The European Union (EU) has 27 member countries. It is regarded as one of the best regions of the world in terms of wellbeing, development and security. Yet, on 26 March, EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management, Hadja Lahbib, made a statement which raised eyebrows. 

As reported by the www.euronews.com on 26 March, she officially informed the EU member states to: “Develop a 72-hour survival kit for citizens to face any new crisis that might emerge as part of its Preparedness Union Strategy which also calls for more stockpiling of essential supplies and to improve civilian-military cooperation”.  The EU says this emergency kit “should include food, water, medicines, a portable radio, a flashlight, spare batteries, chargers, cash, copies of important documents, spare keys, warm clothes and basic tools such as utility knives”. Imagine what this survival kit would amount to, considering the total EU population of 450 million. These EU plans are drawn in the wake of the US’s new policies signaling Europe to be more responsible for its security. New EU Preparedness Strategy has a special emphasis on civilian-military cooperation as it is facing one of the most challenging security crises in the history, worsened by the military buildup in the EU’s eastern border areas. However that is a different topic altogether and it is not my focus today. 

Nevertheless, within this backdrop what caught my attention was a catchphrase used by the EU Commissioner. She said: “Battlefields are in our pockets” and continued to say, “phones, computers, banks, supply chains, raw material, media and especially social media are all battlefields”. The EU official also stated: “All these are weaponised to threaten the European way of life and democracy”. This phenomenon, to which she refers, the current character of warfare, is indeed a universal threat. 

Europe’s Readiness 

Let’s examine what the EU survival kit implies.  It hints at; disruption of data transmission, power supply, banking together with shortages of life-dependent essentials such as water, food and medicine. Sounds like war? But Europe’s war is in the Far East in Ukraine. Although a Russian invasion in Europe is unlikely, no State on earth would rule out the possibility of a war occurring, which will always remain a strategic consideration. That’s the very reason why the European nations have decided to increase the defence budget, reconsider NATO military deployments and to revamp EU’s military strategies through the ‘White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030’, presented on 19 March. However, the “battlefields in the pockets,” inferred by the EU Commissioner are not about such an outright war per se, rather a more complex, impactful phenomenon.   

Wars, conflicts and competition

In order to understand the complexity of the modern security dynamics, let us draw some parallels with what we know as wars, conflicts and competition. Theoretically, these are different variants of rivalry. The Oxford Dictionary defines war as “armed conflict between two or more parties, usually fought for political ends”. Traditionally, wars are considered to be fought between two States, while conflicts could occur among diverse actors including non-state groups. 

While there are many grey areas in defining these concepts, let us agree, prima facie, wars are interstate and conflicts are intrastate (insurgencies, terrorism etc). Nevertheless, it is accepted that all conflicts are not wars but all wars are conflicts. When ‘competition’ is analysed objectively, it becomes clear that wars and conflicts fall within the larger realm of competition.   

Continuum of competition 

What Europe is preparing for, and what we all are inevitably engulfed in, has been conceptualised as the Continuum of Competition; “a world of enduring competition conducted through a mixture of cooperation, competition, and armed conflict” by the experts.  The foundation of this idea is; competition (including wars, conflicts) is continuous. For a world that has been observing adversities through the traditional war/peace dichotomy, the notion of Competition Continuum provides a novel dimension; a new model of cooperation, competition below armed conflict, and armed conflict itself. Inevitably, these various ‘relationship statuses’ will have a multitude of overlapping grey zones. 

State and non-state actors including multinational companies are engaging in a perpetual competition to achieve their strategic interests. To ensure security (for a nation; to achieve national security), it is inalienable to conceptualise ends, strategise ways/means to realise strategic interests.  For this, an international player would go to extreme ends, even waging war. They compete with their instruments of power (various means of power projection) to achieve strategic interests. These instruments are conceptualised as DIME (Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic). An extended version includes Financial, Intelligence and Law-enforcement tools to coin the term DIME-FIL.  Accordingly, let us understand that ‘competing’ in geopolitics (including but not limited to, physical warfighting) is done through leveraging instruments of power against one’s competitors. Thereby, what the EU Commissioner stated: “phones, computers, banks, supply chains, raw material, media and especially social media are all battlefields and are weaponised” is not an exaggeration.  All these dynamics can be observed if one closely examines various conflict hotspots including financial, production, communication, industrial and diplomatic flashpoints across the globe.

Full spectrum of conflict

When I saw the EU preparations, the concept of the Full Spectrum of Conflict as discoursed by Robert S. Burrell (2023), came into my mind.  It is basically related to military, but if we link the idea to international power dynamics, it makes sense.  Burrell visualises the interplay of ends, ways and means of wars, conflicts and competition to outline a model with two axes. The war and peace axis denotes two extreme ends of the spectrum of conflict and the direct (overt) and indirect (covert) axis represents ways and means of power projection, thus creating four quadrants; namely traditional warfare, deterrence, irregular warfare and competition. These quadrants provide a clearer insight into the Competition Continuum. 

In traditional warfare, international players choose war as the ‘way’ to achieve strategic ‘ends’ and use ‘means’ (instruments of power) in a direct manner. When contenders use direct ‘means’ in a peaceful ‘way’, deterrence prevails. Competitors use violence (war) as the ‘way’ by using indirect ‘means’ in irregular warfare. These indirect, at times violent means, amount to insurgency, terrorism, extremism, information operations (information distortion/manipulation, misinformation, cyber-attacks), as well as clandestine and proxy operations etc. 

Our focus today, competition occurs when indirect ‘means’ are used in a peaceful ‘way’. There is an ‘n’ number of means such as financial, informational, economic, diplomatic etc. Let’s not forget, these quasi-battlefields formed – through leveraging information, communication, connectivity, banks, supply chains, raw material, media, social media, trade, commerce, diplomacy, investments, market shares, tariffs, and mega projects etc. – are all within the competition quadrant and invariably compel us to be constantly alert of the coercions against our national interests, thus to ensure national security.  

The profound feature of the contemporary international order as opined by scholars who endorse this model is; traditional warfare, deterrence, irregular warfare and competition do not occur in isolation, but create hybrids. In most situations, all four types could be seen synergising, in support of the strategic ends of the international players. 

Are we ready?  

Are we ready for the Competition Continuum which has made contemporary geopolitics extremely complex? The world does not experience rivalries which culminate in obvious victories or defeats anymore. An apparent defeat can evolve into a grand victory for those who are prepared. As suggested by strategies such as the ‘EU Preparedness 2030’, this preparedness comes through foresight, factual analysis, audacious decisions, ingenuity and most importantly patriotism at all levels. In this backdrop, there are two key takeaways to pay serious attention to. Firstly, no one could escape this modern face of warfare, everybody is a part of it. Secondly, it is enduring. Either you compete by cleverly fusing all instruments of power or get victimised. Let us all understand, in this battlefield, we all are fighters and ideally we all should be in it together to ensure national survival. 

(The author is an officer with the Sri Lanka Armoured Corps and is currently a Directing Staff at the Defence Services Command and Staff College)

………………………………..

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication