Debate briefing: is Russia a strategic enemy of the West?
Twice a month, the Great Debaters Club hosts a free public debate on a topical issue dividing public opinion as part of the club’s ‘Debating London’ series. Our next one is on a question that has surged to the front pages of almost every newspaper in recent weeks: is Russia now our enemy?
Debate motion
This House Believes Russia is a strategic enemy of the West
When and where
Wednesday 4th April
7.00 pm — 9.30 pm
The Tea House Theatre (see map)
Vauxhall Walk SE11 5HL
Admission
Free to attend and open to all, but advance booking required.
Follow link to book
Why are we talking about this today?
Cyber-attacks, meddling with the US 2016 election (and possibly the EU referendum), the annexation of Crimea and unofficial invasion of Ukraine. These are among the most serious accusations that have focussed the most attention of western governments and their people on Russia since the end of the Cold War — and then Salisbury happened.
Former double agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, were found slumped on a bench, unresponsive and on the verge of death. It would later emerge they had been the victims of a nerve gas attack, the first of its kind on British soil since the Second World War. The episode quickly escalated with the Russians being blamed for the attack (which they deny), followed by tit for tat expulsion of diplomats, NATO and EU allies rallying around Britain and condemning Russia in the strongest possible terms, and a senior Whitehall advisor to the government describing Russia as a ‘strategic enemy.’
Even Boris got in on the action, tastefully as ever, comparing the staging of this year’s World Cup in Russia to the Nazis hosting the 1936 Olympics.
What is a strategic enemy and is Russia one of them?
The closest thing you will get to a definition of a strategic enemy is anything or anyone listed as a threat in the the UK’s National Security Strategy. The last one was undertaken in 2015, which listed Islamist terrorism, Northern Irish separatist groups (still), serious and organised crime, the migration crisis, anti-microbial resistance, and instability in the Middle East as the most serious threats. Also on that list was ‘the resurgence of state-based threats’ with specific reference to Russia, but it did not go as far as labelling it an enemy. Indeed, the strategy often referred to Russia as a partner in key policy priorities, such as negotiating a deal on Iran and combating ISIS.
The question is, if that review was conducted today, would Russia still be portrayed as an uncomfortable bedfellow, or would they be listed outright as a threat to be taken as seriously as any other of the threats above?
Does it matter whether we call them an enemy or not?
This debate isn’t about how we should behave towards Russia, but what we should call them, which begs the question: does it really matter? It could be argued that in a democracy, where governments require the support of their people, that yes it does. Equally, it could be dismissed as pure posturing.
Either way, how the government sees other countries most definitely determines how they treat them — as friend or foe — and if they did feel the need to win over public opinion in preparation for a marked increase in hostilities with the our former Cold War adversaries, then their first step would most likely be to change the popular perception of them from awkward neighbour to dangerous lurker from whom we must protect ourselves.
This change in tone would certainly be noticed by the other side, which invites the question of what implications this would have for the many different ways in which we interact and engage with Russia for better or for worse.
Debate format and speakers
We believe the best way to understand an idea is to have a go at defending it as if it were your own. This is the premise on which on which the Great Debaters Club is run and it applies to understanding ideas that are complicated or unfamiliar, ideas we passionately disagree with, and ideas that we have taken for granted for so long, we have stopped questioning them.
This is why instead of inviting expert guest speakers to do the debating, we train up our own members to do it themselves, giving them a week to prepare (competitive debaters in Britain’s schools and universities are normally given about 15 minutes, before which they don’t even know what side they’re on), and laying on a mock debate for them to test their arguments and receive feedback before doing it for real in front of a live audience.
Crucially, the debaters cannot pick and choose their position and must defend whichever perspective they are assigned, challenging them to research and explore ideas they disagree with and then defend them in public. In return, we make it clear to the audience that each speaker’s stance may not be their own and part of the fun is finding out afterwards where the speakers really stand and if this experience changed their own opinions on the subject.
The panel itself consists of two teams of three speakers, one to propose the motion and the other to oppose it. The first two debaters on each side are given five minutes apiece to speak uninterrupted before taking questions from the audience, during which both sides are allowed to reply.
After a short break, one of the club’s resident debate judges — experienced debaters who have spoken in or judged competitions in the UK and abroad — offers a short analysis of the cases for and against the motion, after which the floor is given to the audience for the next 20–30 minutes to have their say.
The debate concludes with the closing speeches from each side, delivered by their third speakers, after which the audience are asked to vote. The result of this poll is then compared with the outcome of the vote taken before the debate to measure how many people have changed their mind — in 2017 an average of 20% of audience members switched allegiances in each debate.
Finally, a cross-section of audience members with different voting intentions is recruited for a 10-minute post-debate focus group in which they are asked to sum up what they understood to be the positions of each side and explain who they voted for and why. Their feedback is anonymised and then relayed back to the speakers and fellow club members in a write-up of the debate, so they can incorporate it into their preparations for the next one.
The event as a whole is overseen by the club’s Director, Tony Koutsoumbos, who runs the club’s training programme, convenes the post-debate focus groups and writes up the results, as well as moderating the debate itself.
You can find out the dates of all upcoming debates by reviewing the 2018 Debating London calendar here and to learn more about the club’s training programme and upcoming debate workshops, visit our website.
