by Grey Hare Editor | Apr 4, 2025 | Articles
It is now when, not if, China will take Taiwan by force.
By Philip Ingram MBE
Chinese forces have been circling Taiwan and carrying out intense and complex military exercises simulating a blockade and the manoeuvres that would be needed for an invasion of the island. China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province, but Taiwan sees itself as distinct from the Chinese mainland with its own constitution and democratically elected government.
Taiwan is vulnerable, 70% of its food is imported as is 90% of its energy but is also exports. One single Taiwanese company, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or TSMC supplied over half of the world’s computer chips. Any disruption to the supply chain would have a catastrophic impact on the global technology market. However, the 245 miles (395 km) long and 90 miles (145 km) wide island lies a mere 100 miles (160 km) off the coast of southeastern China.
China has hoped for many years that its influence and position as Taiwan’s largest trading partner would bring the so-called errant province back into the fold, but President Xi Jinping has said “reunification” with the island must be fulfilled and there are increasing numbers of indicators suggesting he has made the decision to take the Island by force. There is no question of ‘if’ anymore, it’s just a question of ‘when.’
Those indicators come in two real forms. The first is easy, the increasingly aggressive military manoeuvres and political rhetoric pressurising Taiwan, with more and more sophisticated military actions from large flights of aircraft flying into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone. Or live fire exercises as troops storm beaches, to drone flights circling the Island as Chinas naval forces steam around the island pretending to blockade it. Its deliberate provocation, pressurising the Taiwanese government but also allowing the Chines to monitor Taiwan’s military response. Building their intelligence picture on Taiwan’s reactions.
“We are willing to strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification with the utmost sincerity and endeavour,” Chen Binhua, spokesperson for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said at the end of last year, in Beijing. “But we will never commit ourselves to renouncing the use of force,” he added. However, the second set of indicators provide the clear indicator that the Chinese leader Xi Jing Ping has made the decision to take the islands by force. Military manoeuvres can be turned on or turned off but building kit is a statement of intent.
China has been constructing a huge fleet of RoRo ferries with military specifications in mind. Able to take tanks and other military equipment and personnel these dual use ships, with a military and a civilian purpose are not the smoking gun, ferries alone are not a capable invasion fleet. Neither is Chinas increasingly large ‘blue water’ power projection capability having recently launched its third aircraft carrier. However, China is an increase global power with interests to Africa and South America as well as its near seas. As such, an ability to project military capability is justified the same way US and UK power projection is justified.
However, China has unveiled three ‘funnies’ (Hobarts Funnies were modified tanks in WW2 for specific tasks on the D Day beaches.) The Chinese ‘funnies’ aren’t modified tanks but one is what seems to be a mysterious flat top ship, reportedly an uncrewed aircraft carrier or possibly helicopter carrier, constructed at the Guangzhou Shipyard International (GSI) on Longxue Island.
The next, a deep-sea cable cutting device developed by the China Ship Scientific Research Centre (CSSRC) designed to cut the sturdiest cables, layered with steel, rubber and polymer sheaths, these underpin 95 per cent of global data transmission. The tool, which is reported to be able to cut lines at depths of up to 4,000 metres (13,123 feet) has been designed specifically for integration with China’s advanced crewed and uncrewed submersibles.
The final development and the most worrying are vessels also constructed at GSI. They are barges with legs that could drop down to the sea floor to provide a stable platform in shallow water and a bridge that can extend 100 metres from the bow, capable of taking tanks. At the aft of each barge is a platform that allows other ships to dock or unload and other barges to connect to create a pier or causeway. Exactly the concept of the Mulberry harbours taken across the channel by the allies on D Day in 1944 to allow the rapid off load of troops and equipment onto the beaches of Normandy. A prototype was spotted in 2022, but it seems that they are being built in numbers now. They would be essential for any invasion of Taiwan.
These barges have no other use, you only spend money and engineering effort in military shipyards if you have decided to invade. The only question now is when?
by Grey Hare Editor | Oct 18, 2023 | Articles
Headlines Matter, the power of (dis) information – making the right call.
By Philip Ingram MBE
On October 17th, the eve of an unprecedented US Presidential visit to Israel and the Middle East, in an attempt to diffuse growing tensions across the region because of the War against Hamas – declared by Israel after the shocking terror attack by Hamas killing 1500 Israelis and taking 199 hostages just over a week beforehand – an explosion occurred at the al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza.
Within an hour of the explosion major media outlets across the globe, including many UK sites, were describing it in their headlines as an Israeli Air strike, immediately putting a level of credibility on what was being reported, as most people believe the press somehow have access to information that the general public doesn’t. Often, they are right, responsible press verify independently where the public generally doesn’t.
Those reports and their associated headlines do more than just inform, they influence. Recognise, then, that it’s not just the main body of the report, but the headlines that matter. They influence public perception and influence their belief as to what happened. Once someone’s mind is made up, even if further information is provided, few change their minds, and they will cherry-pick what comes next to reinforce their decision. It is human nature. So, where there is potential for doubt, it is critical that reporting reinforces that doubt and doesn’t enhance mis or disinformation.
For those that don’t know, misinformation is information that is incorrect but is disseminated accidentally. Disinformation is incorrect information deliberately disseminated for effect. In war, in conflict, disinformation is rife and is an integral part of many military operations. The first report received is often the least accurate even if it fits a perception of what you think may have happened, that is what targeted disinformation is designed to do.
Unfortunately, in a conflict situation, it is not unusual that you receive report of a civilian target being hit. In operational headquarters it often takes hours to get to the truth even though operations are constantly monitored. That is because everything must be checked, rechecked, and checked again. That principle isn’t one used on social media, or by those pushing disinformation and those reposting misinformation.
Very often, the first report received about an incident is wrong. Instead of reacting immediately, the best thing to do is leave some ‘soak time’. Make a cup of tea, and think about the incident, asking some fundamental questions. Who has the capability to do what?
What would a potential perpetrators motivation be, what is their intent? Both sides have the capability but from an intent perspective, then for the Israelis it could only spell disaster, polarising opposition to what they are doing on the international stage even more – and we saw that with many Middle East leaders cancelling their meetings with President Biden.
If it was deliberate from groups in Gaza, then their timing was perfect, as was the immediate (dis)information campaign to undermine Biden’s visit and polarise the region, and world, more towards an anti-Israeli stance. It looks like they may have achieved that by accident, and rapid exploitation of the information domain.
The difficulty, once people’s minds are made up, is that it is almost impossible to change them back. So, when the IDF offered a very comprehensive briefing of the incident, utilising analysis of photographs, structural damage, lack of impact points, with video and thermal analysis of the explosion and fire – they could suggest it was a missile being fired at Israel that dropped short. Radar analysis added further weight to this analysis as did intercepts of phone messages – especially of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group.
Combined with checks on Israeli missile activity that couldn’t have accidentally hit the hospital, then there is overwhelming evidence to say this was a PIJ missile that fell short and tragically killed many innocent Palestinians. That is not a message the PIJ or Hamas would want to put out, so they doubled down on the Israeli attack claim, knowing that many wouldn’t believe the Israelis. President Biden’s backing of the Israeli assessment will have been based on other intelligence as well. Simple scientific spectral analysis of the explosion and fire will tell what caused it. This type of intelligence analysis is called MASINT or Measurement and Signature Intelligence.
A few key lessons for headline writers and commentators, as headlines matter:
- Initial reports are likely inaccurate so acknowledge the uncertain nature of what is happening.
- Patience is a virtue. Have a “soak time” allowing you to question everything. Confirm, confirm, confirm and don’t be afraid to say there isn’t enough information to make a call.
- Early speculation doesn’t inform, it influences, and once influenced it can rarely be undone. Don’t speculate.
- Avoid being influenced by others who jump to conclusions quickly – remember people look for information to reinforce their beliefs – this is confirmation bias, ignoring the totality of what is being presented.
- MI6, in its reports, often put that ‘this source may be trying to influence as much as inform’ – you may be being influenced!
by Grey Hare Editor | Oct 9, 2022 | Articles
Ukraine – Russia being backed into a corner
By Philip Ingram MBE
It has been a while since I wrote an assessment of my thinking on Ukraine, so I will start by way of a summary as to where we are today and how we got here. Putin’s aim when he stated his Special Military Operation in February was to topple the increasingly West leaning Zelensky Government. His secondary aim was to open a land bridge between Crimea, annexed in 2014 and Russia, via what has become known as the disputed Donbas Region.
With vastly superior troop numbers on paper, and different command structures Putin launched his attacks and plucky Ukraine, war hardened by eight years of fighting Russian backed separatists in the East and emboldened by Western training and weapons such as the UKs NLAW anti-tank missile, defended.
Militarily, Russia was found wanting, their command and control was poor, their equipment unreliable, logistics and troop motivation close to non-existent. Their ability to conduct what are known as combined arms operations, fighting tanks, infantry, artillery, and airpower together, proved impossible, embarrassing many western analysts but embarrassing the Russian military and political leaderships more.
Ukraine defended its capital and government, giving ground in the East and South, trading space for time and it used that time to defeat Russia’s main effort of capturing Kyiv. Ukraine continued to defend, forcing the Russians to pay a high price in equipment and personnel for every village captured in the South and East.
Ukraine used the time they gained to plan their counter offensives, to train on and deploy new western equipment’s, including longer range NATO 155mm artillery and of course the infamous HIMARS missile systems. Ukraine knew the Russian weak points, their logistic bases and their command headquarters and put the HIMARS missiles to good use destroying those whilst preparing their counter offensives.
Launching an attack towards Kherson in the South, using social media to suggest this was the expected main counter offensive, Russia rushed to reinforce its positions there, the bluff worked, and Ukraine launched its main attacks further North towards Kharkiv, recapturing 3000 sq Km in days, when it took the Russians months to gain the same territory. The Ukrainian counter offensive has switched back to the Kherson area in the South as troops in the North secure the re-captured ground and wait their next move.
Putin’s response was to deliver the referendum on Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zapopizhzhia joining Russia, with his pre-decided results, to mobilise 300,000 reservists and increase the economic war on the West by blowing up the NordStream 1 and 2 Gas pipelines. At the same time, he increased his nuclear threat rhetoric, hoping he could hold what he had till winter, allowing the 300,000 to be trained and equipped and deployed, but to what effect? Ukraine has already defeated Russia’s best units and troops; the reservists are merely more lambs to the slaughter.
He is pinning his hopes on Western support dissolving over a fuel crisis filled winter in Europe with a nuclear threat hanging over the world. However, China and India have warned him to be careful. They still want Russian gas and oil but also want to keep some relationship with the West.
Underpinning where we are is the fact that Ukraine has the initiative on the ground and is giving the world a master class in combined arms operations. In conjunction with these combined arms operations Ukraine has learned from the allied SOE operations of WW2 and this is evident with facilities across Russia blowing up, airbases in Crimea blowing up and the latest, the destruction of part of the Kerch Strait bridge, being the latest master class in strategic effect. All of this will likely lead to the Russians further collapsing and being pushed much further back before winter sets in, recapturing more territory, further embarrassing Putin and stimulating unrest in Russia.
Putin, increasingly isolated, will likely lash out, especially with the Kerch Bridge attack the day after his 70thbirthday. His information operations aimed at splitting the West will become more vocal as will his threats. Undersea pipelines and cables could be at risk, cyber could grow, economic warfare is certain. In Ukraine, he will likely target infrastructure and cities more violently in retaliation.
However, he could still decide that using a tactical nuclear device, 1 kilo-tonne , destroying an estimated 1 square kilometer area could send a strategic message, ‘negotiate and accept what I have captured, else the next one in on Kyiv, or Kherson.’ If he did, international condemnation would have to include China and India, for their sakes, and his isolation would be complete.
NATO and the Wests response would probably be conventional and against Russian troops in Ukraine, but once a foot has been placed on the nuclear escalation ladder, it can be climbed very quickly. We are entering the most dangerous phase of Putin’s folly.
by Grey Hare Editor | Apr 26, 2022 | Articles
Influence and messaging, the Zelenskyy effect
by Philip Ingram MBE
The headline recently appeared in the Daily Mail saying “Zelensky declares social media WAR: President launches campaign telling the world to demand politicians act by swamping the internet with signs reading #ArmUkraineNow amid Russian assault on the Donbas.” In March President Zelensky delivered a historic address to the House of Commons that was beamed into the chamber via a live feed invoking Churchill in only a way a seasoned orator could. To the US Congress he invoked memories of Pearl Harbour, to the German Bundestag, memories of the Soviet days splitting Germany into East and West and the Berlin Airlift.
In his address to every country and institution his messaging has been personalised, focused and expertly targeted. However, it is not just his addresses to parliaments, congress, institutions that have an effect but his regular phone calls with world leaders and his nightly address to the Ukrainian people but also the world. Messaging, the power of words is at the core of his political and military defence and this is something we must understand an learn from quickly. President Zelenskyy is delivering a masterclass in the use of information in crisis.
However, the public master class we are seeing is reflected in an understanding of manipulation in the widest sense of the word that has underpinned Ukraine’s transition from a former Soviet State to one courting EU and NATO membership such that Russia felt compelled to act. Russia’s own information campaign is straight out of their books of враньё (vranyo), telling a lie without expecting to be believed, but told often enough through as many outlets as possible and control the truth through маскировка (maskirovka), literally masking, propaganda to many the lie becomes the reality.
Putin, usually through his foreign minister, Lavrov, frequently masks his intentions in an inflammatory way by stoking up the nuclear threat, knowing it will panic different countries in different ways. The statements we have heard the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Nebenzya deliver, beggar belief in their warping of reality, but Russia doesn’t care. What is good about Russia’s information war is their maskirovka and vranyo are so obvious to the free world. In Russia where the state has total control over all media, it is a different matter.
Their use of information is to reinforce their own beliefs, groupthink, and aimed domestically with the odd poorly aimed snipe internationally. An example of the latter is when Putin made his first nuclear threat, he said it was because of comments Liz Truss, the UK Foreign Secretary made. He saw this as a way of worsening a perceived post Brexit rift between the UK and EU and in particular the Germans, he ignored the reality that the international community was coming together as never seen in recent years.
So where did Ukraine come from in the information sphere, to properly understand their development I talked to a former senior Foreign Office official and ambassador, (not to Ukraine) but someone who was involved with many interactions with the Ukrainians before Russia’s first invasion in 2014. Ukraine had been sending officers to the UK Advanced Command and Staff Course at the Joint Services Command and Staff College since at least 1997 and were trained in complex combined arms and joint operations. They had been courting NATO countries and the UK for many years before then.
Scale and capability is important to understand. The Ukrainians have one of the largest armed forces in region apart from Russia. They have at least 6 times as many tanks and APCs as UK and an Army c126K, with 900K reservists. They have some serious military capability and the Foreign Office official said in visiting Ukraine he was at the “Largest live fire power display I have ever seen, including major Close Air Support, battlefield breaching, manned APCs para dropped from Antonov’s.” The “so what?” from this is Western military support in terms of Armour offered from a numbers perspective is almost militarily irrelevant in terms of its scale; it is all about the message it sends and locking the Wests involvement into Ukraine’s conflict.
“The approach by Ukraine pre 2014 to diplomacy was aways to try to get signature to agreements tying us to support to Ukraine of similar nature to NATO commitments and of course support for NATO membership.” The Foreign Office Official went on to add, “Ukrainian delegations arrived for official Ministerial visit to Secretary of State with agreements for signature despite clear agreement before visit that we did not intend to sign yet another support agreement with Ukraine,” the tactic of trying to bounce the government into different positions was commonplace.
He added, “On official visits to Ukraine, the general tenor/approach was very Soviet, a massive reliance on bulk consumption of vodka morning noon and night, raunchy entertainment at official events as well as regularly being implicitly offered female staff as prostitutes,” as was ever, influence and manipulation was conducted the old Soviet way.
Since 2014 the Ukrainians have worked hard on improving their approach, moving from the very Soviet to the more western approach, but not forgetting what worked in the past. President Zelenskyy is giving global leaders a masterclass in leadership under pressure. The messaging, the influence operations he is conducting are all aimed at getting support from NATO the EU and the wider international community, tying them into the outcome of the war, so that Ukraine is not left on its own and the conditions are set for as rapid a rebuild of the country and its welcoming into other international institutions, as quickly as possible.
He has successfully courted the international community to cooperate in a way that has not only helped and continues to help Ukraine but has also brought international organisations and alliances closer together than they have been for many years. His words, his messaging, his actions have brough billions of dollars of aid in financial and equipment terms, he has pushed the boundaries of what the EU and NATO have ever done before, he has united a dividing world and refocused some interesting polarisations. What we have seen from President Zelenskyy is true effects-based influence and messaging.
The effects he is achieving are seen domestically where his relationship with the West maintains hope for the people of Ukraine. The effect he is achieving internationally is an increasing perception that Ukraine is fighting to protect the wider international community. He has achieved this in a very careful and subtle way. His actions, methodologies and achievements show a real lesson in the information sphere that the West needs to learn from.
We must ask why the West ignored genocide in Africa with the Tutus and Hutsis, why the International Community didn’t respond to Russia’s first invasion if Ukraine in 2014 but has responded now, and the answer, or a major part of the answer is the Zelenskyy effect. We must learn how to do this given the growing importance of information and messaging, we must take a leaf out of Zelenskyy’s book.
Philip INGRAM MBE is a former Colonel in British Military Intelligence and NATO Planner and is available for comment.
by Grey Hare Editor | Apr 12, 2022 | Articles
Russia’s next move in the East
by Philip INGRAM MBE
The appointment of General Dvornikov to be the overall Russian commander in their new phase of operations which will concentrate on seeking full territorial control of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, part of which make up the disputed Donbas region, is an attempt to bring unity of effort to Russian operations. It makes military sense, and a lack of unified command is one of the reasons why the Russians have failed in their objectives so far.
Dvornikov has experience in Syria, however, Syria was and is not an all arms, combined, high intensity military operation. His experience in high intensity warfighting will only have been tested since 24th February when Russia re-invaded Ukraine, so he is likely the best of a bad bunch of commanders.
So, what is his plan likely to be? I would think that to capture the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts and enable rigged referendums in each he needs to attack towards the city of Dnipro, a key city on the Dnieper River and Ukraine’s 4thlargest city. As such it has a political significance, but it has geographic significance with transport hubs controlling access to SE Ukraine from the West and economic significance as a manufacturing hub critical to Ukraine’s export market. Ideally, to gain a favourable position for a negotiated settlement, Dvornikov would want to capture Dnipro.
Of course driving this are the Russian updated Strategic Goals of February 2022, which are:
- Ukrainian recognition of Russian annexation of Crimea
- Ukrainian declaration stating rejection of future NATO membership
- The ‘demilitarisation’ of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
- Recognition of the Donbas People Republic and Luhansk Peoples Republic as sovereign states at their pre 2014 Oblast borders
In addition, Dvornikov would want to move to capture Zaporizhzhya again on the Dneiper River, south of Dnipro and utilise land and naval forces to threaten an attack on Odesa, to fix Ukrainian defenders. He will likely continue to pressurise Kharkiv and Sumy in the NE of Ukraine again to fix Ukrainian defenders and protect the flank of his main attacking force. In doing so he could attack from the South and Northeast in a pincer movement to fix the Ukrainian defenders whilst a main effort tries to smash through the centre of their defences towards Dnipro.
Focusing on a more limited objective, given the heavy defeat the Russian forces have suffered so far gives an improved chance for some potential tactical victories. However, one man and a reduced objective won’t make this next phase easy for the Russians.
For the Russians, concentrating on Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts has the advantage of shorter lines of communication for logistic supplies and combat formations from Russia into Ukraine. It allows air support, strategic missile support and other shared capabilities to be concentrated where one commander wants their effect, not split across multiple areas of operation. These are the positives for the Russians.
However, Russian formations will be no better than those that have been defeated by the Ukrainians thus far, their commanders are no more experienced and still not able to carry out complex armoured manoeuvre warfare. Russian logistics and logistic planning will not have improved dramatically as they prepare for this new operation and the Russians still do not have air superiority. In addition the ground is unlikely to have dried out enough to enable armoured formation manoeuvre. This will severely hamper their ability to properly manoeuvre and fight as armoured formations.
The Ukrainians have been defending against attacks from the disputed Donbas region of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts successfully for the past 8 years and have had real successes defeating Russian attacks elsewhere in Ukraine. If they have sufficient manpower, weapons, and equipment available, they are perfectly capable of stopping further Russian advances, especially if they use a tactic of blocking Russian advances with disruptive activity in the Russian rear areas destroying logistics, command and control and artillery as a priority. The question then comes if they can generate enough of an armoured manoeuvre capability to forceable eject the Russian forces from at least further parts of Ukraine.
Should that happen, then the clamour for further international community involvement will continue to grow and the Russian response would be to further up attacks on centres of population to destroy the morale of the people, the economic viability of Ukraine and break political will to continue the fight. A sound planning assumption date, is that Putin would want to be able to announce some success at his annual Red Square Parade on 9th May.
If Putin doesn’t get a victory, then it is the people of Ukraine who will suffer further as Putin has the ability to sustain the attritional battle against civilian centres of population in a policy of ‘rubblising’ towns and cities. If he achieves his objectives or even partially by capturing the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts he is likely to try for a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible. The trouble for him is the price the Ukrainian people have paid already is too much for them to countenance giving Putin one square metre of Ukrainian territory. I believe we have many more horrors to come.
Philip Ingram is a former Senior British Military Intelligence Officer and NATO Planner and is available for comment.
Recent Comments