Part 1 of this critique showed the influence of innate evolutionary human psychological traits that lead to tribalism and otherness. These characteristics are politically exploited to create the misperception of a military threat from the ideologically or religiously other. Since the end of World War 2 (WW2), which gave rise to the Cold War (CW), where there was the misperception of the Communist threat of military attack on the West. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, the Christian West needed a new enemy, which came in the form of political Islam. The 9/11 New York attack leads to Western wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both Muslim countries. However, when theses wars ended, the Russian aggression against Ukraine has re-ignited CW era fears of Russia in the West, arguably based on misperceptions and innate biases, which have promoted the subjective call for greater military spending in some European countries. It is argued that these biased views can be mitigated to provide objective military evaluations using the threat assessment model described below.
Threat assessment model
A common method of assessing a threat is to use a model, which is used by official bodies in the UK. In this model, introduced by David Singer, a threat equals intention plus capability. So, a threat requires both the elements of ‘intention’ and ‘capability’. The absence of either makes the threat incomplete. This is exemplified by the case studies below.
Case Studies:
Threat complete: Russia/ Ukraine
Russian Capability: According to the globalpower.com website, Russia is ranked as the 2nd most powerful military power compared to Ukraine, which is 20th ranked. Russia is superior is every military parameter compared to Ukraine. Hence it has had the capability to attack Ukraine.
Intention: Following the regime change in Ukraine and consequent annexation of Crimea in 2014, variety of developments including Western military aid to Ukraine as well as overtures for it to Join Nato predicated cross border conflict between the two antagonists, culminating in the 2022 invasion. This should not have been a surprise to the Ukrainians or their supporters and there were ample warnings and indicators, including pronouncements by Putin to show his clear intention to Invade Ukraine.
Supposition: The threat of invasion became real as Russia had both the capability and intention to carry out the threat.
Potential complete threat China/Taiwan conflict.
Intention: As China, ranked 3rd in military power sees Taiwan as a part of its territory, it has openly expressed its intentions of bringing it under its control. Taiwan ranked 22nd has no converse interest.
Capability: China, ranked 3rd in military power is far superior to Taiwan, ranked 22nd so has the capability to carry out its intention.
Supposition: Taiwan faces a real threat from China who has the capability to carry out its intentions. However, although there has been an amount of sabre-rattling by the Chinese, through political and military alliances with the top military power, the USA, the threat is somewhat dissipated. Moreover, the Chinese use their economic rather than military power to achieve their political objectives.
Incomplete threat: As there are no current ongoing international state conflicts, the separatist insurgency, by the ‘Baloch Liberation Army’ against Pakistan is offered here.
Intention: To gain independence from the Pakistani State.
BLA Capability: Having been a criminalized domestically and proscribed by some countries internationally its military capacity is unknown. Variously, it has been estimated that the BLA has around 6000 fighters, who in comparison to the Pakistani army in that they are not known to possess and heavy arms, naval or air assets. According to the GlobalFirePowers website, the Pakistani military is ranked 12th in the world and apart from air and naval assets, Pakistan has estimated personnel of about 7.4 million.
Supposition: As with other insurgencies, the BLA have a strong intention to achieve separation and Independence from Pakistan but do not have the capability to achieve their aims. Hence the threat model is not satisfied. Although, as demonstrated by their recent attacks, BLA actions are a threat to the Pakistani public, the organization does not currently present a viable separatist threat to Pakistan.
non-existent threat: Hypothetical – Switzerland against France.
Intention: Neither Switzerland nor France have expressed any intention of attacking each other militarily.
Capability: France is ranked 7th and Switzerland 44th in military power. Hence France does have the capacity to invade Switzerland but nor vice-versa.
Supposition: Although France has the capability of invading Switzerland, it has no intention of doing so. Hence, as the threat model is not satisfied, there is no current threat to Switzerland from France.
Nuclear Powers Conflict- India, Pakistan and China
Generally, nuclear powers have atomic weapons for deterrence purposes hence these powers do not get into military conflicts. However, the mentioned three nuclear powers still get into border skirmishes. Since their creation through independence, India and Pakistan have been involved in various border skirmishes and recently, a series of engagements using conventional weapons in relation to the disputed sovereignty of Kashmir. Before becoming nuclear powers, there were three wars between the two. In 1920 India and China became militarily engaged in a border dispute, which had been brewing since the early 1950s. Hence, it is argued that being nuclear powers, these countries will limit their military engagement to small scale skirmishes, hence they are no threat to each other.
Threats between main adversaries.
Geopolitically the main adversaries lie in two politically opposed camps, those allied to the United States and their foreign policy objectives and those who do not, mostly such as Russia, China as well Iran ranked 16th, North Korea at 34th and Cuba at 67th in global military power. The obvious As Russia and China are ranked 2nd and 3rd on the face of it, they have the capability, individually or jointly, to attack most other countries, they are examined further.
Russian and Chinese capabilities.
As these two countries, also nuclear powers are based on political ideologies different to America and its allies. Russia and China are ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively in military power, they can individually pose a threat to all countries below them. However, if combined, their joint military power or defence spending would not even get close to surpassing the USA’s military or even NATO without the Americans. Moreover, the fear generated amongst some European countries, even those who are no way near Russia of a threat of invasion by the Russians following their invasion of Ukraine is also mis-interpreted. Most of those who feel threatened by Russia belong to NATO and have protection through that alliance. Russia is just about is barely managing its invasion of Ukraine but not achieving its military objectives. Hence it is argued that Russia would not have the capacity to wage another war or devout vast resources to maintain a successful occupation. Apart from Tiwan, China has not expressed any desire to military engage with any other state as it has successfully created its sphere of influence in the global south and prefer cheaper and beneficial economic influences rather than military measures. Although both countries are nuclear powers, their capacity here is purely as a deterrent.
Intentions: Neither Russia nor China have openly expressed a continuing desire to engage militarily with any other countries. Hence even if they harbour secret intentions to expand their spheres of influence militarily, as argued above, they seem to take a different approach.
Supposition: Although these states, based on Communist ideology, have a significant military capability, they are not great enough to overcome alliance support to concerned states, hence it is argued that there is no real military threat from Russia or China.
Iranian Capabilities: Iran is rated at 16th in the GlobalFirePower’s index and hence is not a threat to any western powers. As its neighbours are all Islamic states, the Iranian theocracy has differing military capabilities compared to the others regional powers. It is however not a military threat to America or its allies, save for one regional actor, a nuclear power, which has undertaken military action against Iran. But Iran has support in other countries where it conducts proxy military action by militant groups politically and militarily. In absence of a realistic military capacity to oppose the real threats, Iran’s defensive doctrine includes the concept of ‘forward defence’, where it supports insurgent groups against its threats. However, given Western military and financial support to the country subject to the militances, negates Iranian support. Nevertheless, Western powers led by the Americans view Iran as a threat and have been constructively active in suppressing the development of Iranian and their allies’ military capabilities through economic and some military measures, which include intelligence sharing.
Iranian intentions:
Much as Western and opposing nations desire for national security, in the modern sense, Iran has similar aspirations. It seeks spheres of influence for its economic and state security against Western sanctions as well as military attacks. Whatever secret intentions it may possess to attack any country militarily; its main adversaries are not near neighbours and hence it does not possess a military capability to pose such a threat. Although Iran pursues nuclear ambitions, it states that is for civilian energy use. Moreover, If the Iranians go against a religious fatwa prohibiting offensive nuclear weapons, it will be for deterrence against use of such by Western powers and at least one regional actor. This would be understandable as after the Western powers persuaded Libya to give up its nuclear ambition, the country was attacked by NATO. Maummar, the anti-West Libyan leader, was deposed and suffered an extrajudicial brutal execution. Consequently, Libya remains a failed state. Currently, Iran does not possess a known offensive nuclear capacity and any developed will no way be of the same advanced stages of the existing nuclear powers. Any such ‘first strike’ by Iran would be futile as the counter-response by adversary alliance countries would become a mass casualty existential threat.
Supposition: Iran does not possess a military capacity to be a direct threat to any country that is part of collective defence alliances.
Alliance protection to smaller states.
In relation to military capability, as smaller non-nuclear countries are unable to match ones with greater armed forces, they pragmatically gravitate towards collective security through alliances against real or perceived threats. Apart from NATO there are, for example, a few other such alliances such as the successor to the Warsaw Pact, the Russian dominated ‘Collective Security Treaty Organization’ servicing some former Soviet states as well as the ‘Agreement on Strategic Partnership and Mutual Support’, between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Conclusion
Looked at objectively using the threat assessment model briefly described above and in the absence of secret intelligence about intentions, the ‘usual suspects’ for the perceived threats as propagated by Western states through friendly press and media, largely ‘fear politics’ through misrepresentation and demonization of the ‘other’, is not based on actual reality. None of the countries subject of such attention and those given as examples has both the intention and capability to present a realistic threat. Nuclear power is negated through alliances. It is hence argued that sabre rattling regarding potential conflicts with these ‘adversaries’, through exploitation of innate tribal instincts of the citizenry, particularly when it comes to defence spending, is utilised for parochial party-political interests as well as foreign influence, where none is needed. Aside this, the ‘military-industrial complex’ is a powerful force in promoting their interests through political lobbying. Armed forces are just cost codes. They may provide employment to some, but aside the ceremonial ‘feel good’ factor, they do not add to the well-being of any country that is not under an imminent existential threat. The money wasted on defence spending could better be utilised for providing essential services as is the responsibility of any State. However, objective threat assessments are highly unlikely as parochial political and private commercial interests and susceptibly of the masses to disinformation and cognitive dissonance will outweigh, as it has done, any realistic measures against perceived foreign military threats.
Dr M. Hanif Majothi, a retired British Army officer and former Metropolitan Police Special Operations officer, entered academia after obtaining his PhD from Brunel University under Professor Phillip Davies. During his time in the Metropolitan Police, he gained experience in national security intelligence operations and provided security services for British ministers and visiting dignitaries in challenging environments and war zones. He is currently completing his monograph on the advent of political policing in mainland Britain.
A list with the corresponding endnotes can be requested directly from the author: dr.hanif.majothi@gmail.com
Jang Seiul 
Stephan Blancke