������Ƶ

Some of the statements made this week by politicians in the UK — along the lines of a “new era of threats needs a new era of defense,” that we “need to prepare for war in order to preserve peace” and that events in the world make it imperative the UK military moves to a “war-fighting readiness” — were, to say the least, very alarming.

The Strategic Defence Review published on Monday undoubtedly represents a systematic and detailed analysis of what Britain needs to do to address new uncertainties and evolving threats from Russia, nuclear risks and cyberattacks. But like other reviews, it is more an exercise in focusing the minds and pockets of the nation to ensure the UK is self-sufficient and self-reliant in a changing world. But that is only possible if the nation as a whole buys into it, which, despite the proximity of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the rhetoric of the government this week, seemingly remains a long shot.

The review, commissioned by Prime Minister Keir Starmer immediately after he took office last July, has the specter of US President Donald Trump written all over it. Britain and Europe are now having to take responsibility for their own security, while being at the mercy of an emboldened Russia that has brought war back to Europe after 80 years of relative peace.

The delay of taking the UK’s defense spending beyond 3 percent of gross domestic product, which will not happen until after the next general election, put a dent in the country’s efforts to modernize its military, which has been starved of funding by years of austerity, economic mismanagement and the self-inflicted wound of Brexit.

What the review does do, however, is present a table of critical threats faced by nations in the West, and not just the UK. They range from the obvious: Russia, which is seen as an “immediate and pressing” threat, the “sophisticated and persistent challenge” of China, and Iran and North Korea as mere disruptors. The less obvious and more complex threats mentioned include the climate emergency, the US’ “change in security priorities” and the potential for adversaries to sabotage undersea cables.

Britain and Europe are now having to take responsibility for their own security, while being at the mercy of an emboldened Russia

Mohamed Chebaro

The war in Ukraine has no doubt helped focus the minds of defense experts, particularly as Ukrainian sovereignty greatly depends on the personal whims of tech tycoons such as Elon Musk for the continuous supply of satellite networks such as Starlink, not only to fly its drones but also to keep hospital operating theaters online.

If anything, the review has exposed the slowness of successive governments in the UK and elsewhere in grasping the scale of the menace posed by hybrid forms of warfare, from malicious disinformation and troll farms that seek to influence and radicalize to cyberattacks, the weaponization of migrants and street gangs of underage, radicalized actors that aim to disrupt, distort, overwhelm or sabotage.

What the UK’s strategic review does not tell us is how modern Western societal models can be mobilized. Mobilizing industry in the private sector is easy, as all companies yearn to win lucrative government procurement contracts. But the mobilization of troops needs the state to meet the aspirations of its people and to convince youngsters of the sacrifices needed.

The question is whether the government will be able to articulate the threats and convince a capitalist society of a doctrine of “one for all and all for one,” which is nonexistent today. The strategic review’s downfall could be any failure to persuade citizens that everyone must play their part to help keep the lights on and the internet working. Above all, they must believe in the national narrative as spelt out by the government in an era of fake news and competing narratives.

This review has identified the threats of today, but they could change tomorrow. The challenge is whether the government is capable of building the systems needed to neutralize the threats of both today and tomorrow.

What the UK’s strategic review does not tell us is how modern Western societal models can be mobilized

Mohamed Chebaro

The easy part might be, as per the plan accepted by the government, for Britain to expand its fleet of attack submarines, which are nuclear-powered but carry conventional munitions. The government is to spend nearly £20 billion ($27 billion) by 2029 to pay for the replacement of the UK’s nuclear warheads for its main nuclear fleet, as well as building six new munitions production factories, procuring up to 7,000 British-made long-range weapons and building a new communications system that is battlefield-capable.

This is in addition to a new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command that will lead defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. This was prompted because the British military has faced more than 90,000 so-called sub-threshold attacks over the past two years.

Of course, the difficult part is finding the money. But no less important is persuading the British youth to fight, which might be a difficult mountain to climb. Without them on board and recognizing the threat, the review will be doomed, especially as the UK’s army is currently the smallest in Europe at 70,860, the fewest troops it has had since the Napoleonic era.

Despite its military’s limited size and the budget cuts of recent years, the UK still ranks as one of Europe’s leading military powers and its troops have been actively defending NATO’s eastern flank, while its navy maintains a presence in the Indo-Pacific.

While the UK has acknowledged the mountain of security adversities piling up, its efforts to spend in order to defend itself risk pushing militarism to the brink and making any moves to return to multilateralism even more elusive in this changing world with its conflictive superpowers.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years’ experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy