Transcript

How can fiction and storytelling effectively engage the public with the complex challenges of national security?

How does storytelling bridge gaps in historical narratives and deepen our understanding of contemporary conflicts?

How can fiction help project future scenarios and explore potential outcomes?

In this episode, Misha Zelinsky and Mick Ryan join David Andrews to explore the intersection of fiction and national security – sharing personal experiences on how storytelling can shape public perceptions, and inspire action in the realm.

(This transcript is partly AI-generated and may contain some inaccuracies).

Misha Zelinsky

Even history, before it was written down, was handed down by a story. And stories endure in a way that facts, figures and newspaper clippings just don’t endure.

Mick Ryan

But at the end of the day, its human stories that draw out enduring emotions and insights into human organisations, big events in history, or how we think about the world now and in the future. 

National Security Podcast

You're listening to the National Security Podcast, the show that brings you expert analysis, insights and opinion on the national security challenges facing Australia and the Indo-Pacific. Produced by the ANU National Security College.

David Andrews

Welcome to the National Security Podcast. I'm David Andrews, Senior Policy Advisor at the ANU National Security College. Today's podcast is being recorded on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present. Today I'm joined by Misha Zalinski and Mick Ryan for a discussion on the use of fiction as a means of examining and interrogating questions of national security. Misha Zelinksy is a leading authority on the rise of global authoritarianism, a Fulbright scholar, economist, lawyer, journalist, and author. Misha covered Russia's invasion from inside Ukraine and is sanctioned by the Putin regime. Misha is a senior public figure with recognised expertise in supply chains, industry policy, countering foreign interference, trade and energy security, and is the author of The Sun Will Rise, a novel based on his reporting and experiences in war-torn Ukraine. Rind is a senior fellow for military studies at the Lowy Institute's International Security Program. Mick spent 35 years in the Australian Army before retiring in February 2022, and he's a strategy consultant, a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC Australia, and an adjunct fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC. His first book, War Transformed, was published in February 2022, and his latest, White Sun War, was released in May 2023, and is a fictional account of a war over Taiwan. Misha and Mick, thanks for being with us.

Misha Zelinsky

Thanks for having us.

Mick Ryan

Thanks, it's great to be here.

David Andrews

Well, as I said, what I'm interested in talking about today is this way in which we can use, and people have used over a long time, fiction and alternate ways of engaging with the national security discourse. I think we're all used to seeing sort of newspaper columns, TV interviews, books and journals and all that sort of thing. That's the more, let's say, traditional way of interrogating or analysing national security. But you're both individuals who have experience in that, but have also pursued novels and fiction as a way of engaging with these concepts and I presume bringing it to a wider audience, engaging people in a different way. So even if we just start there as I suppose a larger concept, perhaps Misha if I start with you, what is it about fiction and that style of writing that you think is so useful or important when it comes to national security conversations?

Misha Zelinsky

It's fundamentally about storytelling, right? And so when we're trying to encourage people to adopt public policy positions, you need to persuade them of the case. And so, now, I'm a public policy professional, by training, and so, it's just sort of almost jarring to me to say this, but to the extent that facts, figures, logic, reason carried the day once upon a time, if they ever did, they certainly don't anymore. You only have to have look around the world to know just how challenging it is. And so narrative actually is a far more powerful way to convey an essential truth of the matter in a way that is more accessible for more people. And so if we want to have a public policy support for a particular position, for the case of my book, ‘The Sun Will Rise,’ talking about supporting Ukraine, you need to construct a narrative that's beyond weapons and soldiers and lines on a map. People need to get to the core truth of something. That's how people connect with things. That's how we've always connected with things. Human history, before it was written down, was handed down by a story. And the stories endure in a way that facts, figures, and newspaper clippings just don't endure. And so if you think about certain classic texts of a particular genre, if you take Orwell, for example, people can very quickly identify what type of book that is, what the story underpinning it means, and what the call to action from that is. And so that's why I felt that trying to get people to reconnect with the horrors of what's happening in Ukraine and the evils of the Putin regime in a way that perhaps they'd started to get numb to the images on their screen. Shocked at first, but over time it numbs you or you get distracted by other events. And I guess lastly, the power and beauty I think of fact-based fiction, which is what I call my book, is that it's enduring and it lasts for a lot longer than a piece of reporting or a non-fiction sort of polemic that is almost out of date the moment you hand in the manuscript.

David Andrews

How does that resonate with you? that reflect your experience as well?

Mick Ryan

No, it absolutely does. I think as Misha said, you know, humans have always been storytellers since cavemen and women sat around the campfires and drew pictures on cave wars. You know, this is how we've passed on human experiences, human history until, you know, very recently. You know, for me, I think fiction has a few really important functions when it comes to national security. Obviously we can use historical fiction because it tells very human stories and expands our knowledge of past conflicts that might be written about eloquently by historians, but history as important and as much as I love it, it can be very dry and it can really leave out important parts of the story where fiction can fill those gaps. And that's been done since Homer wrote the Iliad or Virgil wrote the Aeneid, all the way through to modern authors writing historical military fiction about the wars in Iraq and Vietnam and the Second World War. But it also can tell future stories, which I think is also important. I think that we are facing a very rapidly evolving technological and geopolitical environment. And sometimes stories can look into the future and tackle problems whether it's how humans use technology or how humans relate with one another, they can do that in a creative way that think tank reports or other writing may not be able to do. You know, we've seen that for the last 150 years or so, Battle of Dawking, published in the late 1800s, was the first real future military thriller all the way through to the hunt for Red October, Red Storm Rising and the use of fictional intelligence by people like Peter Singer and August Cole. So fiction has a role looking forwards and backwards. Both are important and both can be engaging and raise important issues to do with humans in national security and war.

David Andrews

I like that idea of persuasion that you brought up, Misha. I think that's, to me, sits on a of a continuum, you might say. So between the fact-based and the logic-based, articulating things that are more within the fuller sweep of human emotion and experiences within the fictional space. And I think, as you both articulated, that fiction is grounded in reality because it has to draw from somewhere, but also helps you think forward and project to alternate realities or alternate futures perhaps. And I think we talk about war gaming and futures research and things as a subset of national security research, which is evidence-based and fact-based, but it's thinking forward to what might be possible and then how we would engage either to achieve or prevent that. And I wonder whether in a similar way, particularly coming from yourselves as people who are well grounded in these facts and figures, whether it opens up other parts of your mind in a way, that sort of writing a short piece versus writing a long essay can work different muscles, you might say, and whether this sort of style of helps you, it creates a nice circle of strengthening both parts of that writing exercise. Does that, does that feel consistent with your experience or might be part of the mark?

Misha Zelinsky

No, I think, sorry Mick, I'll just jump in first, but I think Mick raised a point around sort of adding the gaps in history. And certainly in my experience, when you look at reporting on conflict, it can feel a little bit two dimensional to people. You're watching it on television, you're reading about it, it's happening to other people. People that aren't like me, they're in place that I've never been, certainly in Australian context, often very far away. And so what I tried to do and what I believe my book allowed me to at least explore is how can you fill in those gaps and make the experience a richer, deeper, more meaningful experience through character, through story, through backstory? With my book also, I tried to draw out some of the historic tensions between Ukraine and Russia that have existed not just for the last 20 years, but going back hundreds of years between the two nations to really kind of giving some further context to things. But, it just, character, narrative, good versus evil struggles, these are framings that we understand implicitly they're innate to Mick's point that, you know, that from the caveman era all the way through to today. And so by filling in those gaps, you can tell the essential truth of what's going on. you're not, whilst there might be some creative license associated with it, you're not getting away from the fundamental, foundational truth of what's occurred there. But at the same time, allowing people to connect in a way that either it makes it feel more real or as I said at the beginning, makes it more accessible.

Mick Ryan

Yeah, I think that fiction is about people, ultimately. It's about the characters that are human beings, the experiences they have, the trials, the good, the bad. And the best stories engage readers and elicit a series of different emotions. Events don't really elicit emotions that you get in history. Technologies don't really elicit emotions for very long. They might for a short time, but at the end of the day it's human stories that draw out enduring emotions and insights into human organisations, big events in history, or how we think about the world now and in the future. And I think that's what fiction does. And if you look at any kind of fiction, they're always about people, and they're all designed to build a relationship between the reader and the characters in the story.

David Andrews

This might be an odd pivot on that theme, but thinking from say like a recruitment perspective, so for people serving in the armed forces, for example, that I'm not suggesting we sort of sell them a fictional narrative, but I think as sort of young men and women in the community, you're not necessarily reading sort of dense historical sort of treatises, like you've said, you may be engaging in, engaging fiction that, or ways of telling stories that draw you in, sort of put these things into a bigger context, help situate you as the reader within the story in a way that maybe doesn't happen quite as much in a historical narrative or deeply historical narrative. Do you think that this actually having good fictional structures that deal with the world as we see it, as we're responding to, that are looking forward, that are giving ourselves something to engage with, does that actually drive interest in people being personally, first-hand involved in the national security community?

Mick Ryan

Well think it at least allows people to understand it and I think that that's important. mean a huge amount of the taxes people pay go into funding the various arms of the national security community, whether it's military, intelligence, a range of different functions. And I think people would at least like some minimal understanding of why that's needed and how that money is used and governments generally aren't very good, especially in Australia, governments are pretty bad at having honest conversations with the Australian people, particularly about national security issues and justifying expenditure. So, you know, fiction, I think, can kind of fill a gap where our elected representatives may not be up to speed and as good as having those kinds of conversations when they need to be. But it can also, you know, I think, give people comfort that, you know, in fictional stories you can give people comfort that the military that supposedly represents their society is doing it in the right way or if it does bad things it'll be held to account. I think those kind of fictional accounts are also important. It can't just be about the lovely stuff, it's got to be about the tough stuff where we fall short or where we're failing and loaning as well.

David Andrews

Now, Misha, you before becoming a novelist, spent, like I think I said before, you spent some time as a foreign correspondent in Ukraine, reporting on the war there, seeing things firsthand. Now we've just, at the time of recording, just passed the sort thousand day mark since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. You were there through all of those early days and you've still been writing about it talking about it now. You've now got this book that you've in part derived from your experiences and what you've seen there. How has that, I suppose, journey changed? You've talked a lot about persuasion and talking about these different forms of communication. How did that experience of being on the ground and writing those, I suppose stories, know, journalistic accounts are still in their own way stories, they're grounded in people and experience. Was there something that you found in that that either wasn't having the impact that you thought it needed to for us to sort of respond as a community and society to these horrible acts that happening over in Ukraine?

Misha Zelinsky

Well, I mean, the thing about news and Mick would know this too as someone who's a columnist. Unfortunately, just because it's important doesn't mean it's news. The trick is in the framing, we say new. So unfortunately, what becomes difficult in prolonged and protracted struggles like we're seeing in Ukraine, through Russia's invasion of Ukraine, is that keeping the issue top of mind for people is challenging. People are busy, people lose touch with issues, people get distracted by other issues. I mean, yeah, it is challenging and the world is very complex and there's a lot of different things going on. And so I think what you've seen is when the war started, it was the biggest thing going. It was the largest land war in Europe since World War II and frankly, it stayed on the front page pretty much for all of 2022, which is quite extraordinary when you think about the modern news cycle that very few things capture imagination and attention the way they did. So I think it still remains a big issue. And even with, as we passed a thousand day mark now, you've seen it turn once again to the top of the news cycle because of Ukraine striking deep into Russia using military equipment donated to it by NATO allies. Russia changing its settings around its nuclear policy in terms of striking back against that. So it still remains a big issue and an important one, but it is challenging to keep people's attention on that. And so, yeah, I had a sense that people were getting numb to the challenge and having reported there and Mick's been there also many times. When you've been to Ukraine and you see what's happening there, this is a genuine good versus evil struggle. There's no ambiguity here. And so the moral clarity of it, firstly, it places a fair bit of, for want of a better term, I use this reluctantly, but a burden on me in that I want to make sure that I continue to tell the stories and we don't abandon Ukraine, whether it's us as individuals, us as Australia, us as a society globally, we cannot abandon Ukraine because the stakes are so high. But at a personal level, I feel there’s always an element of a little bit of guilt. Can I do more? How can I help? What are the things you can do to reach out to assist? And so that was, my book is both an attempt to do that, to find a new way and an enduring way for people to connect with, as I said, that good versus evil struggle that we're seeing on the ground there every day. Do it in a way that people might think, Jesus, it'll be complicated, scary. I don't understand geopolitics. I don't understand how any of this matters to me. And so through a story, it's accessible, it's done in a way that, you know, I think sometimes the language and nomenclature and terminology we use associated with national security, geopolitics, warfare can be inaccessible. It's got its own form of jargon. So bringing it in an accessible format with characters that are relatable, with an arc that resolves itself to, to mixed point, you can have a happy ending if you so choose. So that's one of the things you can sort of create a moral imperative, but also an arc where it's hopeful for people as they feel that perhaps there's a lack of hope in this struggle up against the might of the Russian army. And so it was my way of connecting outsiders to that struggle on a perpetual basis, but also I kind of think of it as a love letter to the Ukrainian people and their bravery and also in some ways to inspire them that they can prevail, that good can prevail over evil in the end and that the good guys come out on top if they keep pushing and struggling and going one day longer. My background is as a union leader, the old method. And the mantra is one day longer and if you can endure one day longer, you can win. And so that that's the purpose of the book. And you're right. Reporting is one method of doing that. But as it gets further and further to the back of the page, you've got to think of new ways to engage people that struggle. And I'm not the only one doing that. The Ukrainians are constantly stressing and thinking about how can they make the world care. It's part of the reason why I think you saw the incursion into Russia itself through the Kursk region is to make sure that the world knows that they can win and they're still thinking about them.

David

And just while we're on this topic, to keep thinking about your book, could you maybe give us sort of the elevator pitch, the back cover, if you will, of the book? Tell us a bit more about it. What are the broad themes and topics? And give us the pricey.

Misha Zelinsky

Yeah. Well, so it's set in occupied Ukraine. don't know, I don't actually mention the countries by name. I use a device, I say the homeland and the motherland and the motherland, you can probably guess who they are. They're the invading occupying forces, and it’s actually set in occupied part of Ukraine. And I drew the inspiration at the beginning of the war when Zaporizhya, a nuclear power plant was captured by the Russian army. Quite unbelievably, they fired upon it. Now this is the largest nuclear facility in Europe, one of the top 10 largest nuclear power plants in the world. The Russian army fired at this thing, which is just wildly reckless. But then when they captured it, they said to the workers in that facility, they said, listen, you guys are gonna keep working here. And if you don't, you know, we don't really care if something goes wrong, it's on your land and it'll be on your watch. And so I always thought what a evil and, sort of diabolical dilemma to find yourself in. And I'd spoken to some of the workers there and my background, as I said, is a union leader. And I thought, isn't it a fascinating dilemma to know whose priority, whose safety do you prioritise in that situation? What is resisting? What is collaborating? How do you respond to this scenario where literally your hometown, everything you love and care about is under threat, firstly from an occupying army that is gradually trying to reconstruct the society in its own image and doing all those evil things that we've seen, which is abductions and rapes and torches, etc. that we've seen the Russian army conduct inside Ukraine. But also, you've got to keep this thing operating. Now, it's actually to the benefit of the occupying army. But if you don't do it, they kind of got a gun to your head, quite literally, but also figuratively in that if there is a major nuclear meltdown, it's on your hometown and in your land. And so thought that was a really beautiful, fascinating device to use. And also I use the, you know, it centres around this nuclear power plant. The union leader is a young woman union leader and I've met many young incredibly impressive young women leaders in Ukraine who leading the resistance and the war effort and I thought ‘you write what you know,’ which is an old saying but I thought the first thing that any authoritarian regime does after they get control of the military is they try to get control of the media, then they try to get control of the independent political institutions and trade unions are one of the big ones and they're banned as we know in authoritarian regimes because that's where political resistance and political parties are formed. It's where you know my background in unions, the Labor Party, that's how you know one of our major institutions in Australia was built and I thought that's a really beautiful way to demonstrate a micro-struggle. So a struggle that people can relate to on a day-in-day-out basis of school teachers and union leaders and ordinary citizens resisting this occupying force, having this bigger challenge of the nuclear facility, keeping it operating and also knowing there's a war going to way around the rest of the country. And so drawing individual struggle into a city-wide struggle, into a nation-wide struggle and then situating that struggle in this broader fight of good versus evil, of authoritarianism versus democracy and saying the stakes in Ukraine are so important that don't just matter to Ukrainians, they don't just matter to the individuals that are in fighting and it matters to all of us. I always say this. And I'll hand it back to Mick and yourself after, but what happens in Ukraine matters everywhere because Australia cannot exist in a world-  we are a country of 25 million people, Ukraine's a country of 40 odd million people. We can't live in a world where big countries destroy little countries because they don't like them and dictatorships can eat democracies simply because they don't like them. There's a dangerous world. So Australia is heavily invested in the outcome of this conflict and that's what this book's about.

David Andrews

Thank you, that's a very powerful message and a very, I think, compelling way of framing it. Now, Mick, I know you've spent some time in Ukraine as well. I don't know if you've had a chance to read Misha's book yet, but does that story, does that message sort of resonate with your experience on the ground there as well?

Mick Ryan

Yeah, I mean, pretty much what Misha said. I mean, I read his book when it came out, I bought it on Kindle, and I think it's a really important story and a great book. And I look forward to Misha's next efforts.

Misha Zelinsky

One at a time, Mick, one at a time.

Mick Ryan

Haha. But, um, once you start, you can't stop. you know, the themes, the big themes in there are vital. Australia cannot exist in a world where countries like Russia and China decide to arbitrarily exterminate nations on their periphery because they offer a bad example, that being democracy, liberalism and freedom of expression to their suppressed citizens. And that's what we're seeing. That's what we're seeing in Ukraine. That's what China wants to do to the countries on its periphery, including Taiwan. And Australia, you know, cannot exist in that environment. Michael Connolly has this great detective character called Harry Bosch and he said, know, everyone matters or no one matters. It's the same with democracies. Every democracy matter or no democracy matters. And that's why I think Australia's support for Ukraine and Taiwan are both really important. You know, there's two small island democracies of 26 million people in the Pacific. One's Taiwan and one's Australia. And they're both really important. So, you know, these kind of stories, know, Misha's written about Ukraine, I've written about Taiwan, are important. So people understand not just the engaging characters that we might build in these stories, but the bigger issues that even though they might not be in front of people every day, as they rightly worry about paying mortgages, their kids' education, and affording their groceries, but they still matter to them and still ultimately have an impact on the lives of them and their families and their kids and their children's kids. So I think fiction like Misha's and hopefully fiction like mine can really, you know, speak to people so they understand and they understand why countries like Australia are spending money to support Ukraine, why we are having alliances with countries like the United States and partnerships with countries like Japan - because these issues matter to the future of our nation.

David Andrews

Well, I think that is very much the transition I hoping we would make, Mick, is to sort of pivot to our part of the world and to Taiwan and sort of some of these continuities and similarities between the experience of Ukraine and Taiwan and Australia's reactions and engagement there. Now, as I understand it, your novel is more focused on a Taiwanese example rather than Ukrainian example, is that, that's correct, Mick. So could you maybe much, as Misha's done, could you give us sort of the rundown on the book, what it's about? I think we probably have a pretty good sense based off what you've just said about what you're hoping to achieve with and what the driving force was, but tell us a little bit more about the actual novel itself.

Mick Ryan

Yeah, I mean, writing this story really began with the previous book, which was nonfiction, and looked at the future of warfare. And I took a lot of the principles and research from War Transform into looking at, what does this look like in real life? Instead of some dry fictional account of how war might be, what would this actually look like? In a real scenario and I thought Taiwan was probably the most relevant one for us. But there were some really important themes I wanted to have in there. An important theme in particular was, you know, I'd seen a lot of war games about Western Pacific and Taiwan. They're all naval and air. it's like, but... Navies and air forces fight wars, but they never finish them. People exist on land. Governments exist on land. It is only through ground combat that wars are actually won or lost, where governments change their minds and make big decisions. So I wanted to write something about the green bits of the Western Pacific, of which there is a lot. But I also wanted to explore how new technologies will impact on humans and human organisations in military institutions, because they have a big impact, but every organisation looks at the same technologies differently. And then finally I wanted to have the military that was fighting in this story reflect the one that exists now, not the one that might have existed 20 or 30 years ago that many people in the public still think exists. mean the military that exists now in Australia and other democracies is diverse, you know, up to a third, sometimes more female, large numbers of people from different ethnic backgrounds and women are leading the fight in many of these areas including in armour, in infantry and air forces. So the story needed to reflect what we are now and how we see ourselves and it's not some “woke rubbish” that some people have said. It's like, this is how our militaries think and fight now and the stories about them should reflect and recognise some of really amazing people in those organisations that aren't just white fellas like me. So, you know, all those reasons kind of went into constructing this story. And, you know, I kind of wrote two novels at once. There's another one that is in the background that I'll publish in due course, but I actually wrote two stories at once and both kind of played off each other and the one that emerged best was White Sun War and fortunately a publisher liked it and picked it up and published it and it's been on a few reading lists and stuff like that. But, you know, I really had these key themes that I wanted to focus on because they're human themes, they're themes that are important to people and I wanted to make sure that they were out there.

David Andrews

There's, I'm not sure if either of you have seen it, but I believe it's called Day Zero. It's for those that -

Mick Ryan

John Birmingham, fantastic Australian author.

David Andrews

Yeah. Yeah. And there's a Taiwanese show, which I think has a similar name that I've lost momentarily, but it's just, there's a, I think, 17 minute trailer on YouTube, all with English subtitles that deals with, I think, some very similar themes. And it's to sort of, to extrapolate this conversation, we've talked a lot about novels, right? So that's a particular form of fiction. But if you think about cinema, movies, television shows, those are setting out some similar fictional narratives that are exploring similar themes. And this is another sort of Taiwanese example. I think it's really great way of bringing that visually. So it's the added benefit of a visual medium on top of the fictionalised stories that we're telling and bringing all those things together. So I would simply encourage anyone who's interested to give that a watch. I think it's coming out before too long. Do you think there are possibly, maybe on the flip side, are there downsides of, of the fictional model? Do you think it can give people too much confidence that sort of the, that there's a sort of a good ending to be had or that the sort of, that everything coheres in a nice story when actually conflict and war and national security tend to be a bit more maybe stop, start and fragmented and messy and things go wrong all the time. And you sort of have to craft a narrative that in a fictionalised context compels the reader and directs them along, what do you think, Misha? Does it set us up possibly too much in the other way sometimes?

Misha Zelinsky

I mean maybe right like there's an element of risk there that you say to people that in the end the good guys always win right like a US Hollywood sort of ending on everything and you know overly simplistic sort of narrative arc like my book I've written essentially three act play and so you know it certainly I could see how people might argue that but I think it's what you impact upon the reader and so what you're hoping the reader takes away is, “that's something that I need to be involved in” or I feel a particular way about something. Now I understand a particular issue and therefore I'm gonna vote a certain way or act a certain way or get involved in a campaign or to assist in a certain way. I think the device is to drive behaviour and you're really trying to leave impact on the reader. Now it's not necessarily because it resolved itself perfectly but it's ‘how did you feel throughout?’ What did it tell you about that core truth, you know, to Mick’s point around, if it's about, I think the term you used was, you know, either everyone matters or no one matters, and then you paraphrase to say all democracies matter or none matter. I think what you're trying to do is you're trying to elicit a feeling that you care about this issue. So you'll see the long through line in my book or in Mick's book around what the key message is and what you're then trying to say to the person is I want you to feel and believe what I believe and what I feel and then I want you to act in a certain way. I mean, it also really comes down to what the author decides. If you look at Big Brother, right, it didn't exactly finish with an uplifting message. It actually, so yeah, he finishes with the fact that there's a total and utter destruction of the resistance and Winston himself at the end there. But, you come away reading Big Brother thinking, geez, we need to resist totalitarianism. And so the ending doesn't necessarily convey one sort of guaranteed response from the reader, but it's certainly, what you hope, is that they've come away with a powerful feeling about that issue that you're talking about. my instance, I'm talking, I don't think Mick’s is the same, is we're talking about freedom of societies matters and that they can't be crushed by outside forces and if we allow it to happen somewhere, it'll happen everywhere. I hope that people feel that way when they read my book and that whether or not it's helping Ukrainians resist Russian aggression or if it's helping the Taiwanese resist PRC aggression or if it's frankly telling our own government to put a boot up the butt of the Defence Department and the National Security apparatus to defend Australia, that's the outcome I'm hoping that people get when they read my book.

 

 

David Andrews

I just wanted to jump back, Mick, John Birmingham, another author that you mentioned before, another great contributor to this space, and even back into some of your earlier contributions, looking at, I believe, as strategy strikes back and to boldly go. I mean, this is putting a bit of grounding strategic analysis in some sort of fictional settings. We've got such a great array of sources like that, authors like John Birmingham, these sort of, other sort of alternate approaches. Are there other, not trying to sort of undercut your own market here, gentlemen, as authors, but are there people, Mick, that you, in your time in the army, in defence, who you read and who you enjoyed and helped the work you were doing there and guided your approach as a senior leader in government?

Mick Ryan

I mean, obviously you read a lot of different things, but when it comes to fiction, I've always loved science fiction. You know, one of my favourite books is Joe Holderman's The Forever War. It's essentially the veteran's journey. He was a Vietnam U.S. Army combat engineer who returned home from the war and wrote his story in a future environment. So it really is a brilliant book. But, you know, you know, I think it was Stephen King, if you read his book on writing, he said, you know, to write well, you've got to read a lot. And I've always read a lot. You know, authors that have had an impact on me, those that particularly impacted on writing Whites on War, you know, people like Sir John Hackett, who was a senior British officer, wrote nonfiction, but also wrote a fictional account of the Third World War. You know, people like James Webb, who was an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam, a US Senator, wrote a great book called Fields of Fire about a young infantry lieutenant in Vietnam. Len Dayton wrote books about the Second World War, he wrote a great book called Goodbye Mickey Mouse, which was about a US fighter pilot. And I think the things these all had in common, one, you know, they had very engaging characters. Two, you know, they had big stakes as well as personal stakes. But third, they told the personal cost of doing the right thing and fighting for the kind of things that Misha talked about. There is a cost. There's a cost to the individual. There's a cost to countries. And I think the best fictional stories don't shy away from that cost. They recognise that even in real life, even if a country might win and successfully defend itself, there's still a big cost to be born. If you look at Ukraine, they've borne an enormous cost to defend themselves. If you have a look at Australia, it bore a huge cost in World War I, World War II to defend itself and others. So the best fiction, including that of John Birmingham and others, goes into that cost and doesn't shy away from it, doesn't accept the happy Hollywood endings and that war and national security is a grim business and everyone pays a cost somehow.

David Andrews

I think some of the most impactful historical fiction or sort of, let's say, fictionalised history that I've read from Robert Harris, who think has a really fantastic way of creating these alternate timelines, not just about Nazi Germany, but that is a common theme. And I think… I found them to be a really great way of not just, and I think as you've been talking about, sort of inspiring us to action, but also reflecting on what might otherwise be if we didn't take action. And so setting out these examples of, it's all well and good saying the world might turn out like 1939, 1940, what have you, but actually sort of pushing that to its natural consequence and grounding you in that position of, “what would it be like for someone living under those circumstances?” And by sort of showing you that glimpse of the future, a glimpse of the future perhaps, sort of sharpening the focus in the here and now to ensure that doesn't come to pass.

Misha Zelinsky

Well I think, that's, I might just supplement that because I think one of the mistakes we make, and I think that, you you pick up on Harrison and Fatherland's a fantastic book, like alternative history and historic fiction is very useful because people tend to look back at history and just the world, it was linear and completely predictable and that's the way it was always getting to go rather than it being entirely contingent, very based on agency and so, people were contemplating past decisions and what might have been, and also taking a book like Mick’s and then contemplating what decisions might be ahead of us and what we might need to do, I think is really important. That's what fiction can do in ways that, know, in historic accounts simply can't. And so, yeah, I think that is one of the real gifts that historic fiction brings, whether it's future or backward-looking, is contemplating different counterfactuals and not just assuming that, well, it was inevitable. You know, of course we would have won World War II. I mean, it was a pretty tightly contested and close run thing really. And there's plenty of other examples like that. So I think, you know, that is what great historic fiction writers are able to elicit. It's a feeling, but also a contemplation of, geez, if not for brave decision making and to Mick’s point, being able to pay the cost, be prepared to pay the costs because, you know, it's a truism, but freedom's not free and principles are only worth something if you're prepared to pay something for them. I think that that is a very powerful thing and it's something that only really the fictional device can do that if you're being true to an historic record you simply can't do.

Mick Ryan

Yeah, think as Misha said, you know, I was going to raise the same point actually about counterfactuals and alternate histories. Neil Ferguson wrote a great book on this a while ago and he and some other historians actually discussed this very issue on their podcast a few weeks ago. Those counterfactuals, you know, one decision, you know, splits, you know, kind of the timeline in a very Marvel universe kind of way. You know, what might have happened if one decision or one event had gone a different way and what might we learn about that in how we make decisions now and in the future. So, know, as Misha said, those counterfactuals, those alternate histories, whether it's Robert Harris or others who write these things, I think they can be very powerful tools.

David Andrews

Well, think reflecting back to where we started, I've been sort ruminating during our conversation that perhaps I should have been framing this as a conversation about storytelling rather than about fiction per se, but I think both have a great value and a great place in the national security conversation. And you're both proponents of that in your work, both in the fictional and the non-fictional space, but I think it's been a really insightful conversation, understanding your process, the sort of things that drive you and motivate you and are shaped through your work. But Misha Zelinsky, Mick Ryan, thanks so much for being on the National Security Podcast.

Misha Zelinsky

Great pleasure, mate. Thank you for having us.

Mick Ryan

It's great to be here with you and Misha. Thank you.

National Security Podcast

Thank you for listening to the National Security Podcast. We welcome listener feedback and suggestions at any time, so please get in contact at natsecpod@anu.edu.au . For more important conversations about Australia’s national security, please subscribe to the podcast, our youtube channel, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to receive the latest updates