Permawar*
All wars end. Don't they?
All wars end.
This war, invasion, conflict, incursion, defensive manoeuvre, Special Military Operation, was supposed to last three days.
Then, of course, things would slide back to normal, just like in the early 1990s when Russian forces fought in Moldova, or in the later 1990s when Russian forces fought in Chechnya, or in 2008 when Russian forces invaded Georgia, or in 2014 when Russian forces invaded Ukraine. On each occasion, leaders in Europe enabled Russian imperialism, on each occasion forgiving Moscow and preferring myopic ‘peace’ and simply adding to the problems that would be lumbered onto their successors.
(I have written before, not once, on Tony Blair’s role in this Blair, the expedience expert and spivy short-termism specialist, king of the quick deal that only loads up generational issues that others have to fix. The problem of Russian informational and other operations in the UK and elsewhere is so complex now in no small part because of him. But let’s not privilege Blair and ignore other Prime Ministers: I mean, it’s much better to sell crisps to Russia than actually do something to protect the British from Russian nuclear and chemical attacks on our streets.)
But we are here now, a war in Europe that has been raging in different forms for at least 25 years—or since I started my career.
The bizarre thing, people do not seem to recognise our current situation as being at war.
A few people do. Some voices, though those on the outside who rarely seem to cut through to influence public opinion, do warn that the war is coming. But I despair that, despite the tireless work and research and writings of some excellent thinkers on Russia and its intentions, it is not getting through to the right decision-makers.
Even fewer—to my mind the real experts—say out loud what I think, and what I have been saying for a while: that the war is already here. We are already in the Third World War.
You might not like this, but you don’t really have the choice. Forget Ukraine: this is about you.
From open source to a new, better analysis
How do we know?
Part of me has long thought that open source intelligence, OSINT, whatever you want to call it, died on 23 February 2022. I need to write more about this, and shall do: for now, let me direct you to this seminal book by the excellent Jakob Hauter, to which I shall return in time.
‘Open source’ (Hauter suggests the term ‘digital open source information’, or DOSI, which I like, with some reluctance about injecting yet another term into the discourse), has been crucially distracting, because it has invited a host of self-declared specialists into a field which only works when properly contextualized. It has encouraged a dry, rational interpretation of the world which does not account for human emotions, hatred, prejudices and particular, inexplicable loathing of Ukraine and Europe that have driven the invasion. And those people who insisted that Putin would never invade (although he had already, eight years previously) and mocked the ‘war-mongers’ for their warnings have never apologised.
For now, I think it is crucial to reinterpret war and the threat, but also to reexamine the available signifiers that should underline Moscow’s intentions. Crucially, it is imperative to recontextualise public markers about Russian escalation and militarisation within a more careful understanding of what Russia is like and what it wants. How about listening to the experts more?
We need a proper and careful reconsideration of what the Kremlin plans, and to be proactive at dismantling their capabilities. How about these for markers:
Putin in April told the Military-Industrial Commission that he wants an urgent expansion of Russia’s military-industrial complex, to prepare for future armed conflicts that, in his own words, are approaching ‘rapidly’. He tasked the Commission with developing advanced capabilities to remain ahead of adversaries.
Russia continues to mobilise resources and rebuild a mass army to sustain its war in Ukraine and prepare for a potential conflict with NATO.
Russia has sufficient resources to not only recover but also expand and modernise its armed forces. It continues to conscript men en masse.
Moscow has escalated its attacks on Ukraine despite falsely claiming that it seeks peace.
Moscow is expanding specific military capabilities, especially in artillery and drones.
Russia has embarked on a strategic campaign of sabotage against the UK and Europe which is highly likely a precursor to military activity.
Putin has framed the war as a spiritual endeavour which is slowly involving all its citizens in an existential battle with the ‘Anti-Russian’.
Moscow is expanding and improving its informational capabilities, both directed at the Russian population and at the rest of the world.
I think one of most telling signs that the Kremlin is turning the population round—from a position that this would be a three-day Special Military Operation to a Permawar—is the recent reporting that Russia's Defence Ministry concocted a the story that Ukrainian drones had attacked Russian President Vladimir Putin’s helicopter in Kursk Oblast. Moscow reported invented the story to make it look that Putin ‘shares the danger’ of the war and is closely involved in the fighting, garnering support for Putin and encouraging the Russian people to reconcile themselves to the war.
It would be foolish, from the above, and from much more, to assume that the Kremlin wants peace.
So: the Permawar
Firstly, I thought of the term Permawar a couple of weeks ago when I was trying to think around how Moscow is approaching the world—in particular Europe, Russia’s perennial and core question, however Russia frames ‘Europe’.
Like most thoughts, it had already been thought. I found one example of the term Permawar in this article by Mohsin Hamid. (There is also a catchy industrial-rock song of the same name by MINISTRY.)
We shall see tomorrow what the Strategic Review brings. It is fantastic that Defence Secretary John Healey wants to expand our military capability to to deter growing Russian aggression.
Image: Screenshot from BBC News
But we need to understand that this is not about reacting to previous activity and trying to stop the same. It is about understanding that this war is existential to us, a priority for spending and focus. National security is at the core of our adversaries’ thinking, and they are integrating their range of capabilities to destroy our way of life. I hope that tomorrow paves the way for a deeper and more holistic understanding and approach to the danger.
A Permawar suits Putin: it is the very thing that bow holds up his regime. It would be naïve to assume that the Kremlin wants the war on us, the war on Ukraine, the war to destroy Europe, will just end. Sadly, we must ready ourselves.