29 September 2025
Topic: This was my online reply to a close colleague during an international discussion about how the United States is transforming into a fascist state while the world lurches towards war:
Times have certainly changed.
Back in the 1990s we were rejoicing at the end of the Cold War and the demise of authoritarianism; watching the apparently unstoppable spread of globalisation, along with increasing standards of living and improvements in global health; and feeling reassured by Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" that posited that liberal democracy was now widely accepted to be the best form of government.
In those days, Russia was being invited to attend NATO exercises and it seemed to have learned its lessons after the defeat of its proxy terrorist forces in Serbia.
Ukraine was promised its freedom by Russia, in return for giving up its nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, China was benefiting from global free trade policies and promising to allow Hong Kong to maintain its social freedoms.
The only troublemakers were Iran, North Korea and Albania.
Since then, the revanchist powers of Russia and China have ruined the geostrategic landscape. It seems likely that we will need to deal with them as we did with the Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Krushchev.
Closer to home, populist charlatans such as Johnson and Farage; Abbott and Morrison; Trump and his MAGA cult; Erdogan; Modi; Orban; and Bolsinaro have crushed the dreams of those who believed that humanity could do better. Rupert Murdoch did more than anyone to enable the populists within the western democracies - I earnestly look forward to his demise.
The traditional Chinese curse of "may you live in interesting times" is coming to pass.
When the coming war arrives we may be too old to fight (which will definitely be frustrating) but we will at least be able to remind others of the list of contemptible barbarians who caused it.
"REFOCUSSING CONCEPTS OF SECURITY"
by LTCOL IAN WING
Paper presented at the Royal Military College, Duntroon,
Canberra, 18 July 2002
Abstract:
The greatest duty of a responsible government is the provision of security to its citizens. As the most fundamental element of a national defence and security strategy, defence against armed attack has historically dominated all other considerations.
Despite this tradition, the intellectual framework of national security is changing in many countries.
This paper demonstrates that our understanding of security is reflected in defence policy and missions – and they are interdependent and undergoing change.
This paper addresses these issues in four sections.
-
The first section describes the traditional meaning of security, which I refer to as ‘old security thinking’.
-
The second section shows how this understanding is being refocussed by theories, which I refer to as ‘new security thinking’.
-
In the third section, I survey changes in the security policies and activities of a range of western democracies.
-
The fourth section deals with Australian defence, which I refer to as ‘refocussed national security’.
Australian Defence Studies Centre
Working Paper No.66, April 2001
‘In the Service of Peace’:
Lessons from Service as a Military Observer in East Timor
by Ian Wing
Introduction:
The author is a Lieutenant Colonel of the Australian Army who served with the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) from March to October 2000.
During that period, he was the Senior Australian United Nations Military Observer in East Timor. As a United Nations (UN) officer, he initially performed the duties of Senior Regional Military Observer (SRMO) of the Viqueque Region.
He was later appointed Senior Regional Military Observer of Sector East (which included the regions of Baucau, Viqueque, Manatuto and Los Palos). During his tour of duty with UNTAET, he served in all 13 regions of East Timor.
This working paper provides a background to UNTAET; describes the work performed by the author as a United Nations Military Observer (UNMO); makes some observations derived from this work; and draws ten lessons from it. The working paper represents a personal viewpoint but it represents the viewpoints of many other personnel who have served in East Timor.
Re-applying First Principles to Australian National Security
by Associate Professor Ian Wing
Charles Sturt University
The aims of this presentation are to:
-
Review my previous paper "Applying First Principles: A National Crisis Management Approach for Australia" which was delivered at the Homeland Security Conference in October 2002.
-
Report on its influence and developments.
-
Analyse Australia’s current CT arrangements by re-applying first principles.
-
Provide recommendations for change.
Applying First Principles: A National Crisis Management Approach for Australia
by Ian Wing
-
Director, Corporate Intelligence, The Distillery
-
President, Australian Institute of Professional Intelligence Officers (AIPIO)
Paper presented at the Australian Defence Studies Centre Conference "Homeland Security - Who is Responsible?", National Convention Centre, Canberra, 31 October-1 November 2002
Abstract:
Despite some recent concerns expressed within the media, the Australian Government is well-served by its intelligence and decision-making processes. A review of Australia’s current national security arrangements reveals many impressive strengths, but also some critical weaknesses.
In this presentation I will review the current situation within Australia’s crisis management systems. I will point to the origins of this situation, its benefits and some potential problems.
My vision is to enhance Australia’s counter terrorist capabilities through the application of first principles. This will contribute to a “National Crisis Management Approach”.
LESSONS FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF COALITION PRISONERS OF WAR
DURING THE GULF WAR
By Lieutenant Colonel Ian Wing, AUSTINT
First published in The Australian Defence Force Journal, No.128, January/February 1998, pp.47-54
Abstract:
Thirty-three Coalition service personnel were captured by Iraqi forces during the Gulf War of 2 August 1990 to 27 February 1991. Four of these personnel have written books on their experiences:
• John Peters, a Flight Lieutenant pilot, of XV Squadron, Royal Air Force (RAF),
• John Nichol, a Flight Lieutenant navigator, also of XV Squadron,
• Andy McNab, a Sergeant of 22 Special Air Service Regiment (22 SAS), British Army, and
• Rhonda Cornum, a United States Army Major of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).
This article will discuss these accounts of captivity with the aim of identifying lessons from them.
The article is in five parts:
• the experiences of the PW prior to capture,
• their experiences after capture,
• their experiences of release and repatriation,
• lessons from their experiences, and
• concluding remarks.
"Fighting Other People’s Wars: The Balance Sheet"
by Ian Wing
Paper presented to the ‘Australia/Papua-New Guinea Crime and the Bilateral Relationship’ Conference at Old Parliament House, Canberra, 11-12 November 1998
Abstract: Mercenaries have been part of human conflict throughout history and their fortunes are rising. This paper provides an examination of mercenarism using a five-part framework for analysis: definitional context, historical context, contemporary mercenarism, legal context and future prospects. An analysis of the reasons for the rise of mercenarism and its problematic aspects is presented.
The paper recommends that understanding and regulating mercenaries offers the greatest promise for the maximisation of their benefits and the minimisation of their costs. The UN should create and maintain a coordinated international register of all companies providing mercenary and security-related services. This would serve to improve the performance of the entire industry and promote transparency about the capabilities and activities of all participants. International and domestic law would require amendment to recognise the operation of responsible and reputable mercenary businesses.
"Australian Officer Escapes Highway of Death"
By an embedded media reporter
12 January 2005
AN AUSTRALIAN officer serving in Iraq experienced four separate insurgent attacks during an amazing 36-hour period, including one in which the windscreen of his armoured Humvee was shattered by gunfire.
Lt-Col Ian Wing was the Chief of Operations for the Combined Intelligence Operations Center at Camp Slayer in Baghdad earlier this year when he was tasked to escort a top-secret piece of intelligence gathering equipment on a convoy from Baghdad to Mosul.
The equipment was unable to be transported by air, so it was decided to arrange a light, fast-moving convoy of three Humvees, an ARVL and the truck carrying the equipment.
“Instead of taking it in a heavily armoured convoy, the decision was taken to go low-profile and go as fast as we could,” Lt-Col Wing said.
“We left Baghdad and went north up the main highway to Kirkuk, up into the mountains, and then cut across to Mosul.”
Lt-Col Wing was the senior officer in the convoy with 16 Pennsylvania National Guardsmen and a Pakistani truck driver. He was armed with thermite grenades to destroy the equipment if they came under a sustained attack.
“We went as fast as we could and had four contacts on the way. It was unheard of, everyone thought we would have gotten through in one piece and no one would even notice us,” he said.
“On the way into Mosul we go shot at, I don’t think they knew who we were, but suddenly two guys just came out on the side of the road and started firing at us. That was the contact where my window got hit, and so all the cars turned towards [the insurgents].
“I was sitting in the back, holding my Steyr, everyone was ready to fight. We just heard these big bangs – we weren’t hearing the gunfire, we were hearing the bullets hit the side of the vehicle, which really makes a smack.”
The Humvee gunners fought back as the convoy drove at high speed.
“The gunners started pouring fire into them – killed them both as we burned past and headed out of the kill zone,” Lt-Col Wing said.
“Then we stopped and checked the vehicles, there were bullet holes all over them, but nobody was hurt, then the sheriffs (Bradley APCs) came out and found the bodies of the insurgents and did the battlefield clearance.”
Surviving the ambush, the convoy unloaded its cargo and made ready to return to Baghdad using another route. But soon after departing Mosul, a separate US convoy was attacked ahead of them, killing two US soldiers and causing about an hour’s delay as engineers cleared the road.
“We got as far as Kirkuk before two cars came at us fast and we opened fire on them. Then coming a bit further down the road we were IED attacked and one of our vehicles was blown off the road – that was the vehicle behind mine.”
One of the National Guardsmen suffered temporary hearing loss from the attack, but has since recovered.
“We limped back into Baghdad towing that vehicle – mission accomplished.”
Lt-Col Wing had been in Iraq for three months at the time of the incident. While he was accustomed to mortars and rockets attacks, the events of those 36 hours were beyond anything he had experienced during his deployment.
The US Government thanked Lt-Col Wing for his efforts during Operation Catalyst in which he commanded 230 US troops by presenting him with not just the window of the Humvee that had stopped the 7.62 bullet, but also the bullet itself. Lt-Col Wing now has them mounted in the lounge room of his home in Canberra.
"Private Military Companies and Military Operations"
by Lieutenant Colonel Ian Wing
Land Warfare Studies Centre
Working Paper No. 138
October 2010
61 pages
Abstract: Private military companies (PMC) form an increasingly prominent element of military operations. PMC provide a range of services including catering, logistics, administration, training, intelligence, aviation, close personal protection, keypoint security and convoy security. Some PMC also possess the capability to undertake offensive combat operations.
Like other Coalition forces engaged in the Global War on Terrorism, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is increasingly reliant on PMC for support during operations. Yet the employment of PMC raises important questions relating to the status of national armed forces; the reputation and reliability of PMC; applicability of the laws of armed conflict; national laws and accountability; and command, control and interoperability. The management of these and other challenges contingent on the use of PMC forms the central focus of this working paper.
This paper is presented in four parts. The first part traces the development of PMC from their mercenary antecedents through to today’s corporate businesses. The second part examines contemporary PMC in military operations, focusing on the issues they generate. The third part provides the paper’s conclusion and offers a number of recommendations. The fourth and final part comprises an extensive bibliography, with annotations alongside selected recent references to assist further research.
"SPINtelligence
by Associate Professor Ian Wing"
"SPINtelligence" - is a four part series on the damaging work of spin doctors and its corrosive effects on national security intelligence.
It was first published in four parts in "Security Solutions"
-
Issue 53 May/June 2008
-
Issue 54 July/August 2008
-
Issue 55 September/October 2008
-
Issue 56 November/December 2008
Part 1 - SPINtelligence: How governments trick you into believing them
Part 2 - SPINtellligence: The techniques of spin doctoring
Part 3 - SPINtelligence: The subversion of intelligence
Part 4 - SPINtelligence: The The damage caused by spin doctors
“The Godfather Part 4”?
What are we to make of the astonishing argument in the Oval Office?
My four decades of study and experience in international relations did not prepare me for watching those excruciating moments unfold.
Instead, I have been rewatching the famous 1972 movie “The Godfather” for lessons in how business is now done in Washington DC. The film begins in 1945 with the “Don”, played by Marlon Brando, sitting in his office holding court as his henchmen pledge their allegiance to him. Everything is transactional with every deed being rewarded or punished in accordance with their gangster code. Loyalty is complete – especially because the consequence of disloyalty is death. Loyalty is demonstrated by absolute obedience, fawning gratitude and obsequiousness.
Trump is the rightful heir to such nefarious ways of doing business. It is clear that he has personally absorbed the power of the most country in the world into his flabby frame. He expects his will to be done.
Zelensky has led his country for three years against the illegal Russian invasion. Before he entered the political scene, Crimea was stolen by Russia in 2014 and eastern Ukraine was infiltrated by Russian special forces. In 2022 the full-scale invasion began and Putin’s generals promised him victory within three days. But Zelensky and his armed forces did not turn and run – they fought back!
China, Iran and North Korea provide support to Russia. Until very recently, the US has led the countries of the free world in providing a trickle of military support to Ukraine. But don’t forget that it was the Ukrainian people who did the fighting and dying.
Meanwhile the Third World/Global South/BRICS groupings have generally tried to sit on the fence and hedged their bets in case the wind changed in favour of the autocratic countries.
You may remember that back in 2019, Zelensky refused to be shaken down when Trump demanded his support against Biden. The infamous “perfect phone call” led to Trump’s first impeachment – for which Trump has never forgiven Zelensky.
On the other hand, Trump has always had outsized respect for Putin – who has transformed Russia from the broken Soviet Union into the gangster state he now leads as the richest man in the world. Putin’s enemies are poisoned, defenestrated or die in air crashes. Putin is the man that Trump admires and wants to emulate. During his first term Trump preferred Russian promises to US intelligence assessments. Only days ago, Trump told the British prime minister, Starmer, that Putin will abide by a ceasefire in Ukraine. And, in the Oval Office, Trump reminded Zelensky of his close relationship with Putin “we had to go through the Russian hoax together”.
As we saw with Biden before him, Trump is increasingly showing his age – much like the Don in The Godfather – and he relies on others to get things done. He speaks more slowly and relies on stunts like jokes and dancing to maintain the appearance of youth. He is now surrounded by a coterie of cynical younger men such as Vance and Musk who demonstrate their loyalty through their genuflections and actions. Vance’s role in the shakedown on Friday was – on cue from Trump – to attack Zelensky for his lack of gratitude. That gratitude was required in order to facilitate an economic agreement with the US that was unfavourable for Ukraine but was being offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The unspoken threat was that if Ukraine didn’t accede to the US “deal” then Russia would seize the whole country.
Zelensky is in a very difficult position and it is reasonable for him to want a security guarantee for the free parts of his country against further Russian invasions – before he signs away his economic resources to the US.
Trump and his loyal supporters apparently believe that Putin would respect some sort of “ceasefire” and stop invading Ukraine. This is despite the fact that Putin has broken every other agreement so far!
Zelensky (speaking in his best broken English) tried to calmly point out to Trump that Putin has a track record of aggression. Criticism of Putin was too much for Trump. After a tag-team of combined scolding of Zelensky from Vance and Trump, the meeting was abruptly ended.
The assembled journalists were left shocked – except perhaps the Russian journalist from TASS who had “mistakenly” been let into the Oval Office. And if anyone believes that a Russian can enter the Oval Office by mistake, then I have a Harbour Bridge to sell you!
The meeting was a shakedown which went wrong – Zelensky was supposed to crack under pressure. Trump and his team had completely miscalculated and he didn’t get his “deal”.
The only winners were Putin and the other autocrats who have been gloating at the huge cracks now opening in the western alliance.
Zelensky flew back to London and received the support of the leaders of the free world who have not fallen into line with the new way that the US conducts mafia-style international relations.
Don’t fall for the line that it is pointless to stand up to dictators like Putin. The free world stood up to Hitler’s Germany from 1939 to 1941 (with only a trickle of help from the US).
Ukraine can do it now – Slava Ukraini
AUSTRALIA DAY - 26th January 2025
Today is “Australia Day” – Australia’s national day.
It marks the raising of the British flag at Sydney Cove on the 26th of January 1788, and the establishment of the first European permanent settlement.
Eighteen years earlier, our country had been claimed by the British explorer Captain James Cook on the 1st of January 1770. He had named the eastern half of the continent “New South Wales”.
The settlers who raised the flag at Sydney Cove 237 years ago were led by Captain Arthur Phillip and he was appointed the first Governor of New South Wales.
Governor Phillip commanded the “First Fleet” of eleven ships which had taken 250 days to sail around from Portsmouth in England. The eleven ships consisted of two small warships of the Royal Navy, HMS Sirius and HMAT Supply; six convict transports, Alexander, Charlotte, Friendship, Lady Penrhyn, Prince of Wales and Scarborough; and three storeships, Borrowdale, Fishburn and Golden Grove.
The ships contained 565 officers, sailors and marines; 54 wives and children; and 1,030 convicts (of whom 767 were male, 222 were female and 41 were children). The new settlement also had seven horses, seven cattle, 29 sheep and 74 pigs.
The fleet had first landed on the 20th of January at Botany Bay, which is to the south. But Phillip didn’t like the area and his further explorations discovered the magnificent harbour where the city of Sydney would later develop.
Two French ships were following the First Fleet but fortunately Governor Phillip’s forces were sufficient to deter them from causing any trouble and they departed peacefully.
Phillip also frequently met with the indigenous people who followed a paleolithic way of life in the area. Phillip required that the colonists treat the indigenous people with respect and some of them were recruited as native guides. The manly appearance of their warriors led to the naming of the Sydney beachside suburb of Manly. The eastern end of Sydney Cove was later named Bennelong Point after Woollarawarre Bennelong, a Wangal Man who was the chief of the local Eora clan.
On the morning of the 26th, Governor Phillip and a small party of marines assembled at the head of a small cove which he had chosen for the new settlement. Phillip named the settlement after Lord Sydney – the British Home Secretary who had devised the plan for the penal settlement in New South Wales. Sydney Cove is now better known as “Circular Quay”.
Some sailors raised the Union Jack on a makeshift flagpole and the marines fired a volley with their muskets. The assembled crowd gave three cheers to King George III and a toast was drunk with cups of porter (brown ale).
The 26th of January was subsequently celebrated in the 19th Century as “First Landing Day” and “Foundation Day”. It became Australia’s official national day ninety years ago in 1935.
For me, the most memorable Australia Day was the “Bicentenary of Australia” on Australia Day in 1988. It was a huge day of historical reenactments; the “Parade of Sails” which was the largest gathering of sailing vessels ever assembled in Sydney Harbour; long distance camel racing; and a massive party across the country.
Today we are especially proud to be Australian and, in the words of our national anthem:
“Advance Australia Fair!”
All Posts
