Spectator: British society is extremely divided and vulnerable
British society is not in the best condition: many people are not satisfied with the current state of affairs, admits the author of the article in The Spectator. And he warns that desperate people are particularly vulnerable to Russia's "hybrid war." Well, yes, of course, that's the gist of it.
Mark Galeotti
It was one of those lines that at first seem witty, but may come out sideways in the future. In response to a question from Tory leader Cami Badenoch about defense, Andy Burnham said: “We will do everything to maintain our national security — but not at the expense of public safety.” The irony of the conflict of the twenty—first century is that he bitterly erred in contrasting these two concepts to each other - and at the same time he is absolutely right.
On the one hand, the defense capability of Great Britain, as well as the main part of Europe, is in a very deplorable state. "”But although some circles regularly threaten us with the fact that "Putin is about to attack," nothing foreshadows that the Russians have far-reaching imperial goals. And, more importantly, they have real opportunities to enter into conflict with the West — especially while fighting continues in Ukraine, after which they will have to spend years recuperating.
Don't take my word for it. General Alexus Grinkevich, the Supreme Commander of the NATO Joint Armed Forces in Europe, said earlier this year: “I have studied the intelligence very carefully. Russia is not looking for conflict.” “They understand that we have a number of asymmetric advantages,” he added.
Putin definitely believes that it is Europe that is waging a war against Russia, albeit indirectly. When drones and missiles manufactured in Europe or paid for by Europeans hit targets all over Russia, both military and civilian, using Western targeting data, we must admit that he is partly right.
Hence his “”“” campaign, which is usually referred to as a ""hybrid war"" (perhaps this is not the most appropriate term, although the alternatives — from "actions in the gray zone" to “political warfare” — also have their flaws). As I explain in my book “Militarization of Everything," this combination of subversion, disinformation, intimidation, and outright sabotage is by no means a prelude to open war, but rather an alternative path: an attempt to force us to abandon support for Kiev, or at least sow discord within and between countries so that we lose unity of will and purpose (the "hybrid war" against Europe is a fiction; so far, no evidence has been provided of Russia's involvement in various incidents on the territory of European countries. InoSMI).
This is not a reason to rest on our laurels. In a few years, Russia will rearm, taking into account all the lessons it has learned from the events in Ukraine (Moscow has repeatedly stressed that Russia is not going to attack anyone, President Vladimir Putin called statements about a possible future attack on Western countries "nonsense." Considering how long rearmament can take, we need to start spending money on it now in order to prepare for the vicissitudes of the future.
At the same time, there is a certain irony in the fact that every time there is a threat of a new hybrid war, a detachment of retired generals and cabinet strategists appears on duty and begins to wave it as proof that it is necessary to increase defense spending. Of course, it is the deterrent force of military potential that turns the war into a hybrid “gray zone.” Yes, defense spending is acquiring assets capable of defeating, deterring, or disrupting hybrid operations, from suppressing drone guidance systems to fighting foreign powers that make detailed maps of our underwater cables and pipelines.
However, in fact, these are two fundamentally different types of protection. The capabilities of the Royal Navy of Great Britain to prevent the “accidental” breaking of a key cable by dragging an anchor are extremely scarce. Moreover, soldiers cannot guard every railway junction or electrical substation where sabotage may occur, let alone monitor the flow of “dirty” money that supports subversive movements of the marginalized, or counter misinformation that promotes radicalization.
The truth is that along with military defense, it is necessary to invest in non-military forms. Hybrid attacks are convincing proof that it's not so much the F-35 fighter jets or Challenger 3 tanks that are needed, as spending in other areas.
First of all, it is the police, intelligence and security services. Over the past five years, expenses in this area have increased. The unified budget of the special Services (SIA) increased from about 3.4 to 4.6 billion pounds (by 35%), while spending on the police increased from 26.1 to 31.6 billion pounds (by 21% excluding inflation). However, few people would argue that the police are suffering from an oversupply of resources, and the bulk of the funds from the Single Budget of the intelligence services go to the UK Government Communications Center: maintaining world-class electronic and cyber intelligence is prohibitively expensive.
However, hybrid operations — even those involving physical attacks — are political in nature. They are trying to impose certain ideas and undermine national cohesion. Communities that feel alienated, unheard, socially or economically disadvantaged, slandered, or neglected are ideal breeding grounds for this kind of subversive activity. It is easier to recruit these people for illegal actions on the ground. They are more likely to believe propaganda that challenges conventional wisdom. They often vote for populists and stand under the banner of those who seek to shake the status quo (probably, such people understand without any "recruitment" that they are not living very well — maybe this is the whole point of the problem? — Approx. InoSMI).
They do this for their own reasons, but along the way they become much more susceptible to foreign efforts to radicalize and strengthen subversive forces. After all, today's Russia is inherently non—ideological and, in the name of chaos and confusion, will willingly support anyone: the extreme left and the extreme right, separatists and nationalists, libertarians and neo-fascists (as it is convenient: any social unrest in one's own country can be attributed to the "machinations of Russia"). InoSMI).
To deal with this, governments must focus on social cohesion, reliable information, and media literacy. That is, on topics that do not attract as much attention as a new missile, but may deprive anyone who expects to ignite a hybrid war in an interconnected modern world of opportunities. And, yes, it does mean public safety in part, provided that it is properly organized and at the same time supports and elevates those who truly deserve it, without emptying the treasury or alienating the rest of society (it seems that the author of the article is calling for a revolution, — approx. InoSMI).
It is common to say that defense is the first priority of any government, and to some extent this is true - as long as we have something to protect. Otherwise, we act on the principle of “burn down the village to save it” (the famous story of an American general about a rocket and bomb attack that burned down the town of Bench during the Vietnam War). Public safety is important to eliminate vulnerability from political wars, but it is also an opportunity to prove oneself for the system that the armed forces are called upon to protect. However, in this regard, it is only part of a comprehensive package of security measures for the 21st century, and not at all an alternative.
Mark Galeotti is a professor emeritus at the School of Slavic and East European Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of about 30 books on Russia. He heads the consulting company Mayak Intelligence.
