Russian Bear bomber recently intercepted by the RAF off Scotland
Who is the greater business risk: Putin or Bin Laden?
Speaking at the recent London Business Continuity Expo, ContingencyToday.com editor, Jonathan Rush, asked the question, who poses the greater risk to business continuity: Vladimir Putin or Osama bin Laden?
One of the reasons I was asked to talk on this subject at London's Business Continuity Expo was to encourage all organisations to consider carefully the international threats to their ability to go about their business.
The threats come from all points on the compass: political, environmental, or economic. And, like lightening, they can come at you very quickly.
Let's consider two men who I think perfectly illustrate this 360 degree threat: Putin and Bin Laden.
The first rules, and still does I believe, in a dictatorial style, one of the world's biggest countries. A country blessed with vast energy and mineral resources, now triumphantly resurgent after the debacle of communism. He was a colonel in a ruthlessly efficient security service, the KGB. He is therefore familiar with the methods of state-sponsored terrorism.
Vladimir Putin aggressively pursues his country's interests and is resolved to recover its former position as a global superpower. He has recently stepped down from President to Prime Minister. But nearly all Moscow-watchers believe Putin will continue to rule (along with the FSB - the former KGB - hardliners) through the new President until he is eligible for re-election.
The second man needs no introduction. Now, as someone who's lived in Saudi Arabia, and had some dealings with the bin Laden family firm, I've always been intrigued why Osama bin Laden went from a luxurious lifestyle to life in a cave.
We all know he rebelled against his family's business success in Islam's Holy Land, Saudi Arabia. Somewhere along the way he must have 'got' religion in a big and twisted way. And as a 'born–again' Muslim, he was horrified by the corruption and excesses of his country's ruling family in the fleshpots of London. A family who was supported by the oil-thirsty West, particularly the US.
He blamed the West for the decline in Islam's power and influence, became a fanatic, and vowed to drive out all heretics from the Middle East.
Oh, and on the way, he fought in Afghanistan against the Russians, alongside the Mujahadeen and nascent Taliban, who were then funded, ironically, by the West. He founded al Qaeda, more a creed than a terrorist army.
And I'm sorry if this next bit sounds insensitive. He then got lucky. As a graduate engineer, he would have known that any major high rise building, like the World Trade Center, could take the impact of a jet plane. But never in his wildest dreams would he have guessed that the interior structural design would be so vulnerable to fire. Leading to the progressive collapse and the destruction of the Twin Towers - the world's biggest single terrorist atrocity.
Instead of being hunted down as a motley gang of murdering terrorists, the loosely-knit Al Qaeda network was delighted to be elevated to the same enemy status as the German Army in WWII, by the mistakenly-named War on Terror. The War on Terror helped promote al Qaeda worldwide, particularly in the eyes of a small number of disaffected, radicalised Muslim youth, who were willing to become jihadists and die for their cause.
Fortunately in this country , the UK, our security forces have done a good job in preventing terrorist atrocities. Even so, there was a bomb attack in London, following the Madrid train bombs. But, to be brutally frank, the effect on business continuity by the Madrid and London bombs was minimal. Yes, mobile phone networks went down in London. The London Underground stopped running. And shortcomings in London's command and response became apparent. But, by and large, the city's population quickly resumed its business, if only to show the terrorists they wouldn't win. And, apart from the unfortunate companies directly involved, American business had previously shrugged off the Twin Towers and continued operating.
It's always dangerous to gaze into a crystal ball, but I believe another kamikaze-style attack on an iconic building is unlikely, simply because the plane would be shot down.
New York and London have contingency plans in place and the jihadists know this.
Getting anti-terrorist experts to agree on the most likely type of future terrorist attack is as difficult as getting economists to agree on the difference between a recession and a market correction.
For what it's worth, in my view the most likely scenarios are:
- the shooting down or blowing up of a passenger jet;
- a dirty nuclear bomb;
- and a chlorine gas attack reminiscent of WWI
Chlorine is easily available. Indeed, someone I know swears the closure of public swimming pools in England is somehow linked to the chlorine threat rather than stretched government budgets. Well, that sounds a bit fanciful to me. But the point is, at the risk of tempting fate, although any of these scenarios could lead to major loss of life, the effects would most likely be local.
None are likely to lead to widespread disruption to business continuity. Just like the Buncefield oil depot explosion (a major industrial accident in the UK) had no widespread effect.
No, in my view, a far greater threat to UK business continuity lies to the north in the shape of a big Russian bear called Gazprom - the world's biggest producer of gas, controlled by the Russian state.
The peaking of North Sea gas production means that Britain is now, like continental Europe, increasingly dependent on imports of gas both by pipeline from Russia, and in liquefied form from West Africa and the Persian Gulf.
We will have an energy shortage in the next decade. According to former NATO adviser, Paul Domjan, writing also in ContingencyToday.com, Russia is pursuing an strategy of playing one EU country off against the other through supposed sweetheart deals. Russia presents these deals as special relationships that guarantee the energy security of the particular country over and above the rest of Europe. However, we can't all be Russia's sweethearts! Literally at the end of the pipeline, we in Britain are, unfortunately, a case study of a worst case scenario. Britain has a liberal market that historically provided very low prices. But lacks incentives to build and maintain a large security margin – a contingency reserve. As such, British domestic gas contingency storage is measured in weeks of demand, as opposed to months in France and Germany. In recent years supply crunches in Britain have not been met by releases of stored gas which has lead to very high price spikes in the UK market These high prices in Britain should provide a financial incentive for continental gas companies to release gas from their storage to Britain. In practice, the UK's continental 'friends' have not permitted this to happen. National energy security concerns in continental Europe outweigh market mechanisms. Can you imagine the French or German governments, in an emergency, allowing gas to flow through the pipeline to the UK, cutting their own reserves? No, nor can I. Of course some people will ask: "Why would Russia want to switch the gas off?" Well, part of my answer would be: It's already done it in its dispute with Ukraine. Remember what I said earlier. A country ruled by a ex-KGB elite is quite capable of flouting international agreements and turning the gas off in pursuit of what it regards as its national interest. Or threatening to turn the gas off. Even if it also owns companies buying its gas, like Centrica, possibly, in the UK. And there any number of potential disputes with the UK and EU: Any of these might provide reason for the Russian bear to use his claws. What would happen if the gas stopped flowing to the UK? Many people have forgotten the coal miners' strike in the in 1974. But I remember it very well and it provides a salutary warning. The UK's power stations were much more dependent on coal than today. Coal reserves quickly reduced to a few weeks supply which forced the government to introduce a three-day working week across the country, power being cut off for the other two. Since then, services have has long replaced manufacturing as the biggest sector in the UK economy. They are however just as dependent on electricity. Think: No Internet? No email? No petrol pumps? Even a loss of power one day a week would cause massive loss of business continuity. But perhaps also a major business opportunity for the organisation which can offer a comprehensive package to cover the effects of energy disruption? Not only network disaster recovery but maybe a wide range of services: insurance, back up power, transport and on. At a party last Christmas, I happened to be speaking to a Russian lawyer. I then turned to the vexed question of her country's leader, Vladimir Putin. She waxed lyrical: "He's a great man! He has transformed Russia!" But wasn't she worried, I asked, that Putin seemed to be making life dangerous for anybody who disagreed with government policy? What had happened to the freedoms introduced by Gorbachev? And why had so many wealthy businessmen fled to the West? Her mood changed abruptly. Wagging her finger vigorously in front of my face, she shouted: "They are all criminals. They stole from us. Putin gave us back the money." I looked unconvinced. "Ah we know you English. You are always trying to bring Russia down. But you won't succeed!" After years of feeling inferior to the West, Putin has put pride back into Russians by aggressively retrieving control of his country's natural resources. He has started to rebuild its armed forces which are testing the UK's air defences, as in the photograph above. The suspicion, widely-held by Russians, including my lawyer friend, that the West, particularly the USA and Britain, are trying to do Russia down, has been deliberately fuelled by the Kremlin. Seizing foreign assets, harassing the British Council, murdering a prominent journalist, and killing a former spy in London are all the hallmarks of a ruthless regime with the resources and expertise which, bin Laden, skulking in his Afghan cave, can only dream of. Don't be surprised if, one day, you look out the window and spot a bear turning off your gas supply. Unfortunately his name won't be Yogi, it'll be Vladimir! Jonathan Rush, Editor, ContingencyToday.com
We chatted politely about this and that, about the differences between an English and Russian Christmas. And why a Russian oligarch would want to own a London football club? And how hot Russian 'mafia' money was fuelling the Dubai and London property bubbles.
