Breaking news from England is always interesting. Here is an excerpt of a speech given by the UK's National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill.
Question to Sir Sedwill's: "Do you know who poisoned the Skripals?"
Sir Sedwill's answer: "Not yet".
This Q&A session took place right after Sir Mark's speech in the Defense Committee of the UK Parliament. The speech addressed the application of the UK's new security doctrine, which was given a fashionable name — the Fusion Doctrine. The term "fusion" implies a mixture; it's just like a fusion restaurant that has a mixed cuisine. In the case of the Fusion Doctrine — it is a complex doctrine covering the use of many various means, which, in the case of the UK, means no restrictions, including ethical and legal ones. By any means necessary. This is reflected in British documents.
For example, the UK's National Security Capabilities Review, which has been recently published, says: "For modern deterrence, we use the full range of capabilities available to us." It goes on in the next section: "Many capabilities that can contribute to national security lie outside national security departments". That is, the competent departments are incompetent and don't even decide what to do regarding security. So, the competent departments, for instance, law enforcement or intelligence agencies, are only there when it's practical — just to divert attention.
The Fusion Doctrine implies that first, a political decision is made regarding an act of deterrence, then, accusations against Russia are made, and then it is reinforced, not by an investigation, but by nothing but a reference to classified intelligence data. All of this is followed by organizing broad international support and punishing Russia. There is a deterrence. That's how the Fusion Doctrine works. That's exactly what the ingenuous Sir Mark Sedwill reported in the parliament about the Fusion Doctrine in action and how its adoption makes it possible to act much faster.
Sir Mark Sedwill, the UK National Security Adviser: "So, we were much faster and acted based on intelligence data, instead of waiting for the investigation to be completed — it is still ongoing; we acted based on an intelligence assessment".
Did you notice how Sedwill delicately accentuated that the conclusions weren't based on a thorough investigation, but on the basis of an intelligence assessment? Such is the English way, more precisely, the Neo-English way. In the past, the principle of reliance on proven facts was a firm tradition of this great culture. Today, the Fusion Doctrine has replaced principles. While Sir Mark Sedwill doesn't know who poisoned Skripals, here is what he says:
"We demonstrated our initial position to Russia; there were only two explanations. Then, as you know, the Prime Minister introduced a whole series of measures, and we worked to bring our allies to our side. That is, essentially, an example of the Fusion Doctrine".
Thank you, Sir. At least we know what it's called now. Indeed, it implies the rejection of the fundamental values of England, where solid evidence has always been valued, and where sound knowledge has been the factor of decision-making. Now, everything is the other way around: First, come up with a goal, then, the justification, and finally, get allies on board with it. That's how it's done nowadays.
What about the facts? Nobody cares about them. Especially if these facts just get in the way.
