Deciphering the militarizing effect of military practices of threat forecasting: the French Red Team Project and its relevance for contemporary civil-military relations

By Eric Sangar, Sciences Po Lille / CERAPS, University of Lille & Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin

Imagine being a part of a government-backed initiative that recruits artists and scientists to envision future threat scenarios. Isn’t that a promising way to overcome organizational biases and group-thinking? In my recent article published in Security Dialogue, I examined the French Red Team project, a recent initiative of the French Ministry of Armed Forces that appears fascinating at first hand and more concerning at a closer look. This research really started outside my personal research agenda; it was spurred by the strange character of some of the project’s output, but also the fact that a critical debate, both in France and internationally, was completely absent. Let me explain what the Red Team project is, how I interpret its functions, and, most importantly, why we should all care about its potential impact on civil-military relations and democracy.

What is the Red Team Project?

In 2019, the French Ministry of Armed Forces launched the Red Team project to anticipate future threats by leveraging the imaginations of science fiction writers, artists, and scientists. The official idea behind the initiative was to think beyond conventional strategic planning by imagining scenarios of technological innovation that could challenge organizational routines and military doctrine. Developed and discussed in a confidential and internal manner, these scenarios would then inform military planning and innovation. By giving free way to the imaginaries of creative writers, the project was expected to challenge the usual ways of thinking of the French Army. Take, for instance, one of the project’s first most well-known scenarios, “Chronicle of a Foretold Cultural Death” It envisions a world fragmented by digital "safe spheres", conceived as highly isolated virtual communities where people retreat into personalized realities. Over time, this digital segmentation erodes societal cohesion, leaving the state’s civilian institutions powerless to act. The scenario’s climax? The French military steps in as the last bastion of stability, dismantling these “safe spheres” and restoring a unified sense of reality as well as a politically unified nation-state. On the surface, the scenario is a strange yet intriguing speculative narrative. But as I’ll explain, there’s more to this story than meets the eye.

Why should scholars care about a military forecasting project?

At first glance, the Red Team project seems like a harmless – potentially even innovative – way to prepare for future threats. After all, wouldn’t we want our governments to think creatively about security in an increasingly unpredictable world? The answer is yes, but the implications of such projects, which involve the ‘sub-contracting’ of envisioning societal futures, can be far-reaching and troubling. In my analysis, I argue that the Red Team’s work serves more than just a practical purpose. Beyond its creative scenarios, the project sends a subtle but powerful message: civilian institutions are inadequate to face not only the challenges of the future but also the contemporary roots of future threats. Instead, it positions the military as the only entity capable of safeguarding national cohesion and stability. Because this discourse implicitly legitimates the military to assume responsibility beyond the constitutional limits of liberal orders, I argue that the Red Team constitutes a securitizing move contributing to the phenomenon of  “exceptionalist militarism”. The term refers to a situation where militaries justify extraordinary expansions of their influence by presenting themselves as uniquely suited to address existential threats. While this might sound abstract, it’s a phenomenon with very real implications for how power is distributed in democratic societies.

How does the Red Team fit into the broader context of French civil-military dynamics?

To understand the significance of the Red Team, it’s important to look at the broader context of French civil-military relations. Historically, France has maintained firm civilian control over its military, a legacy of conscious efforts to prevent the armed forces from becoming a political force after the experience of the failed coup at the end of the Algerian War. But recent years have seen growing tensions and more or less subtle attempts to challenge civilian supremacy. There have been high-profile incidents where military leaders openly criticized civilian authorities, such as the 2017 resignation of General Pierre de Villiers after a public dispute with President Emmanuel Macron over defense budgets. In 2021, a controversial open letter signed by retired generals warned of an impending “civilizational collapse,” reflecting a growing sentiment among parts of the military that civilian leaders are failing to address pressing societal challenges, including the “fragmentation” of the nation-state resulting from the incapacity of civilian authorities to handle Islamist movements and decolonial activists. The Red Team project, I argue, taps into these tensions. By crafting scenarios where the military steps in to resolve crises that civilian authorities cannot, it reinforces a narrative of military indispensability. And while these are “fictive stories,” they are widely disseminated and resonate deeply with contemporary fears in parts of French society about societal fragmentation, multiculturalism, and threats to secularism.

How does the Red Team attempt to promote “exceptionalist militarism”?

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Red Team project is how it blends fiction and foresight, and how these are disseminated to the general public using a range of media outlets. The scenarios are not just confidential reports; they are publicly available multimedia productions, complete with illustrations, videos, and even fictional expert interviews. These narratives are designed to be engaging and relatable, making them accessible to a broad lay audience. And this dissemination seems to be working beyond all expectations. The project’s outputs have been widely covered in French media, often with glowing reviews. The book compiling its first season of scenarios became a bestseller, and major news outlets like France 24, Le Monde or France Culture have praised its imaginative yet plausible depictions of the future. Some journalists have even noted how eerily close these scenarios feel to current events, lending them a sense of credibility. This is where things get tricky. By framing their scenarios as credible and ‘scientific’, the Red Team scenarios gain an aura of authority. They are not just wild speculations; they are presented as serious, evidence-based forecasts. And when these stories suggest that the military is the only institution capable of addressing future crises, they subtly shape public perceptions towards an increased acceptance of a greater political weight of the armed forces in society.

Is the Red Team an exception? Other cases of military forecasting project that mobilize artistic knowledge

The Red Team project is not unique to France. Similar initiatives exist in other countries, such as the U.S. military’s ‘SciTech Futures’ program, which also collaborates with science fiction writers to imagine future conflicts. In the UK, the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory has published speculative stories to explore future security challenges. What sets the Red Team apart, however, is its public-facing nature. While many military forecasting projects remain confined to internal audiences, the Red Team’s scenarios are designed for mass consumption. This deliberate dissemination raises important questions: Is this about preparing for the future, or about shaping public opinion? And if it’s the latter, what kind of future is being imagined, and for whose benefit?

What are the societal implications of my analysis?

At its core, the Red Team project challenges us to think critically about the balance between security and democracy. It’s not just about the military’s role in defending the nation; it’s about how narratives of future threats, and the appropriate means of protection against them, are constructed and who gets to define them. When military institutions position themselves as indispensable saviors, they risk undermining the very democratic principles they are sworn to protect. Civilian oversight and accountability are cornerstones of democracy, and projects like the Red Team test the boundaries of these principles. By normalizing the idea that the military might need to take on extraordinary powers to address future crises, we risk opening the door to a more militarized society in the present. As someone who has spent months analyzing and writing about this project, I admit that I am both impressed and unsettled by it. The Red Team’s creativity is remarkable, and its scenarios are undeniably thought-provoking. But we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. We need to ask tough questions about how and why such projects are created and disseminated. What narratives are they promoting? Whose interests do they serve? And how do we ensure that they strengthen, rather than undermine, democratic governance? As citizens, we have a responsibility to engage critically with these narratives. The future is not just something to be anticipated; it is something we actively shape. And this includes finding peaceful, emancipatory ways to engage with the pluralization and polarization of contemporary liberal societies, rather than accepting the organized use of violence as the inevitable means of last r