Executive Summary

• The UK faces a transformed global strategic environment that demands a shift in defence strategy.

• Traditional multipolar models need to capture the complexities of the modern geopolitical landscape.

• Power is increasingly distributed among states, non-state actors, organisations, and corporations.

• Conventional state-on-state warfare gives way to hybrid, asymmetric, and cyber conflicts.

• Sovereignty and governance are fragmented across overlapping jurisdictions and levels of authority.

• The rise of private military actors and non-kinetic warfare poses new challenges to accountability and strategy.

• UK Defence must prioritise flexibility, technological diversity, and non-conventional capabilities.

• Enhanced coordination with the FCDO and tailored engagement with regional blocs are critical.

• The UK must innovate to address unconventional threats and maintain global standing in an unpredictable world.

The United Kingdom's armed forces are navigating a dramatically altered strategic environment. The familiar bipolar conflicts of the Cold War and the subsequent unipolar Western dominance have given way to a world order that challenges traditional notions of warfare.

While many characterise the emerging world order as multipolar, with several great powers competing for resources and influence, this perspective risks oversimplifying current global complexities. Multipolarity suggests a relatively stable, state-centric world where power shifts between major actors and typically prioritises large-scale conflicts. However, the present nature of today’s geopolitical landscape is as fluid as it is fragmented.

A more accurate approach, exemplified by the concept of Multiplexity, is needed to capture the current landscape better. Multiplexity recognises power's layered and decentralised nature. It reflects the complex interactions between states, non-state actors, international organisations, and corporations and the resurgence of overlapping sovereignties. Here, power is distributed across diverse actors worldwide, and alliances are fluid but often informal, issue-based, and adaptable.

Unlike the structured alliances and stability implied by multipolarity, a multiplex world anticipates a more dynamic and fragmented order, where great powers coexist with many influential entities shaping global security in unpredictable ways. This new order suggests that great power confrontations will not solely define future warfare. Britain must be prepared for various conflict types, including asymmetric warfare, hybrid wars, cyber attacks and information warfare—areas often overlooked in traditional analyses.

Critically examining the limitations of prevailing multipolarity theories underscores the necessity for the British armed forces to adapt to unconventional threats and embrace innovative approaches to warfare. Ultimately, Britain’s defence posture requires re-evaluation, emphasising the development of flexible, technologically adept, and strategically nuanced armed forces capable of operating effectively in an unpredictable and interconnected world. 

Issue Identification

Profound transformations in sovereignty, governance, and power dynamics characterise the contemporary global landscape. The following sections thoroughly analyse these central themes, dissected into distinct but interconnected issues that define the new world order.

1. Absence of Global Hegemony: The United States no longer commands undisputed global authority. Although its power remains significant, other nations and non-state actors have grown in influence, resulting in a global order where power hierarchies persist but no single actor dominates. This shift demands that the UK diversify its approach, accounting for the influence of multiple power centres beyond a unipolar or even multipolar model.

2. Proliferation of Influential Actors: The world order is increasingly shaped by various actors beyond traditional great powers, such as International organisations, regional groups, and subnational entities. In addition, non-state actors such as corporations, terrorist groups, and private military companies (PMCs) are playing more significant roles on the global stage. This shift redefines security considerations and challenges the UK's traditional defence model, which has historically prioritised nation-state threats. 

3. Challenges in Sovereignty and Governance: Sovereignty is no longer the exclusive domain of states; it is now dispersed among many actors (global, regional, subnational, non-state). This shift results in overlapping jurisdictions and decentralised power structures and challenges internal and external stability. Furthermore, diffused sovereignty has led to governance that operates on multiple interconnected layers, leading to both synergies and tensions within and between different levels of authority.

4. A plurality of Norms and Values: The global order now reflects a mosaic of different ideologies and governance systems, challenging the universality of any single model. The coexistence of multiple value systems means Western liberal democracy faces competition from models like China's state-led capitalism or Russia's Hybrid democracy. Diverse governance models lead to conflicting interpretations of human rights, sovereignty, and justice, which fuel tensions in establishing global rules and principles.

5. Fluid Alliances and Partnerships: As the world moves toward a more multiplex structure, global alliances have become fluid and issue-based, driven by diverse actors and interests. In this landscape, partnerships are less ideological and more pragmatic, forming around specific concerns such as trade, cybersecurity or regional security. These fluid alliances depart from the past's relatively stable, ideology-driven blocs, adding complexity and unpredictability to relationships. Traditional allegiances are further complicated by overlapping jurisdictions and competing sovereignties, making it crucial for the UK to adapt to a web of connections that reflect the priorities of varied, influential actors across multiple levels of governance.

6. Regionalism: The global order is now more regionalised, with geopolitics, economics and culture shaping regional blocs that aim to stabilise local power dynamics. While regional blocs provide order within their spheres, they complicate global power projection for traditional powers like the UK. As regional powers rise and use their influence, the UK’s strategy must balance regional engagement with broader strategic objectives.

These elements are collectively coming to redefine international relations, challenging traditional power structures and necessitating new approaches to global governance. Britain urgently needs to understand the dynamic interplay between these significant themes to navigate global complexities in the coming decade and build a fighting force fit for purpose. 

Key Challenges

The evolving global landscape is changing the nature of warfare, presenting numerous challenges for the United Kingdom. Traditional methods of conflict and victory are becoming obsolete, and the British Armed Forces must understand these changes and adapt accordingly. 

1. The Twilight of Conventional Warfare: While conventional, state-on-state warfare has not disappeared, its dominance in modern conflict is diminishing. Recent conflicts have demonstrated that traditional large-scale military engagements remain relevant but are increasingly integrated with hybrid and asymmetric tactics or where conventional warfare has disappeared altogether. Great powers and non-state actors alike now blend conventional operations with cyber warfare, information manipulation, economic coercion and proxy battles to achieve strategic goals. For example, cyber and information operations allow states to project power and influence without confrontation, while non-state actors employ guerrilla tactics, sabotage and digital attacks to destabilise adversaries. For the UK, adapting to this landscape means recognising that while conventional forces must be maintained, there is a pressing need to expand its defensive capabilities into non-conventional domains, which would result in a retrenchment of conventional forces and strengthen its adaptability to modern conflict. This includes integrating cyber, intelligence, and psychological operations into defence planning to effectively counter the full spectrum of threats posed by state and non-state actors.

2. Over-Reliance on Military Technology: While advanced technology is vital, relying solely on it risks strategic vulnerability, as the Americans have begun to recognise. For example, high-tech assets like drones and electronic systems are susceptible to cyber-attacks, as seen in Russia’s experience with Ukrainian counter-drones. Simple and cost-effective is becoming the modus operandi of the modern battlefield. This dependence requires balance—integrating dual-use technologies and adaptive strategies to mitigate over-reliance and reduce supply chain risks that may be exploited during conflict. Additionally, adversaries often exploit weaknesses in sophisticated systems, using simpler, cost-effective countermeasures to neutralise advanced technology. By diversifying its technological toolkit with both high- and low-tech options, the UK can avoid the potential pitfalls of over-reliance and develop a more resilient, versatile defence strategy.

3. Navigating the Grey Zones Between War and Peace: Modern conflicts often occur in ambiguous "grey zones", challenging traditional military responses and legal frameworks. Due to restrictive laws and ethical considerations, the UK may face strategic shortfalls in responding to covert operations, cyber attacks and information warfare. Insufficient tools and trained personnel may be required to operate effectively in grey zones, representing a technological and resource limitation. Adversaries exploiting grey zones can undermine UK interests without provoking a full-scale military response, putting the UK at a strategic disadvantage.

4. Prioritising Non-Kinetic Warfare: Non-military means of conflict, such as information warfare and economic coercion, require greater emphasis and capability development. The UK may not have a cohesive strategy for effectively integrating non-kinetic tools with traditional military operations. For instance, lagging behind adversaries in cyber warfare and information operations can undermine national security. Allocating sufficient resources to develop non-kinetic capabilities may strain existing defence budgets and, depending on the weapon, could be at odds with societal values.

5. The Rise of Mercenaries and Private Military Actors: The increasing use of private military companies (PMCs) introduces complexities in modern warfare that the UK must address. PMCs allow states and non-state actors to operate in many ways, such as projecting power covertly, complicating accountability and creating legal and ethical challenges. This growing reliance on private forces parallels the medieval period, when sovereigns, nobility and cities frequently employed mercenaries and pirates to wage indirect warfare, minimising direct involvement and avoiding political repercussions. In today’s context, PMCs are adept in hybrid tactics, including intelligence gathering and cyber operations, further blurring the line between public and private military action. A regulatory framework that ensures transparency and accountability in PMC operations will be essential to address these unique challenges effectively. The UK can lead and work with NATO partners and the EU to develop a standardised framework across Europe and North America. By leading PMC-focused initiatives, the UK would ensure that approaches towards PMCs are consistent and that those operating PMCs can do so in alignment with European and American standards.

The United Kingdom faces a complex array of challenges as it navigates the changing nature of warfare. A thorough and systematic analysis of these challenges reveals the necessity for adaptation and innovation in military strategy, capabilities and doctrine. By confronting these issues head-on, the UK can better prepare for future conflicts and maintain its security and global standing in an unpredictable world.

Recommendations

In light of the profound transformations in world order and the evolving nature of warfare, the United Kingdom must adapt its military strategies and capabilities to remain effective. Traditional methods of conflict are becoming obsolete, and addressing these identified challenges is crucial for maintaining national security and global standing. To navigate this intricate landscape, the following recommendations focus on enhancing cooperation, adaptability, and resilience in a multipolar, rapidly evolving world:

1. Strengthen Coordination with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO): Understanding how the diminishing dominance of any single global hegemon impacts British interests is critical. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) should work closely with the FCDO to assess geopolitical trends, identify emerging regional leaders, and shape foreign and defence policies that reflect the increasingly fragmented international power landscape. A cohesive, cross-departmental strategy can also enable proactive responses to shifting alliances and emerging regional powers.

2. Engage Regional Blocs with Tailored Approaches: The UK must recognise Europe's distinct political, economic, and security dynamics and engage accordingly. Establishing deeper diplomatic and defence ties with European blocs, such as the European Union and NATO, can enhance the UK’s influence and provide a platform for collaborative security initiatives. In particular, a tailored approach to European engagement allows the UK to address pressing issues like cyber threats, energy security, and hybrid warfare, which are growing concerns across the continent. Joint defence projects, intelligence-sharing initiatives, and coordinated cyber defences can demonstrate the UK’s commitment to European stability. By aligning with European priorities, the UK can solidify its role as a key partner in shaping regional security and addressing shared challenges in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape.

3. Establish a Foreign Legion-Style Rapid Deployment Force: Drawing from the French Foreign Legion model, the UK should consider creating a highly mobile, specialised force that can deploy rapidly in crises. This force would operate at the intersection of traditional and special operations, providing an agile solution for on-the-ground engagement in unstable regions or supporting coalition partners in hybrid warfare scenarios. Unlike existing units like the Gurkhas or SAS, this force would be designed for continuous rapid deployment across diverse environments, focusing on flexibility and adaptability. Such a unit would also counterbalance state and non-state forces employing mercenaries, allowing the UK to respond effectively to unconventional threats. This approach would enhance the UK’s ability to project power swiftly and effectively in complex global hotspots.

4. Invest in Technologically Diverse Solutions: Not all security challenges demand high-tech solutions. UK Defence should adopt a flexible tech strategy for sophisticated and cost-effective options. Some operations require advanced stealth technologies, while other scenarios might benefit from inexpensive, easily deployable tech like drones or simple cyber tools. Balancing high-tech and low-cost solutions will make UK Defence more resilient and adaptable.

5. Prioritise Information Warfare Capabilities: Given the prominence of information warfare in modern conflict, the UK should significantly bolster its information operations and cyber defence units. A central Information Warfare Command could unite cyber, psychological operations, and media strategy. Examples of effective information warfare, such as Estonia's digital defences or NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre, can offer models for a coherent UK strategy that mitigates disinformation and projects resilience.

6. Develop a Framework for Engaging with Private Military Companies (PMCs): The rising influence of PMCs in global conflicts necessitates a regulatory framework that allows the UK to engage constructively while ensuring oversight. Building partnerships with select PMCs could provide additional support for specialised operations - while maintaining a legal and ethical framework to prevent abuses. Strengthening special forces capabilities and the proposed foreign legion can also create an internal counterweight to these private actors. Further, Leadership in NATO and with EU allies can create a regulatory framework encompassing Europe and North America. This would create a unified PMC market in the West, allowing the UK and its allies to work with PMCs more effectively.

7. Expand and Integrate Non-Kinetic Warfare Training and Capabilities: Given the importance of non-kinetic warfare, UK forces should integrate training in economic coercion, diplomacy, and psychological operations. Establishing a dedicated “non-kinetic warfare academy” within the MOD would ensure personnel can employ information and economic tools in conjunction with traditional capabilities. Such training can prepare UK forces to respond flexibly across a spectrum of conflicts, from grey zone operations to open hostilities.

These recommendations outline a holistic approach to transforming UK Defence for an unpredictable future. By emphasising flexibility, technological adaptability, and proactive partnerships, the UK can better navigate the nuanced landscape of modern warfare and secure its interests in an increasingly complex global environment.

About the Author

Charles Bauman: Director – Europe Programme

Charles joined London Politica's Europe Desk in 2023 and has been with London Politica since 2022, bringing extensive experience in geopolitical analysis, policy research and consulting. Previously, Charles was a Consultant at the Public Affairs and political consulting firm H/Advisors Cicero in the Research and Campaigns team, advising clients on their strategic communications and political engagement campaigns. Before that, Charles worked as a consultant at the research and advisory firm Verdantix, focusing on public policy, sustainability, and tech and business strategy. Charles deeply understands European and UK political landscapes, legislative processes, and international relations, which he applies to client-facing projects and thought leadership. A London School of Economics graduate with a master's in Theory and History of International Relations, Charles also holds a master's degree in Medieval History from King’s College London. His work has been published on leading platforms, reflecting his expertise in international relations, politics, and governance.