Participants:
Dr Artis Pabriks, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Latvia
James Heappey, Minister for the Armed Forces, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, United Kingdom
Ian Brzezinski, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council
Moderator: Elisabeth Braw, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Member of the U.K. National Preparedness Commission, columnist at the Foreign Policy
The discussion began with a layout of the growing complexity in the nature of conflict. Adversaries are using coordinated incremental economic, military, and informational campaigns, skewing the debate about the actions they take. Certain nations try to call these activities out. However, every NATO member needs to work together with other countries to respond jointly to the shifting threat landscape. A whole-of-government response is increasingly necessary – this is found in Canada’s defense priority but must also be reflected in NATO.
A discussant agreed that the new forms of aggression are critical in understanding the global order. Mobilizing migrants, for example, is a threat that has not previously been considered. A panelist responded by noting that the current order is thus set in a context of confusion, with gray-zone attacks under the radar. Those attacking know what they are doing, but those under attack cannot easily respond, identify, or confirm the attack. NATO is behind in this regard, by our value systems and turbulent request for different liberal manifestations. The issue is convincing allies that the gray-area aggression are actually attacks.
When asked about how the UK is dealing with gray-zone aggression, the response was that the UK has had an epiphany. Salisbury was a moment that made everyone realize a country can be challenged very deeply within their own territory that is not enough to start a war over but needs to be reacted by with many different levers of government. The discussant agrees that we have returned into a competition of ideas – the new global order will be about which vision of government is most successful. As politicians, willingness to talk about our values and freedom is thus increasingly important to highlight the need for values to domestic audiences and international audiences alike, as both are under disinformation campaigns. The discussant noted that a positive here is that adversaries have moved into the gray zone exactly because NATO’s military and traditional response is so effective.
The next discussant raised the point that hybrid warfare is the new reality – energy warfare, cyber-attacks, the exploitation of migrants, election interference, economic interference – all of those are commonplace. The hybrid warfare is reminiscent of the 1980s, when the west was using similar hybrid tools while leveraging our values. The advantage of the west in hybrid warfare is that it has the truth behind them. After the cold war the west neutered itself, the US for example shut down many of its programs in this regard. Ultimately, the question is whether the west can afford to only be on the defensive in hybrid warfare. There are more risks to the transatlantic if there are no buffer zones.