We must not remain trapped in the old ways of thinking.

 A decade ago I was part of a UK Commission on ‘National Security in the 21st Century’, the findings of which apply today perhaps more-so than a few years ago and equally across Europe and North America.

The concluding words of the commission were both stark and clear: “There’s a need to make fundamental changes in government structures, strengthening strategic decision making at the center and breaking down departmental stovepipes” and “If we remain trapped in the old ways of thinking and the old ways of doing things, the security of our country will suffer”.

Highly prescient comments, I believe, when once again Europe is being progressively, and brutally, annexed by a despot while the free world essentially looks on as interested voyeurs, often more concerned about the deferred impact of sanctions hitting their own countries. Meanwhile, Ukraine pleads for direct military support whilst sadly knowing the prevailing and likely immoral doctrine of those fully equipped to help, prevents them from doing so, at least for now. Something I will develop in the second half of this article.

It is worth noting that Russian military doctrine links conventional, chemical/biological and nuclear weapons with an ease not shared by opposing countries. Putin has put his nuclear weapons on standby and has already started to fire missiles that travel at Mach 5 and can hit targets well over 1000 miles away.   This now puts all of Europe in danger as anything fired by the Russians that lands on any NATO territory will trigger an immediate and massive attack in response. History tells us when that happens; nations well beyond Europe will inevitably get involved, beyond just applying sanctions.  But is Putin really that dangerous?

The answer is yes. Just look at the shocking images from Syria not long ago where the UN accused his military of war crimes for the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, just as now. Even before Ukraine, Putin had made clear his capability to sever under-ocean cables that collectively carry 95% of internet data around the world  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42365191 and to recklessly shoot down satellites in space https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59299101.  It sounds like sci-fi beyond belief, but he actually has two critical ingredients that should send all threat monitors around the globe into the red zone: The wherewithal to carry out his threats and increasingly the mindset to do it.

I believe it is now time to abandon ‘the old ways of thinking and doing things’ towards much increased levels of interoperability than exist now, especially when we’ve taken our eyes off the ball and pretended warning signs were irrelevant and encouraged stretched/fragile supply chains so there’s no slack left in systems to absorb any further shocks.  This situation no doubt is appreciated by the Kremlin.

As we all wake up to the need to think about recalibrating at least our moral obligations connected to this worrying threat, we might perhaps turn to wisdom from the past to help shape our moral responsibilities for the present and future:  “It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do”. So said Edmund Burke, a highly regarded Irish/British parliamentarian, political theorist and philosopher in the 18th century. It is a statement that’s glaringly true today, as countries, who could step in, but instead essentially turn their backs on a higher moral obligation of what they ought to do (i.e. physically be with Ukraine against a violent and expansionist aggressor with echoes of the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich). They prefer instead to focus on refugees and waive Ukraine flags at home while the savagery of a powerful despot is once more let loose to brutalize Europe.  Where are those great institutions set up after WWII to stop this?

The UN, surely the embodiment of humanity, reason and justice, completely fails owing to gridlock in the Security Council as, unbelievably, Russia wields veto power as one of the five permanent members. The UN is also guilty of appalling and insensitive timing: In early April, the UN published an idyllic photo of their peaceful HQ in Geneva, surrounded by blossoms and bathed in sunshine. I thought that was in rather bad taste when at the same time horrific photos from Ukraine reveal ever more terrifying atrocities, carried out on the same continent, by a ruthless enemy – who just happens to have a permanent seat within the heart of the UN. Given the raison d’être of the UN, a more damming and perverse situation is difficult to imagine, compounded, in my opinion, by this unfortunately timed and insensitive promotional image that vividly contrasts with the reality of war happening just a short flight to the east.

I recently noticed that one reply to my initial post (on LinkedIn) suggested that I might ‘lighten up’. This got me thinking: are people like me melodramatic? Do such profoundly conflicting images of peace in Switzerland vis a vis dead bodies strewn across towns in Ukraine really matter?

The answer is yes: I think it does matter as it highlights an appalling moral vacuum where organizations created from the ashes of WWII to stop future wars (I very much include NATO) steadfastly do nothing.

Although it was probably a throw away comment never intended to be controversial, “lighten up” is, I suggest, a remarkably inappropriate phrase to use when innocent Ukrainians, alone in their darkest hour, cry out to deaf ears to rescue them from escalating horror brought about by a modern day Hitler.

It exposes the extraordinary failure of the Security Council at the center of the UN to live up to its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security.

Therefore, now is the worst time to deliberately promote how attractive and peaceful the UN HQ looks in the sunshine, when dark clouds engulf a member nation in such dire peril.  Blossoms on the outside, but incompetence on the inside. Unbelievably, Russia, at the time of writing, still sits on the UN Human Rights Council.  Rather damming as another example of UN incompetence.  But what about NATO?

NATO, a defensive alliance, also side steps any moral compulsion that is higher than the strict terms of their existence. With clear atrocities now taking place in their front garden, is NATO hiding too much behind its prevailing doctrine, fearing the consequences of poking the bear? Thankfully, some NATO countries, as well as Australia, are supplying weapons to Ukraine, but surely that’s not enough. And what about the (UN) International Court of Justice? The ICJ has ‘ordered’ Putin to halt his invasion (albeit not all judges agreed). However, this utterance has done nothing to stop him, or even slow him down. Russia sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case, because Russia had formally justified the attack in a letter to the UN secretary general on the grounds of self-defense.

So that’s it. Despite the grandstanding of peace-promoting global organizations, we have somehow abandoned our collective moral conscience on humanity, reason, and justice and ended up instead as helpless observers to horror on our doorstep.

National Leaders Need to Act More Decisively

 I therefore suggest now is the time for the national leaders of all UN and NATO member states to:

• Realistically consider what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said to the UN on 5 April when he abruptly challenged those assembled to “act immediately” or “dissolve yourself altogether”.  That is not to discard the entire UN, but completely change, streamline and make more effective the structure within, to deliver the opening sentence of the 1945 UN Charter:  “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.  The UN has manifestly failed to do this. Despite best intentions the Security Council in particular, has become helpless, feeble and supine.
• Realize a renewed ethical requirement for NATO to act in the face of war crimes taking place now just across its self-imposed frontier. There exists a moral compulsion to do so that I suggest is higher than the strict basis of its existence. In other words, to stop sitting on its hands while it watches a sickening re-enactment of WWII on its doorstep. Like it or not, troops on the ground are needed, supported by all necessary protection to deliver their humanitarian purpose of stopping the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. Having done so, the next step could be to install UN peacekeepers while hopefully Russia and Ukraine talk.
• To follow the lead of Czechoslovakia (a NATO country), if the UN and/or NATO organizations do not act as above, to supply heavy duty lethal weapons to the Ukraine Army in the form of tanks and similar vehicles. This begs the question: Why not fighter jets that Poland is/was willing to supply to its neighbor, albeit suggesting via the US for some reason.  The UK, US and  some European countries, and even as far away as Australia, have supplied anti-tank and similar devices, but more substantial weaponry is now required by the Ukrainian army.

Today, more than ever, we need nimble and agile strategies with inherent capacities to reshape and improve. This very much means learning from the past so that we become far better at preparing, collaborating and adapting. These are topics that we haven’t been very good at previously, when you consider warnings about global pandemics, vigorously pursuing ‘Just in Time’ supply procedures that have resulted in no effective contingencies, and above all, the rise of a nuclear armed despot imitating Adolf Hitler.

Resilience Professionals Need to Take Action Too!

However, such international considerations do not let resilience professionals off the hook when it comes to taking reasonable steps ourselves against unreasonable threats. For example, develop a far greater commitment to Organizational Resilience that embodies at least Risk, Business Continuity and Crisis Management within a single paradigm aimed solely at a united, agile and coordinated response to all threats and risks.

This means going a step beyond just integrating business continuity, crisis management, disaster recovery, emergency management, governance risk and compliance to create a single doctrine, sense of purpose and objective shared equally by all.

This means replacing traditional silos with effective synergy where the benefits of such an approach include the following:

• An awareness that crisis decision-making in an uncertain world is typically characterized by dilemmas, for which apparent solutions are not right or wrong, but better or worse and that most choices come with a penalty of some sort so there is seldom an ideal solution. This means that decision makers might have to choose the “least bad” solution and resolve (or at least recognize and accept) fundamental strategic dilemmas that usually mean that every choice comes with a penalty of some kind and there is no ideal solution, as the risk landscape in front of us mutates as never before.
• Increased ability across all organizational facets to anticipate, prepare for, respond, and adapt to unexpected events in order to learn, survive and prosper.
• Improved Horizon Scanning across entire organizations to identify all possible threats/risks – and opportunities. This leads to better assessment of outcomes, shared solutions and working together to take steps to prepare, test and adapt.
• Enhanced Situational Awareness that spans entire organizations and supply chains, not just separate functions and departments. It’s about managing uncertainty under an attainable umbrella to support, share, communicate and learn.
• Increased agility to learn from all incidents, exercises and near misses and so create stronger, agile and more adaptable organizations to help ensure the safety and wellbeing of people, the robustness of key processes and continued availability of vital services and products.

Surely, if ever there was a time to change the old ways of thinking and the old ways of doing things, it is now. When we look not only at Ukraine, but also the worrying activities of North Korea and China, never before has another and perhaps more well-known Burke quotation been so true: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.