The Era of the Peace Dividend is Over

The end of the Cold War marked the beginning of a new epoch in world history. The United States and its allies emerged victorious, and for a time it seemed the world as Francis Fukuyama put it, had reached “the end of history.” Indeed the Western world has enjoyed a generation of peace and prosperity. Significantly scaled-back national security budgets have allowed for government funding to be allocated to economic development and social welfare - the so-called “peace dividend.” Globalization, fuelled by the awesome power of free and open maritime trade, and an acceptance of free-market global economics has resulted in economic miracles - notably a major contributing factor to the rise of China. Critical events such as 9/11, the War on Terror, and Russia’s Invasion of Crimea in 2014 were important flashpoints to remind us of the fragility of peace, yet significant prolonged changes to citizens’ private lives in the Western sphere have yet to manifest. For anybody living in the West under the age of 30, this “end of history” is all they have ever known.

This era may, however, be coming to a close.

The global community was shocked to its core when the Russian Federation launched the first war of conquest in Europe in decades. The conflict not only exposed a critical error in the West’s approach to managing its relationship with authoritarian regimes, it demonstrated that the idea of irredentism is alive and well. A Communique article published last year (The Return to Irredentism) sought to assess the revival of irredentist claims as a feature of international politics. From Russia’s ambitions in Eastern Europe to Chinese claims in the South China Sea, and recently Venezuela’s claim to the Guyanese region of Essequibo, geopolitical realities reflect an increasing fragility of the institutions, norms, and balance of power that have undergirded the advances in economic growth and prosperity during the post-war era. Beyond these developments, non-state actors continue to present an increasing threat to international security. The Houthi rebel group operating out of Yemen has caused serious interruptions to international trade running through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea, and other Iranian proxy groups throughout the Middle East threaten to spin the Israel-Hamas conflict into a broader regional war.

The world is becoming a much more dangerous place and many countries are painfully ill-equipped to deal with the change.

US Carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN69) operating in the Red Sea launching strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen - US CENTCOM, 12th January 2024

Supply Problems

Looking ahead, 2024 will see a crucial presidential election in the United States in which Donald Trump’s return to the White House at present seems to be the most likely outcome. As the standard bearer of “National Conservatism,” Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy could threaten the strength of NATO at a time when the security alliance is under threat from an ambitious Russia. Earlier this month, Trump claimed he would “encourage” an aggressor state to attack a NATO ally that did not meet the defence spending target of 2% of GDP, an alarming piece of rhetoric that might just be emblematic of his second-term foreign policy strategy. Such a hardball approach had perhaps been warranted during his previous term in office when the Ukraine War was not even on the horizon, yet such rhetoric now threatens to spook vulnerable alliance members and sow distrust - the type of issues that may fracture the alliance under stress. Further to this point, if the United States were embroiled in a full-scale conflict with China over Taiwan, the Americans may answer the call to Article 5 but may not be in a position to offer much support. European leaders will need to step up.

Europe’s ailing economies are drumming up military funding though with Germany on track to meet its NATO spending commitment for the first time, and the bloc recently welcoming Finland as a new member, with Sweden’s accession to the alliance on the horizon. Both countries abandoned their neutrality policy after the outbreak of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and bring to the alliance additional deterrence. Despite the additional support, glaring issues remain.

Early last year, a top US General privately told the UK Defence Secretary that the British Army was no longer considered a “top-level fighting force”. Similar to its continental neighbours, the British Army relies on equipment such as tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, and artillery, that is 30-60 years old with replacements in the pipeline to be combat-ready in nearly a decade. The British military has been operating on a tight budget since the end of the Cold War, and even its shiny new purchases have come with compromises. The new Elizabeth-Class aircraft carriers have yet to receive their full complement of fighters, with the HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) operating only with 8 of its possible 36 F-35B contingent and the newly minted HMS Prince of Wales (R09) is expected to deploy with only 24 - meaning neither carrier will operate a full air group. All of this brings into question whether the U.K. would be able to deploy its carrier strike groups at complete operational strength, or even field a full division to the continent in the face of a serious conflict. Only adding to these embarrassments are the questions hanging over the credibility of the U.K. nuclear deterrent amid the second failed test of Trident.

Supply woes are not only limited to exquisite systems such as 5th generation fighter jets and nuclear weapons - Europe struggles to meet the supply requirements of mere essentials.

At the rate at which the Ukrainian Army is presently expending artillery shells - around 7,000 per day - the German Army would only be able to match it for 2 days. Worse is the fact that this number is less than the output of the entire European munitions industry. In an interview with Politico, recently retired Belgian Lieutenant General Marc Rhys remarked that Europe was “in deep shit” regarding arms and ammunition production capacity. The European Union had promised the beleaguered Ukrainian president Volydmyr Zelenskyy that it would deliver 1mn artillery shells by the beginning of March this year, however, it has become clear such a target may only be reached in December. Given the Ukrainian armed forces are firing around 200,000 rounds per month, it is easy to understand their desperation. All the while, donations from European armies to the frontline in Ukraine deplete stocks that are likely to take many years to replace.

It is clear that the military-industrial policy of the European security bloc requires a massive overhaul to ensure preparedness for the possibility of a major conflict on its borders or further afield.

Loaded F-35B launches from HMS Prince of Wales (R09) - Royal Navy, 20th October 2023

Your Country Needs You

The materiel supply woes in some ways are straightforward to solve. Expand industrial capacity, subsidize investment, and draw on greater funding. Yet materiel problems are perhaps not the greatest challenge facing the modern armies of Europe - and even the United States.

In the United Kingdom, military recruitment has been below target every year for over a decade, with the situation in the Royal Navy so bad that capable vessels have been mothballed and carrier strike group missions cancelled due to crew shortages. Even amongst the already limited number of active duty personnel in the British Army - totalling some 75,000 - only 53,000 are fully fit for front-line operations, meaning 3/10 soldiers are not medically deployable. Similarly, the U.S. draws its recruitment from a domestic population where the obesity rate is close to 42%. A 2020 study by the Pentagon found that 77% of those aged between 17 and 24 would be unfit to serve, primarily due to obesity, drug use, and limiting mental and physical health conditions. These examples painfully illustrate the impact of broader societal trends on potential force strength, also elucidating the interdependent policymaking relationship between government defence departments and their civilian counterparts. Government initiatives such as free school meals would have significant downstream benefits not only for the obvious beneficiaries such as reduced health service pressure, but would also ensure the fitness of the recruitment pool.

There are, however, significant recruitment barriers beyond the purely physical. The ambiguity surrounding the morality of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 has only soured public perceptions of the military, as has the lack of any real existential threat as was seen during the Cold War has significantly dampened recruitment. Although disinterest in military recruitment is often laid at the feet of the “snowflake” Gen Z contingent, a 2022 Quinnipiac poll revealed that 52% of Americans would not take up arms were the United States to face an existential threat such as an invasion of the mainland. Whilst it is difficult to predict what the real outcome would be if an invasion were to occur - extreme circumstances usually shift opinion and action - the poll is nevertheless frightening to military planners.

US and German Armed Forces conducting joint training during NATO Exercise Sabre Junction in Southern Germany - U.S. Army, 23rd October 2023

The world may be increasingly dangerous, but it need not descend into darkness.

In post-WWII Europe, the answer to the question of preventing conflict was institutionalisation. To this day, no state of the European Union or NATO has been attacked whilst an active member. If Ukraine had been part of the Western bloc, it is likely - perhaps certain - that Putin’s onslaught would have remained hypothetical. Indeed this fate is one that both Sweden and Finland have decidedly avoided by joining the collective defence treaty. Yet the shield of collective defence is only as good as the strength of the shield - and that is in this case the collective deterrent of NATO’s combined armed forces. The health of the West’s armed forces is dire. Armed forces from Warsaw to San Francisco need to undertake a strict nutritional fitness regimen to improve their health before it is too late.

From Vladimir Putin’s essays, comments, and interviews - notably the recent interview with Tucker Carlson - it is clear that his tacit goal is the partial or full re-establishment of the borders of the Soviet Union. This must not become a reality.