“Buy more guns” seems to be a point we’re hearing from military top brass recently, but more than this, explain to our publics why we want them. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon puts it more as a politician might: “Like any insurance policy, defence only pays out when you pay in.”
On 3 September, the eve of the NATO Wales summit described as ‘the long agenda of one item’ by the Professor Michael Clarke of the Royal United Services Institute, senior military figures (as well as the Defence Secretary) spoke at RUSI in Whitehall. They included Chief of the Defence Staff UK General Sir Nicholas Houghton, and Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Sir Adrian Bradshaw.
The need for more guns was brought up – the “recapitalisation” of various areas of military capacity – at the same time as the threat on the eastern flank of Europe was brought up. Of course, this is Russia, the solitary item on that long agenda.
But accompanying this call for more weapons – granted, an unsurprising statement given they are indispensable tools of the military trade – is the stated requirement to explain the need and the strategy to doubtful publics wearied by a decade of difficult and costly engagement in asymmetric theatres.
But ‘engagement’ – in other words, the likely need to actually use the weapons – is precisely why they are needed, goes the argument. The threats cannot be more real, and reluctant publics need to understand this, it was suggested. Both CDS and DSACEUR referred to the world entering a new era of international affairs from a military perspective: “continuous engagement” according to CDS.
Fine, there is the need to convince the publics of NATO member countries of the need for public money to be spent in this way. The threat of Russia, and the presenting of it as much more of an adversary than fallen business partner, is how they do it. This is logical; from a NATO point of view, only with the agreement of its 28 members can coherent decision-making within NATO in the face of any kind of threat can take place.
So a strong and clear case must be made. But who else is listening? National and trans-national military forces arming themselves in response to what they present as a serious threat can be viewed the other way, especially when a “high-readiness formation” is earmarked to be agreed at the Wales summit. It is NATO, with no direct military role in Ukraine, who are the threat, politicians within the Kremlin will be being told, and the propaganda machines will work overtime accordingly.
If the perceived threats to NATO member countries and their near abroad are strategic, and therefore likewise the acquisition of more weapons, then so must the communications about them be. In Eastern Ukraine particularly there will certainly be some keen listeners, who are already plied with plentiful pro-Russian communications. Convincing publics means not just the domestic publics: the agency of conflict populations must be never be underestimated.
Guy Gabriel is Associate Director of Albany Associates
