CHACRDIGEST
JULY 1st, 2026
AUTHOR: Professor Andrew Stewart, Head of Conflict Research
#57
NATO
The views expressed in this Digest are not those of the British Army or UK Government. This document cannot be reproduced or used in part or whole without the permission of the CHACR. chacr.org.uk
In Europe, a sharp critique has condemned Germany’s new military strategy for the severe delays it will create in combat readiness and a failure to mandate urgent structural reforms. Concurrently, it is argued that NATO’s centre of gravity has permanently shifted eastward to the Nordic-Baltic-Polish corridor. This necessitates a new division of labour where European nations assume primary responsibility for conventional deterrence, allowing the US to continue providing strategic assets and increase its focus on the Indo-Pacific. This proposed realignment is further complicated by a stark decline in the perceived reliability of the US as an international partner, with trust in President Trump’s administration plummeting among key allies. In the Indo-Pacific, China’s military threat continues to escalate. The People’s Liberation Army is increasingly integrating civilian dual-use vessels into complex amphibious assault rehearsals, while simultaneously dominating global submarine construction with rapid advancements in nuclear and autonomous underwater platforms. Reflecting on the recent Arabian Gulf conflict, notes that cheap, precision-guided drones and missiles have created a new ‘grammar’ of warfare. While some analysts praise limited US military engagements, others warn that the conflict exposes a critical Western vulnerability: open democracies lack the long-term strategic endurance of authoritarian regimes. Finally, the profound impact of the Ukraine war on global military practices is examined. While drone technology is actively proliferating across Africa, significantly empowering non-state actors, the first confirmed combat deaths in Ukraine executed by fully autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) drones has ignited fierce ethical debates. In learning lessons from the war, it is also argued that combat medicine, particularly advanced resuscitation and prolonged care, needs to be pushed to the absolute front lines to preserve fighting strength.
EUROPE Amidst continuing arguments for greater efforts to be made to strengthen its security, concerns remain that, despite possessing the world’s second-largest defence budget, Europe is still dangerously dependent on the United States. In this context, Roderich Kiesewetter has provided a critique of Germany’s newly released military strategy. He argues the document is fundamentally flawed and is a strategy primarily designed to support claims for European leadership as opposed to providing a practical operational blueprint for the Bundeswehr. While German intelligence predicts the greatest threat from Russia will emerge between 2026 and 2028, the strategy does not envision basic defence readiness being achieved until 2029. Furthermore, full technological modernisation is delayed until 2035 and the intention to become Europe’s strongest conventional army is postponed until 2039. Kiesewetter asserts this severe lack of urgency leaves Germany utterly unable to meet current NATO obligations or establish credible deterrence. Furthermore, he argues the strategy fails to mandate the urgent structural reforms required for modern warfare. Despite correctly identifying the importance of drones, artificial intelligence and multi-domain operations, the Bundeswehr remains bogged down by bureaucratic procurement processes, such as taking 18 months just to certify a single drone. He insists the military must urgently integrate technical innovations, create new ‘mil-tech’ personnel profiles and introduce conscription to address severe manpower shortages. Describing these as “vital proposals”, he argues the government actively avoids them for domestic political reasons. Additionally, there is criticism of a narrow geographic focus that completely ignores the interconnected ‘CRINK’ alliance of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. By treating theatres like the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East as non-priorities, and refusing to recognise how adversaries actively collaborate against Western interests, it is suggested that Germany’s leadership is dangerously
1 // WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND UKRAINE // CHACR DIGEST