Last week, General Patrick Sanders, the head of the British army issued a stark warning to the people of Britain: that it needs to prepare itself for future war. It was a significant moment, and perhaps the first time since the Second World War that such a bold message has been conveyed to the British public. Following Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive last autumn it seems that there is something of a consensus taking place between Nato states that direct confrontation with Russia is increasingly unavoidable. As Gen Sanders said:
“We will not be immune and as the prewar generation we must similarly prepare – and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking. Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.”
The mention of ‘citizen armies’ has now started a national conversation about possible future conscription.
What was even more interesting than the speech itself, however, was the media coverage (and lack of coverage) that surrounded it. The Prime Minister’s office did not authorise the General’s speech to be broadcast; instead reporters had to resort to old-fashioned note-taking. This reflects the general opposition from No.10 to the General’s approach; it was quick to issue a statement following Sanders’ remarks that Rishi Sunak did not agree with them, and that there were currently no plans to return to national service, which was last mandatory in the 1960s. No doubt No.10 understood the widespread panic that such a topic could create, and so there was an attempt made to quell people’s fears.
However the conscription story shows no sign of going away. It was headline news in the British mainstream media both before and after the General’s speech and was given, and continues to be given airtime on Sky News. And this discord between the position of the army and the Prime Minister’s office requires some attention. It demonstrates, firstly, the existence of a degree of autonomy within the British military and security establishment and secondly, its close relationship with the UK media. This of course raises questions relating to the functioning of British democracy: how can it be that decisions regarding the promotion of fundamentally societal-changing ideas like conscription are not controlled by elected officials?
Such autonomous functioning of our military and security establishment is nothing new, but it ought to raise concern. In 2018 it came to light through hacked documents that there was an entire ‘Institute for Statecraft’, partially funded by the Ministry of Defence, whose main aim was to launch a multi-pronged campaign against Russia, with the media at its forefront. It connected with a variety of journalists, experts and politicians in order to pursue this anti-Russian agenda, with all options on the table including direct military action against Crimea. Even more extraordinary was that it was engaged in effectively rogue operations to undermine the elected British opposition party, the Labour party then headed by Jeremy Corbyn. Its clear aim was prevent Corbyn from becoming Prime Minister. Why? Because Jeremy was anti-war – his leadership would have made any imperialist, pro-war agenda more difficult to implement. With Jeremy out of the way, and Keir Starmer now at the helm of the Labour party, there are no worries of that nature. As many have pointed out, Keir Starmer is the establishment’s choice for leading Britain in (potentially) war-time.
So can the British military be serious about a potential war with Russia? Sadly it seems that the hawks within the military are gravitating towards this, and they are not alone. Comments made across European states recently all paint a similar picture: that war with Russia is on the cards and that our societies need to prepare.
Robert Bauer, the Chief of the Nato military committee said subsequently to the Nato Chiefs of Defence meeting on 18th January:
“We need public and private actors to change their mindset from an era in which everything was plannable, foreseeable, controllable, focused on efficiency … to an era in which anything can happen at any time. An era in which we need to expect the unexpected.”.
He added that war could break out with Russia in the next twenty years and that Swedes should prepare by ensuring they have supplies of batteries, torches and radios. Bauer’s statements reportedly caused panic in Swedish society with people rushing out to stock up the aforementioned items. But what he said is no accident. It is clearly part of a strategy to engage the public into war preparation if not physically, then psychologically.
So why the sense of urgency and talk of conscription and supplies if the war is twenty years away? Well, others have implied that war with Russia will happen much sooner than that. As outlined in the following RUSI article, Estonia, Poland and Norway have given a figure of three years, while a leaked German military planning scenario warned that war with Russia could be as early as 2025. Peace and negotiation it seems, have never seemed further from the agenda. The drum has been beating for many years now for war with Russia. So many experts, including the late Professor Stephen Cohen, predicted that if the West was to continue on the same trajectory in relation to Russia, that war was virtually unavoidable.
War, is not, however, a foregone conclusion. For populations are required to fight, and currently in Europe there is no appetite to take up arms. A recent poll found that only 10% of Brits would be willing to fight for Britain if it went to war. There are particular concerns regarding the mobilisation of ‘Gen Z’ who it is deemed would be the most difficult to persuade, given the very different world they have grown up compared to previous generations. One army veteran was quoted by The Daily Mail as saying that Brits would have to be ‘dragged kicking and screaming’ to enlist if they were called up to fight. It is therefore questionable how easy it would be to mobilise European populations to fight in an ‘all-out war’ against Russia.
Nevertheless, the idea that we are even talking about it, or ‘thinking the unthinkable’ as former Nato commander Richard Sherriff has said, indicates that it is now an option very much on the table. And with data suggesting the majority of Europeans consider Russia as their adversary, the anti-war movement has much work to do to persuade
them otherwise. The work must start now, if we are to avoid a needless and potentially catastrophic conflict on European soil.
