It is little surprise that eight out of every ten of us see the prospect of a major global conflict within the next five years as a real possibility.
How far away those halcyon days of the mid 1990s seem, when the Cold War had been won and we naively held out hope that newly-liberated Russian might once again join the rules-based order forged out of War in 1945.
Now, the peace dividend is gone. As the world rearranges its deckchairs into two seemingly incongruous forces – democracies and non- democracies – taut armies across Europe remain are at a state of military readiness not experienced for decades, and we face the spectre of nuclear war once more,
Those who represent the alternative world order represent a formidable adversary.
Just last week a new report revealed that the economic cluster to which Russia, China and Iran belong – Brics – commands $45 trillion of investable wealth and now represents 45 percent of the world’s population.
This morning, weather conditions permitting, will see one of Britain’s state-of-the-art aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth , steam away from her home in Portsmouth to spearhead Nato’s largest military exercise since the Cold War.
Exercise Steadfast Defender will boast 90,000 troops from 32 different Nato countries – a reminder that the UK will never be expected to face Russia alone.
In March, “big Lizzy” will join the fray against Houthi terrorists who are holding the Red Sea to ransom – though whether she does so by sitting in the Eastern Mediterranean and deploying the eight F-35s on board, or whether she transits the Suez Canal and enters into the Red Sea proper, depends on the willingness of allies to join her.
Her shift from anti-Russian duties in the freezing waters of the Atlantic and the Arctic to anti- Houthi pounding in the considerably warmer Red Sea is a good demonstration of how versatile military planners must be today, in forecasting who our adversaries may be at any given time.
During the Cold War, commanders could rely on defensive walls of armour and strategic long range bombers. Following the 9/11 attacks and the advent of the war on terror, the focus switched to agile and asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ditching of older skill sets.
But single-lane thinking is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Nothing has brought home that message more clearly than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a conflict cocktail which has blended horseback incursions, trench-building and Cold War-style tank battles with cyber warfare, laser -guided bombs and sophisticated drones.
Adopting new technologies, which will see conventional forces augmented by autonomous weapons and AI, need not mean ditching tried and tested skill sets. As head of the army Gen Sir Patrick Sanders said recently: “You can’t cyber your way across a river”.
By officially acknowledging the return of “Great Power Confrontation” in the last Integrated Review, Downing Street has shown that its eyes are wide open to the threats we face, which do indeed target our way of life, our prosperity and our values.
So it is a source of great frustration to hear that we are no longer equipped for “all-out war.”
Even while a ground war raged in Ukraine, eyes on China resulted in the Royal Navy and RAF given precedence over the Army, which saw its number reduced to 76,000 serving troops, 21,000 fewer than a decade ago.
It leaves the UK barely able to field the 5,000 combat troops needed to fulfil its leadership role within Nato’s rapid reaction force.
And news that a promised £1.95bn earmarked to replenish stockpiles is to be used to meet budget shortfalls deserves outrage.
But the government is not completely in control here.
At the very heart of our defence problem is the fact that we cannot entice enough recruits, and we cannot convince experienced NCOs and officers to stay.
When it comes to retention, an overabundance of training missions instead of “proper fighting” in the years after Iraq and Afghanistan has diminished morale, and eroded tolerance levels for poor accommodation
But the problem, fundamentally, is attracting Generation Z recruits to the services.
Here, perhaps, is where any Government trying to balance post-pandemic economic needs with national security merits some sympathy
Low unemployment always plays a role, though just having a job no longer guarantees contentment. How can we expect to entice youngsters to risk their lives for a society that cannot even throw them a ladder to home ownership?
In an age where self-obsession trumps service, and truth is subjective, Armed Forces recruiters need to jump hoops.
This has led to the injection of much- criticised but necessary wokeness at the core of our armed forces.
As Lt Col Langley Sharp, author of ‘Habit of Excellence – Why British Army Leadership Works’ told me: “Younger generations demand and expect more, They tend to be better educated, ask more questions and want to understand why. So our approach has changed.”
But it’s not enough.
General Sanders’ recent statement about the need to prepare a citizen army was misunderstood to mean conscription. In fact, even National Service would damage the professionalism of our military.
But some kind of community-based service – a Duke of Edinburgh plus – may well instil an ethos of teamwork, unity and community which, sadly lacking today, would lay the foundation for better and more willing soldiers tomorrow.
