Why Modern Warfare Has Changed in Profound Ways Very Few Understand

Welcome everyone.

Well, there is an interesting dichotomy

that is emerging all across the globe as

it appears more and more that the

conflicts in Iran and Ukraine are a

microcosm of an entirely new reality in

warfare. And in this we need to pose the

serious questions. Is the future of

statecraft simply to threaten from afar

and hope to coers nations into

capitulation? And more importantly, have

we for all intents and purposes seen the

end of war on a major scale?

>> Yeah, this might seem to people to be

pie in the sky and because, you know,

we've always had wars, therefore we'll

have wars in the future. And it's rather

like, you know, I I often get people

saying to me, well, you know, we look

historically, we had uh wars all over

Europe. We had World War I and World War

II, but as I said to them, there's a big

difference. We now have nations with

nuclear weapons. That changed warfare in

some ways in a extremely significant

manner, particularly preventing

conflicts between nations like the

Russians and the Americans and obviously

by extension China and the United States

as well. But with regards to recent

wars, it's worth noting if you look at

how the Ukraine war started and here we

are four years, four months later and

our warfare has changed out of all

recognition. It's no longer about tanks

or armored personnel vehicles or

standing armies or anything like that.

It's to do with drones and drone. Drone

warfare has changed the whole emphasis

of the battlefield and therefore the

most important people now are drone

operators effectively. Yes, you still

have armies, but as has been proved,

they're largely totally ineffective

to to amass them on a huge scale when

they can easily be killed quite frankly

with drones. It's as simple as that. And

that's why tanks and armored personnel,

vehicles, etc. have become irrelevant

to a large extent. Then we go to the

issue of the Iran war where the United

States in their infinite stupidity once

again said, "Well, we'll just go and

bomb uh seven shades out of Iran and

that will end the war." Well, of course

it didn't and it never will do because

bombing countries like that doesn't work

anymore.

and and also the United States of course

now realized that having any sort of

ground force invasion was not possible

either. Okay, the terrain's one thing

but fundamentally it comes down to the

point that with drones they would have

all been killed pretty much 90% of them

before they got anywhere near landing

even on the Iranian coast as mountainous

and awkward terrain as it is. So we have

and also of course we've seen that by

Iran controlling the straight of Amuse

which the United States for all its uh

prowess or what it claimed to have

prowess with regards to its naval

capabilities and that Iran didn't have a

navy which it doesn't Iran's able to

still be in control of the straight of

there's nothing the United States can do

and not least as we also and I made this

point for years that aircraft craft

carriers are useless now and they're

sitting ducks because of course we had

the advent of hypersonic missiles which

the west doesn't have which the Chinese

has the Iranians have the Russians have

etc and they rendered aircraft carriers

useless which is why the United States

moved them hundreds of miles out into

the Indian oceans so they were out of

the range of hypersonic missiles that

Iran could have caused massive damage or

destruction to their naval fleet. And

and also of course having all these

military bases are now largely pointless

because Iran struck practically all of

them and cause massive devastation to US

bases in the entirety of West Asia,

struck the Middle East. So that alone

demonstrates how modern warfare is is

changed out of all recognition. And it's

why when people keep saying or keep

being told Europe wants to go to war

with Russia or Russia wants to go to war

with Europe. Well, how's Europe going to

fight a war with Russia? What? With a

huge standing army that will be

massacred almost immediately? What? With

tanks? With armored personnel vehicles?

With they they have no capability to

fight a war in the next 5 years, 10

years, or ever. Never mind that Russia's

has the most advanced nuclear arsenal in

the world. And equally, what's Russia

going to do? Invade Europe with a

standing army that will equally be

obliterated

with with drones. And this is why people

keep believing, well, Russia should just

send in half a million military

personnel and end the war that way in

Ukraine. Well, they could try and do it,

but how many how many of those 500,000

will probably end up dead? I'd say at

least 50%.

That is not good optics for for Russia

to sit there and go, "Well, I'll tell

you what, we'll we'll just sacrifice

250,000

uh military personnel to end a war." And

that that alone is is a huge shift that

has happened in the last 5 years. If you

went back 5 years ago before the Ukraine

war started and said, "This is how

modern warfare works, people would have

looked at you and gone, I can't believe

this." But that's because new

technologies being developed on the fly

quite literally. Something happens, they

one side or the other starts developing

new technology. This has been

irrefutably the case for at least the

last 2 or 3 years. So that alone changes

the whole emphasis. And I'll give way to

Ken and then we have to get on to the

issue of other things that have

demonstrated why modern warfare is

completely different.

>> Yeah, I want to give just a quick

historical thing going back to World War

I. You know, World War I killed tens of

millions, but that still wasn't enough

to scare uh Europe or, you know, in many

portions of the world away from war. So,

it was just a 20-year ceasefire until

the next war came about. And then we had

the advent of nuclear weapons. And

nuclear weapons changed the game the

same way drones change the game uh

today. And asymmetrical warfare, which I

know we're going to get into here in a

in a bit, but take a look at what

happened. There was the the US mindset

of of bombing campaigns. While we had

linebacker two and linebacker one in

Vietnam, that didn't make them

capitulate. Where they had bombing

campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, they

didn't capitulate. They were there 20

years and accomplished nothing. Now with

Iran, they thought they had air

superiority in bombing campaigns and it

they ended up really losing in the long

run. So, the old way of fighting, you're

not going to see um and this is

something else that came out of World

War II is superpowers were never going

to face each other. And Europe as a

whole is considered a superpower. It's

always going to be through proxies. It's

always going to be through skirmishes.

It's going to be where the superpowers

go after the smaller countries that

really can't uh can't work. But over

time that warfare in itself changed and

Europe and and I you see this I think

especially both with Europe and

especially the United States whether

their state department, their president,

Congress etc. Statecraft is done through

rhetoric. Statecraft is done less

through actual military uh uh

implementation.

>> Yeah, absolutely. And then we so we come

on to the fact that now having a massive

standing army having huge amounts of

tanks, fighter jets, whatever is rather

meaningless. And also

standard ballistic missiles are useless

as well. The the question now is as the

United States is finding out by China

putting in restrictions on on refined

rare earths by putting restrictions on

gallium and geranium the United States

militarily can't manufacture any weapons

anyway because they lack the essential

resources. It's also why if if you don't

have access to semiconductors, you don't

have access to lithium, for example,

your military is now completely useless.

So people keep framing things and

continuing to do so as though

traditional warfare still has any

relevance. It absolutely doesn't. We

don't live in the days of the Roman

Empire that conquered lands with these

huge legions, etc. And the I mean the

world's changed and it's changed so

radically in in a very short space of

time. And you're not going to conquer

nations anymore by occupying their

territory. You control them by stopping

them having access to what they need.

Cuz here's the other thing. Without a

modern economy now, given all the

technological advancement, it's one

thing not having access to energy, but

if you don't have access to to lithium,

you don't have access to rare earths,

you you don't have access to to

semiconductors,

then your your whole economy will

capitulate. you won't be able to fight a

war on on technologically because you

won't have the raw materials to

manufacture even drones

and and and yes, so whilst energy has

always been part of that and you do need

energy uh to to fight wars, it isn't

anymore just about energy. Yeah, wars

were fought over energy and empires

collapsed because they didn't have it.

We know this. and glo the the global

economy does function around energy but

the 21st century now and particularly I

would say in the last five years there's

a whole list of strategic resources now

if you don't have them you're in big

trouble including and it's worth

reiterating lithium cobalt nickel

uranium rare earths semiconductors you

even need access to data you even need

access to fresh water now because

without that you can't manufacture data

centers for example and modern warfare

will use uh information and information

is being processed now in real time to

make decisions as to what you need to do

tomorrow or next week. This is why

countries are racing to secure supply

chains, mines, manufacturing

capabilities. This is not a coincidence.

And therefore on on that basis, we have

to stop imagining

that warfare in the future is going to

have anything to do with standing armies

and blowing each other up with with with

weapons. That isn't how wars will be

fought. China has demonstrated that it

can cause absolute mayhem to unfriendly

nations on the planet by not giving them

access to things like rare earth which

let's face it everything uses them

nearly. Even phones, wind turbines,

military equipment, missile guidance

systems, even fighter jets for goodness

sake utilize them. without that mon

technology stops grinds to a halt also

hence why the United States was trying

to put restrictions on China with

regards to semiconductors

why because everything needs

semiconductors more than ever including

military system including AI I mean yes

it has done it's not a recent thing in

that regard but it's accelerating and

expanding enormously

and and therefore for the whole

principle of warfare is changing and

there is an argument now to say we are

not going to see traditional warfare

ever again. That's a bit of a bold

statement and okay there's you can

always argue about the risk of nuclear

war. I've always made the point as far

as I'm concerned it will never happen.

But the argument that anyone's going to

fight a traditional war like people

think Europe and Russia will do is

nonsense. This is never going to happen

again.

No. And I think we have uh when we take

a look at uh the US's incursion into

Iraq, whether it's Desert Shield, Desert

Storm, and then later the Iraq war,

Afghanistan, yeah, that was probably the

last uh traditional style war we were

going to we were going to see uh going

forward. Drones were uh something in in

mind's eyes. satellite uh technology and

the ability to um utilize uh

lesser and unmanned

um armaments certainly has expanded and

exploded and we don't even know what's

going to happen with AI getting involved

here in the next 5 10 20 years. But I

think uh another key point that has to

be put out is something that Iran did

that carries over for what you were

saying about China.

The world is changing not from

traditional warfare but to asymmetrical

warfare hitting them where they hurt. If

you can't face them with their ar arms

or their personnel then you hit them

economically. The US has been using the

dollar, has been using sanctions, has

been using uh freezing assets to their

benefit to try to make nations

capitulate to their will.

Well, China now has reversed that and is

doing the same thing. Uh, one of the

reasons that Japan got into World War II

was the fact that the United States cut

off their access to oil and rubber and

other necessary things. So they had to

go looking into China and get an

expansionary uh mindset. We're seeing

we're seeing that around the world is if

Iran can cut off and they finally did

access to the Straits of Hormuz, it will

shut down the entire global economy.

And the United States is not in any

position anymore, nor is Europe, nor is

any other nation within the Middle East

to stop Iran from doing this. So

there's a term in warfare known as force

majour

where an unknown factor has entered that

is untenable and it can't be stopped and

this is what happens. Drones are a form

of force majour. Uh cutting off oil and

energy is a form of force majour. Uh

ddollarization is a form of force

majour. It's all under the umbrella of

asymmetrical warfare. So, you're going

to see more and more of this type of

warfare take place, nation against

nation uh rather than uh tanks and men

and aircraft on a battlefield.

>> Yeah, absolutely. And I think another

point worth making and there is an

obvious statement about that water is

the essence of life. Of course, it is.

But and it's not just agriculture that

depends on water. Industry does. Power

generation.

You could see future conflicts would

revolve around accessibility to to

rivers, reservoirs, fresh water supply.

I mean, the Middle East is a great

example of this, although an extreme

one. If as Iran does carry out its

threat and we have to absolutely hope it

doesn't to destroy desalination plants,

those regions are uninhabitable for for

who knows how long and then you would

have the biggest refugee crisis in human

history. Again, that is how warfare

would change in the future. It is not as

I say and that those kind of things can

be targeted from afar with precision

missile capabilities with missile

technology the west or middle eastern

countries can't challenge in in any way

shape or form. The other thing of course

is you know there's you it instead of

actually going to war and having

military occupation

economic leverage if you have dominating

mining sector you control refining you

control manufacturing transportation

power how it's distributed across

networks the list goes on and on. then

then you know and you have access to

strategic reserves

then you're in a position to be able to

survive future warfare which isn't about

standing armies and and what we've said

we're not saying there isn't the risk of

warfare in the future we're saying it

bears no resemblance to traditional

warfare and this is why China has spent

the last two decades signing agreements

with countries ries all over the world

for accessibility to resources. Why?

Because they understood the future were

and to protect your nation was to do

with having accessibility to resources

and having supply chains and having

robust relations with countries where

you can work together because then that

stops you being vulnerable. One of the

reasons why Russia, you can't defeat

them militarily

is because they have the biggest

resource base in the world and their

energy secure and food secure. How can

you defeat a nation on that basis? You

absolutely can't.

Indeed. And I think one final uh point I

want to make is if you really take a

look at uh warfare as a whole throughout

history, the repercussions and

consequences of it are longerlasting

than just making a nation capitulate and

that's that. Uh after World War II, we

had a an iron curtain separate uh west

from east in Europe. And we had of

course uh the United States and and the

Soviet Union facing off creating pro uh

mayhem with proxy wars all throughout

for about 60 70 well no about 45 years

until 1991. Then of course what we have

uh going in Korea. Well, the Korean War

ended in 1952 or 1953 and we pretty much

have had it divided ever since. The same

way across the board, the Yugoslavia is

still separated into four regions where

anything could break out. So um most

conflicts are never something that ends

and that's it. Ukraine and thei and

Russia when they finally come to some

sort of end are still going to have the

animosities that they had before and who

long knows how long that's going to last

at a at a scale. Uh the Middle East now

is going to have to shift and change

over. So there's always wide ranging

uh consequences for every single

conflict that most nations never take uh

into consideration.

and they themselves can change the

entire geopolitical landscape

uh of the world.

>> Yeah, absolutely. So where what can we

conclude from this? The contest to to to

win a war in inverted commas in 2026 and

going into the future is access access

to resources, energy, minerals,

chips,

supply chains,

you know, technology,

uh data,

materials. The country that has secures

those resources is going to shape the

future because and you don't have to

shape the future blowing things up.

They'll shape the global economy.

They're going to influence and change

international politics or geopolitics.

You're going to define technological

process. And it and you don't need to

invade countries anymore to weaken them

or destroy them. You just simply control

what it can't manage to live with

without. Sorry. That's the big huge

shift and that's come about really in

the last 5 years. The wars of the future

won't really be fought on battle fields

the way they were. They're going to be

fought by by those who own and have

access to mine mines to resources in

factories

in supply chains in shipping routes. are

you know big play and big changes

happening in the northern sea route with

the Russians and the Chinese

and ultimately all of this is over

accessibility to resources

that effectively will power

civilization itself way way into the

future. That's the big change. I don't

know whether the United States realizes

this yet. The Chinese and the Russians

have realized this. And I would say the

Chinese more than even the Russians in

recent years, but in China's case, it's

been very obvious to them for 20 years

plus.

And with that, we end today's podcast.

Thank you very much for listening, for

all your ongoing support, which we

greatly appreciate. Please like, share,

subscribe, hit the notification button,

comment, help spread the word. We really

appreciate you doing this cuz it helps

us to to grow the channel. And with

that, I'll say goodbye.