings about the state of our diplomatic service, but have no expertise. Anybody care to enlighten me?
I don't know about the state of the UK's foreign service, but I agree that a robust service is essential.
UK Armed forces have been run into the ground due to political and financial incompetence.Successive governments from the Thatcher /Reagan era onwards have cut manpower numbers to dangerously low levels and re direct the money ,often into our massive welfare system, while believing we can still maintain an offensive force with less and less people which is delusional. The UK has no task force capability and no Expeditionary Force capability anymore rendering us reliant on NATO completely whereas in the past we had everything needed.The UK is in dire straights.
Yes
The only thing on the evening news relating to a foreign country that may interest the general public is: « the cold front is coming from Canada »
Yes, or hysterics about migrant convoys or terrorist threats.
For the defence industrial base (specifically Land forces) the solution appears to me to be consolidation. Making use of the Ajax, Boxer & Supacat platforms to generate lots of “adequate” vehicles for a variety of roles, rather than trying to build bespoke MBT’s on a different platform. An example would be adopting a 120mm equipped Ajax variant for which there is already a proof of concept to replace the Challenger 3 or augment it as 148 is not enough. While it would be less capable, we need to compromise somewhere as you say.
I forgot the target for the C3 was only 148.
@@michaelshurkin613 An arbitrary number only selected because thats the number of CR.2 hulls deemed to be in acceptable condition
Every conflict the UK has been involved in since ww2 bar the falklands war has relied almost exclusively on the army! We can certainly concentrate on the RAF and Royal Navy, however what will we do when we require troops for other deployments? The army is already overstretched covering the current demands and this is effecting retention and therefore capability. How will our NATO allies feel about us stepping away from ground commitments to concentrate on the Naval and Air capability?
Arguably those army-based wars were non essential, and the RN and RAF are useful for the really essential stuff so merit a higher priority. Just a thought.
Thanks for your work here. And many points mentioned are difficult, awkward and unpleasant - compared to screwing eyes tightly closed, left and right hands with fingers crossed and saying the magic word, which gives the power of whatever. European and British industry has taken another massive and permanent hit due to unaffordable energy that drives up the price of everything, often at multiple levels from beginning to end of production. Sadly, no good will come from the new defence review, based on historic performance which has put UK defence in this position today.
💯
Americans treat politics like a sport, complete with odds, analyses, play-by-plays and post-game wrap-ups. Just as in sports, once they've pick one team as their "favourite" they simply cannot bring themselves to root for the other side. This inevitably makes the two-party system confrontational by allowing little room for any possible third opinion alternatives.
This, sadly is true. I blame the media, which aims to generate revenue rather than be of service.
this video seems to be a hit, congratulations and keep up the good work I enjoy all your videos.
Thank you so much. I hope the next video, on the British Army, does as well.
That’s the difference the US military has unlimited funds and resources. The UK does not we struggle with 2% for Defence let alone 3% which it should be. Your right bad decisions have been made since the Cold War.
Yup. Afghanistan didn't help. It muddied the waters with regard to thinking about what the UK needs.
He makes great points. However, every country the French have gone to absolutely hates France. It's funny the written criticizes America in Vietnam given that the US got there in the first place to save face for the French. The French where actually trying to fight a conventional war in the middle of the jungle and got beaten badly at it, as shown at their defeat in Dien Bien Phu. In US experience idk where the Americans lost any large scale battle of that magnitude.
France italy spain portugal Belgium and Germany up until very recently. Was are still not currently paying 2% of GDP on defence. France Spain and Italy have similar population and similar size economies. Why should the uk spend 3% of GDP on defence if countries on the mainland of Europe are not paying even 2% The u.s needs to give europe including us in the uk a kick up the ass. The u.s needs to concentrate on pacific with china. Europe main security concern it obviously Russia. However if NATO excluding us spends just 3% of GDP on defence I'm sure 30 countries is enough to deter Russis from further aggression.
The British army and navy can't even defend their own borders with thousands of illegal Immigrants getting into Britain in dinkys they are a disgrace to their uniform they are cowards
Fighting the wrong war.... in 1998 tony blair hosted the eu china summit in London where technological agreements were signed....so blind to whats actually going on
These british defense Ambitions are hilarious. Firstly, "Force Projection" has nothing to do with Defense, and shouldn't even touch that budget. "Ability to deal with anything, anywhere" is something a bullied 6-7 year old would wish for, as he has no clue what could happen as a result of his actions, once he strikes back. And "Industrial capacity" means getting all those miners back to work, the Thatcher/Reagan era has put out of business. Good luck with that, because that cuts into budgets aswell, as without subsidies nobody will go back to that arduous labour. Without a good salary and health insurance. (NHS funding). The bold faced cheek, RUSI presents here, shows it has no clue what else has to be in order, to get a" War-considering" Economy going.(education, affordable housing, food, and services, good wages for meaningful performance, like in health care. Why would someone defend someone (in this case, the state) who doesn't care for them in return? Motivation issue. I mean what was the last "WAR" Britain won? The Falkland War. Because if we're honest, Vietnam and Iraq didn't pan out the way NATO wanted, neither did North Korea, and Afghanistan was another NATO-disaster. Yes, i think, Britain could still win against Argentina. But not against an enemy, that has a similar military budget. PERIOD "dealing" with. Russia? or China? In Hollywood maybe. Unfortunately, Britain invests in BIG MILITARY TECH projects, which are so valuable, it can't risk to lose them in the end. Does the "Yamato effect" ring any bells? The Flagship of the japanese navy stayed in port as an air defense battery and PR-stunt to motivate troops there, for years. That's what you get for these "Big-Budget-for-Big-Weapons-programs". Protracted Wars are the Future (Forever Wars). And 5 to 10 Suicide Drones can wreak as much Havoc as a fully laden F-35. Guess what is "resupplied" faster and cheaper? Nuclear Deterrence? How long is that going to work once somebody dropped one? Hours? Days? And where exactly can you mine your own Plutonium, Caesium, or Tritium? Oh wait, it's a "dependency" on our "partners". Too bad, shipping lanes might get blocked or plane Transports might be intercepted by conventional weapons. Guess that's a Non-starter, out of the box. The "I, wish (whatever)....AND WORLD PEACE"- speeches at "Miss World"-contests have a higher chance to come true, than what britain's RUSI wants. As i said: HILARIOUS. The only thing on this list that deserves any proper attention, is the Background. Should be a Monthy python drawing.
Small army, small navy, small airforce. Small defence budget. Procurement problems. No cats on carriers. Selling defence companies, Sold H&K, closed Enfield small arms works. Sold Cobham. Tornado,Harrier, withdrawn from service. Tempest will never fly. F35 short range. F20 would have meant more quantity. Russia does more with less.
No cats on carriers? Seriously?
@@michaelshurkin613 ho, ho, ho ! furry ones maybe, but no catapults. So no F18s, or Rafaels landing any time soon for NATO integration. Maybe AV8 from US marines, but I thought they were being retired for f35. Another cost cutting measure. Hope Biden gives Ukraine permission to use weapons fired into Russia soon, i.e. give AGM 158 jassm system, as well. But Moscow is 350 miles to go, (400km, ) if they can get to 280miles, they can shell Moscow. This may have a political effect at home for Putin. It didn't go well for Napoleon or Hitler, and winter is coming. Looks like most of Russian army is in Ukraine, so Putin has limited ground forces, but am worried about their air force attacking the Ukrainian army in Kursk. Hope Harris wins, maybe her administration will not be so self deterring, through fear. Will Phillip Gordon be more hawkish as NSA ?
Maybe you should have just asked the Russians
Reminds me of the hubris of thinking one can do better than the French did in Indochina.
This is a pointless discussion when in the UK an average of 2.4 million children a month (or 17% of all children) are living in homes with food insecurity.
That's fair. I'm all for feeding kids and sympathize greatly with your POV.
This is a great vid because it let's you see what actually undermind the entire war effort, based on the experience of someone who psrticipated in the strategy. Unlike much of what you see online, which is often the schizophrenic blabbing from some fat 50 year old who is off his opiods.
Thank you.
@michaelshurkin613 cheers, sir!
I was sure the George Floyd mural would do it. Pride month too. Just bad luck I guess.
On his analysis of the Falklands campaign. It's to put it pretty pathetic & sloppy. It's the extreme gross ineptitude of the Argie Air Force in the formulation of its operational doctrine to counter the RN expeditionary fleet in regard to which part of the Falklands expenditary fleet that actually needed to be engaged to secure the Falklands/Malvinas from the British Marines & Army. They chose to engage & target frigrates, which was a grossly inept mistake. The target should have been the merchant vessels supporting the landing force & fleet auxiliaries carrying the landing force & its support. Why was targeting & engaging frigates & destroyer unnecessarily. That was because the Argies had a prefect working knowledge of what Sea Dart & what Type 42 missle destroyers were capable of the area air defence lower attitude capabilites of Sea Dart of what it could or more specifically what it could not actually do. In regard to the very few frigrates that had Sea Wolf then. They knew somewhat of its capabilites that while it is formidable, it was limited essentially to effective point defence of itself or another ship very, very closely nearby which merchant vessels can't attain the ship handling to be so close & not endanger its escort by hitting it. Therefore there was no real need to go after the surface combatants but to only focus on the vessles transporting the landing force & its support+sustainment. If it was taken out, then the ability of the British to recover the Falklands evaporate. 😊
The US was tricked into fighting Israel’s wars after Mossad stage the perfect false flag operation. Or in short , American has no business in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria
To Michael Shurkin: How could the American colonies be democratic when over half the people (women) could not vote? I don't know what dictionary you are using but I can't find your definition ... anywhere.
Fair. Also, blacks were enslaved. But the system was still democratic, if narrowly so, and fortunately evolved in positive ways.
I think Charles M. Faulkner summed it up best when he observed that the large land war such as ww1 ran contrary to the British perception that there was a uniquely British way of war, which found its typical example in the Seven Years War, with its emphasis on the navy and seizing of the enemy's overseas possessions. The thing is, the Golden Cavalry of St George might not be so easy to saddle up, nowadays.
Britain does not plan to field their own ACG at all, they expect to deploy their carriers protected by a battle group that must include allied ships.
That's a big assumption, no? Makes Britain dependent on others, above all the USN.
@@michaelshurkin613 It's the reality of their recent deployments, though, and one reinforced by the limited plans for the future RN fleet. To be fair, the real limit may be in the number of sailors available to the RN. But this isn't a one-way street. The RN has deployed with many NATO allies where French, Belgian, Spanish and Italian ships made up a large part of the Carrier Strike Group. In these deployments, the carrier remains the core and the irreplaceable part. Not many NATO allies are chomping at the bit to build and deploy their own carrier. As to being dependent on the US military, the UK government has long resigned itself to that, and in fact has leaned into it. It's the part of the "special relation" that is most directly appealing to the US: the UK's willingness to foot the bill for much "joint" defence research (and some manufacturing). For decades this has worked pretty well for the UK because the US commitment to Europe was solid. As the US turns its gaze to the Pacific, even as Russia is waging war in Europe, it's perhaps not clear whether this remains a viable approach. However, Australia and the US managed to exploit the UK's post-brexit desperation to anchor it militarily in the Pacific with the AUKUS pact. The same desperation drove the UK to join the CPTPP, a Pacific trade group intended to fight Chinese influence in the area. So whether or not it's a good strategy for the UK, it seems set on it. The current government has not given any indication of changing course.
The expectation was that Allied ships would be made use of if readily available to spare RN hulls, however, the UK CSG plan is for 1 x QE class, 2 x Type 45, 2 x Type 23/26, 1 x Astute, 1 x FSSS & 1 x Tide Class for a sovereign UK CSG. Now the existence of the T45’s and T26’s means that the CSG would be well protected, whether it packs enough of a punch is another matter.
@@michaelshurkin613 Hmm, looks like my reply got lost. In short, based on the RN's fleet plans, its available manpower and the deployment history of the current ACs, the UK is not planning to field its own ACG. That's not as crazy as it sounds because delivering the AC means the UK remains the main contributor to each ACG fielded by non-US NATO countries. And it only needs to work with one or two allies to get a full ACG together, and that shouldn't be a limiting factor for any military action the UK wants to participate in. As to depending on the US, that ship left a long time ago. The UK has been extremely comfortable in its position as the US's most ardent military supporter. Recent developments are casting doubt on this concept because AUKUS and CPTPP have locked the UK into a strategic and potential military confrontation with China in support of the US, while the US is clearly expecting European allies to take over the defence of Europe. Short of sailing the British Isles into the Pacific, future UK government can not really make this a sensible long-term solution.
Britain does not do all the maintenance, production or development on its nuclear deterrent. For all three pillars, it relies on the US to varying degrees. This should make things cheaper, but it's not apparent that that is the case. Its running costs are lower than France's (about half), but the French maintain two methods of delivery, and also have their own tactical nuclear capability. Realistically speaking, tactical nukes are the ones that are most likely to be used in the (very) near future.
The French consistently seem to get more bang for their buck. There's a story there that I intend to explore in future videos.
@@michaelshurkin613 Thanks, I'll be looking forward to it.
It's unclear whether the UK has all those Overseas Territories in order to have a global presence, or whether it has a global presence because it has all those OTs.
Them OT quite a few were original in the past, held so as to facilitate Eurodollar transactions & delivery of financial services to less salubrious characters & for tax evasion/avoidance/shelters. 😊
I'd say mostly the latter.
What Americans should understand about democracy in America is that for real democracy, a vote is a vote is a vote, no matter what state it comes from. The Electoral College is a perversion of democracy which taints the American version and must be abolished for the USA to mature into a genuine democracy.
I agree.
Re the 'anything, anywhere, because one never knows' category: Some extra detail I would add in here is a need to retain a minimum viable capability in every area which you might conceivably need in future, even if the medium-term justification seems slim. (Unless you are utterly convinced that the capability belongs in the past, like mounted cavalry). So, even if you think that a tank force is no longer a priority for the British army then it's still worth keeping a residual force of say 60-80 tanks so as to preserve all the knowledge and experience of operating a tank force. And along with retaining the core of such a force there should also be serious and regularly-updated planning for how such a force could be regenerated and expanded in the future, should priorities change in the future or new technology emerges.
At the moment it seems to be the case that the Army is preserving capabilities for the purpose of retaining the knowledge and experience. But that's different from having a force you can use in war.
Pax Americana is defeating itself with idiotic ambitions.
While de-industrializing with Net Zero.
And making enemies wherever it can.
The de-industrialization is the result of decades of trade policy that amounted to inviting China to steal America's lunch. Wall Street liked it, so it continued.
At 3:18, you imply that Iran is not interested in advancing its own interests, and at 3:38, you say that it is one of those few countries "for which resentment plays such a powerful role." You then go on to talk about how religious the leadership is, stating at 5:08 that they don't make “rational” calculations of their interests and act out of bigotry and religious fundamentalism. You have no proof that their religious beliefs drive their behavior vis-a-vis the outside world. It can easily be claimed that they act entirely out of their national interest-they are using religion to increase their dominance and soft power in the Arab world. I don't know if they believe in the religion they preach, but claiming the mantle of true Islam is helping them spread their influence all over the Muslim world. Every large country wants to dominate their region. There's nothing at all irrational in the way Iran is behaving. Its biggest rival is Israel, and its second biggest is Saudi Arabia. Iran is using Islam to stir up proxies that will attack their biggest regional rival. I imagine that they plan first to get rid of Israel and then take over Saudi Arabia. This is an entirely rational plan. I've heard people say, "Anyone who believes in fundamental Islam can't be rational.” This is not true; religious people tend to compartmentalize their beliefs. A person can be brilliant in science yet ascribe to a religion that makes no rational sense. I've known more than a few such people in my lifetime. It's a well-known phenomenon.
That's fair. Everyone's rational, in their own way.
Very good video. You are right, in many areas we have refused to make the hard choices
Thank you.
Britain has always been strongest when focussed on naval strength with air power to back it up closer to home. Those capabilities along with a small but elite army- e.g. SAS, airborne and elite professional army to retain skills and abilities. We are a fading power and need to build our wealth again
Yes, and overall capability. But feminism doesn't allow.
Except in Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Ireland etc in which the navy and raf had a minimal role
@@hazchemel feminism isn't a problem.
The UK is rebuilding. Looking back to the past to see when we were string can be instructive but does not provide a recipe for dealing with the problems of today or tomorrow.
Government does depend on the culture of the people who are to be governed. In Afghanistan I would have gone for a system of local warlords, governed by a central government in Kabul. Rather like a medieval system of nobles with a king over the nobles. That is a system that Afghans could have understood and accepted. I would say what the world needs is an organisation that can practice nation rebuilding. And the objective of that would be to get failed States into functioning countries. That would be done by getting a system of government set up that suited that country. Not governed by what was thought to be best for the country but what would work for that country. Then after the country became successful it would donate 2% of its GDP to help other countries to be reformed. I would expect mistakes to be made but with experience, the system should work. It is like any other project and worth doing because it would reduce world problems and increase wealth.
I was a British Soldier who had served in Afghanistan. Immediately after the second world war the American policy was to dissolve our Empire. Granted we were broke and exhausted. Worst of all from then on to this day we remain under your thumb. We are a declined and demoralized nation that doesn't recognize itself. We have gone and elected the Labour party who will break us further. Don't expect much from us now. Afghanistan and Iraq which I took part in. That was the last of the best of us. The Americans should dissolve their Empire.
What would the US "dissolving their empire" look like? I honestly have no idea what you would want them to do.
@lacdirk Closing down it's hundreds of bases around the world. And maybe protecting it's own borders. You already have 3 large bases in England. Your southern border is a wide open goal for the enemies of the US. But the borders of Ukraine is more important I suppose.
@@aaronwilkinson8963 I'm not American. I'm not sure that having global bases makes an empire, but thanks for explaining what you mean. Is the reasoning that this way regional powers will be forced to take over control of their region? If (or perhaps when) they don't, and we end up with a number of failed states that groups like Al Qaeda thrive in ... do we just take the punches without fighting back this time?
It's less about being under the American thumb than about the choice to assume the American security blanket suffices, so there's no need to preserve one's own means. The French have had the right idea of trying to remain as "sovereign" as possible while also being a close US ally.
@michaelshurkin613 Don't think I'm trying to offend Americans. I'm angry with how both our countries have turned out. If I were called up today to go and fight Russians in Ukraine I would tell them straight my own government is more of an enemy than Putin. I was one of those who believed in queen and country. At least Putin gives a dam about his people and his country. I remember 9.11. Coming home from school and the news was on the TV. When I was old enough I joined the army to go and do my bit. As small as my contribution was my heart was in it. I knew the risks. Losing my legs or my life. Unfortunately the people who rule us are the worst people on Earth.
Nobody wants to join the UK military. my dad recently retired and did training of recruits for the royal marines. he said the numbers and quality of recruits is so poor that most that pass nowadays would have been turned away 20 years ago. many are functionally illiterate, unfit, and unmotivated. why would anyone want to fight for a country that is being invaded, and only deploys its military to assist its master in the middle east?
funny , I've seen recently a milinium7 vid about the F-35 and its major drawback - the Just In Time delivery of spares (!)
Just in time works in private industry but not for militaries. It's a fundamental mis-fit.
The UK can’t choose… so we please no one. Only superpowers can have it all. We still want it all but can’t afford it. Nukes and aircraft carriers with top tech component power around the world…and massive reserves and scalability to fight attritional war in Europe. Jack of all trades, I’m afraid.
Yes. Jack of all trades, master of none. Which might be fine. Dunno. Anyway, thank you for watching.
Thanks for this video, it raises some very interesting points. My I ask what your thoughts are on the UK withdrawing global focus on regional capabilities? And if we removed our nuclear deterrence where you would refocus these resources to?
I don't argue for ending the nuclear deterrence, although debate over it is always a good thing. Presently I'd have the UK focus more on rebuilding the RN and RAF. I believe putting all its eggs in the F-35B basket was a mistake. The F-35A is a better plane in many regards, and then there is the Rafale, etc. I note that the Israelis are buying a mix of F-35s and updated F-15s. The carrier choice is a mistake. Penny wise and pound foolish. Might have been better off either with smaller carriers like the Cavour, or a proper nuclear-powered, CATOBAR carrier. Among other things, having CATOBAR would free the RN from its dependency on the F-35B, and create possibilities like the naval Rafale, or even F-18s. The QE class seems like a bad compromise between small (Cavour) and large (Charles de Gaulle).
@@michaelshurkin613 Thanks for your response. They are good points and good for thought. I agree the F-35B and QE class weren’t the best decisions. The reason I ask is because (like it said the video) the UK military has some difficult decisions to make. I was wondering if we focused on regional rather than global capabilities and remove our biggest expense what the potential options would be to ensure better defence of the realm and our immediate/ local allies
Informative
Thank you.
From a Brit a really interesting video, clearly the best man for man military in the world but that has been an excuse for minimal defence spending for too long !
psst. hey guise. a war of attrition between two conscript armies ... might not look at all like a war waged by highly trained well-led professional armies equipped with the best weaponry in the world against lol kleptocratic conscript armies with shit kit and worse "leadership". lol. i can't even keep a straight face. Sure, there are lessons in the Ukraine war but one lesson is: the next war is never like the last war.
On the other hand there is the joke about professional armies that they are just another government wellfare program for those without a role in the economy. I don't want to be desrespectfull, but I would like to remind those who are against conscription that all European militaries relied on it in the past for times when the war got seriously real.
@@herptek People in the military could instead be working construction, they are very similar. It's ok that you don't know much about the military (run 5km/3mi a day and get back to me, for starters. While it's raining. And cold. Oh, you didn't get much sleep. But at least you're not wearing your boots and backpack, this time). Conscript armies tend to underperform, though properly trained and well-led conscript armies out-perform badly led untrained ones. Russia's best trained troops all died in the first month. So Ukraine and Russia had about the same level of training in the first year. Though, Ukrainian soldiers have been and are more motivated. They are also generally better led. So the Ukrainian army is man-for-man outperforming the Russian army. Unfortunately as they are in a war of attrition and Russia is three or four times the size of Ukraine many more Russians will need to be turned into fertilizer before the kleptocrats in Moscow take each other out and are ousted by popular revolts and mutinies. That will happen. It's kinda like pinyata. Bash at the papier mache ass again, eventually you hit, and eventually it breaks. Oh look at all the candies on the ground
18:30 Oh god, a clueless neverserved claiming "NATO lacks capacity". Please quit mouthshitting buzzwords. You look ignorant (and likely are: i don't think you are lying). Continental NATO outproduces Russian artillery in munitions and tubes by At Least 3 to 1. Add in the USA and Canada for even more overmatch. Qualitatively, across the board, INCLUDING artillery NATO equipment is consistently outperforming Russian equipment, so much so that even our gear from 30 years ago out-performs their Current equipment, otherwise Russia would not be running out of T-90s. Feel free to add airpower... again, NATO's equipment is quantitatively and qualitatively superior to Russia. You basically misapprehend things entirely. May or may not have noticed the UK deploying its QE carriers to the South China sea recently. I was going to say something polite and reserved like "I think you have misperceived British strategy, force structure, threats, roles, and operations." but when you claim -- with no statstical backing whatsoever -- that "NATO lacks capacity" you're just mouthshitting buzzwords. Stop. Britain has a force structure adequate to the actual tasks it faces. Welcome to Americans are blabbermouths and I am not.
Shurkin, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Perun's presentations and his procurement-based perspectives. I think he did videos on the UK and France too.
Who is Perun?
@@michaelshurkin613 relatively new defense economics channel on UA-cam run by somebody who used to work in Australian procurement, I guess I’m asking in particular about the video titled “French defense strategy and rearmament”
@@michaelshurkin613 Perun is a very competent military analyst who puts out very high quality and in-depth content on military strategy and technologies. This is his channel: youtube.com/@perunau He even goes as far as to rent satellite time to observe, analyze, and synthesize live wars & geopolitical tensions, and presents the deeper insights on his youtube audience
I wrote something long - but as this idiot kept speaking. jeesus, Russian trolls are more stupid than I thought my neighbours in Russia could be. Russia PLEASE send this dude to the frontline, since I agree - this one is useless and deserves to be returned to his new frontlines while demonstrating "Russian analytical brainpower" per 2024. This is horribly shameful for anyone who ever thought "Russians can think".
I enjoyed the Video Maybe ad some sources I don't give a f about power point
In my view the UK is a fading power, and it will keep in this descent to irrelevance because it favors an economic system based on rents and where a large part of the economic surplus gets skimmed through the City of London financial services. That has meant that productivity gains are difficult to realize and the tax base is growing very slowly. In terms of procurement and design of systems there are often cases of accumulation of bad decisions that hope to bring short term savings only to cause more costs later on or compromised operability. I see the UK's indecision more in line with a political elite that comes from the service sectors, that has a limited understanding of technical and operational realities. And are in many ways like the French military and political elites previous to the first world war. Just too embroiled in their own political machinations to see what's in front of them.
Good point. Britain has concentrated too much on Finance and the City and abandoned its industrial base. This has meant the loss of its DiB at any scale or efficiency. In the long run it will lose Finance too as this follows manufacturing.
@@statmonster to the contrary, UK has actually heavily subsidized strategic manufacturing industries at immense losses and are continually doing so - the problem is less that the folks in London don't care and more that the scale of the problem is so big and so fundamental in nature that it's utterly beyond them to do anything other than put increasingly expensive band-aids on the situation... Britain excels in providing service functions and more high-tech manufacturing in fields like pharmaceuticals and aerospace, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to compete with lower cost manufacturing where they're now losing out on almost every single aspect of the business the "possible solutions" to the manufacturing problems are likely to be extremely unpopular and include such items as heavy deregulation that will result in a lower quality of life for everybody involved including the factory workers (I guess at least they'll have jobs though), increased immigration, and possibly heavy industrial policy measures such as an even greater increase in subsidies and the imposition of tariffs I will note that this is not just an issue in the UK but the rest of Europe, Japan, the US, etc. and even some developing countries that got stuck in the so-called middle income trap (Brazil exports a good portion of their iron and other raw materials thousands of miles to China and then buys the finished products back from them in an incredible testament to Chinese efficiency)
@@markowitzen a lot of the issues are due to the high value of the British pound, that are the result of the effects of the north sea oil and gas, and the weight of the financial sector. The financial sector itself favors a strong currency as a store of value.
coming from the service sector doesn't make you a bumbling idiot or a short-term thinker and anybody who has some amount of management experience will tell you that at a very high level the core functions are largely similar no matter what industry you're working in - if this is an issue then it's likely more cultural in nature than anything else I would also point out that there are no legal methods for "the city of london financial services" to be skimming from the entire nation since they have no direct involvement with the vast majority of economic activity in the UK as a whole, nor is there really any mechanism for them to be stealing money from the people that willingly use their services or even an incentive to destroy productivity that is directly responsible for their returns... a better question than "who is responsible" might be "what are the factors leading UK productivity to be so low and how might this be fixed?" the tax base actually matters very little in reality since spending can always be funded by debt so long as this is done sustainably (which means spending money on things that will actually matter)
@@markowitzen usually coming from the service sector makes one a short term planner by nature. It mostly operates under low automation, high volume of man hours, and very low productivity. And... Quality of management... And the other stuff... Yeah... I am not impressed.