When I read these warnings, my gendered military experiences are at the forefront of my mind. I am a female, current serving RAF Reservist and former RAF Regular. I am also a PhD student, with my research centres around gender and RAF organisational culture. Whilst connecting diversity, inclusion and sub-threshold warfare may seem a stretch to some and arguably to others, a further distraction from the more immediate threat of war, I am well aware that the impact of grey-zone warfare has far reaching consequences.
Grey-zone warfare conducted in ‘peacetime’ using information, money, or even physical force is powerful. Not only does it have a physical impact on UK and NATO defence through the seemingly endless impact of drones, hired thugs, and now “seabed sabotage” damaging infrastructure, energy, computer networks or transport systems; but most significantly, the cohesive nature in which we fight together, reducing the ability to defend against threats. By “posing dilemmas and stoking divisions” the MoD is being pulled in ways which undermine the foundations of the organisations purpose.
The real target, as Edward Lucas writes, is decision making. The act of distracting and undermining decision making equates to sub-threshold warfare, reducing the ability to effectively operate. So where does gender and diversity link in?
In the real world?
In November 2024, the HMNZS Manawanui, a New Zealand Naval ship, crashed and subsequently sank under the command of Yvonne Gray, whose Naval career notably spanned over 30-years in both the New Zealand and Royal Navy. Despite this, her gender and sexuality were directly attributed to the incident. As a “diversity hire”, she has faced a barrage of hostile and toxic abuse in the street. Quoted directly in The Times, John Mclean, author of A Mission of Honour: The Royal Navy in The Pacific, clearly outlines the problem. “The Navy is over-promoting women beyond their capacity in order to meet gender and sexual orientation goals”. In New Zealand, other women in uniform received similar abuse in the wake of the incident.
March this year saw one of the worst weeks for aviation history in the US, as a commercial jet and military helicopter collided in Washington DC. In immediate response, President Trump blamed D&I initiatives and so called ‘diversity hires’ as the reason for the accidents and a Transgender pilot was wrongly blamed and vilified for the crash. When only 2 days later a small medical transport plane crashed in Philadelphia, it was unsurprising that the mourning family of one of the pilots refuses to release their name, out of concerns for gendered attacks and abuse.
Pervasive and closer to home, these type of gendered attacks are gaining momentum and increasing in prevalence. When a group of Palestine Action protestors recently broke into RAF Brize Norton and vandalise a Voyager aircraft, the Station Commander of RAF Brize Norton, a female Group Captain, was outwardly mocked as a ‘woke wing commander’ and forced to deactivate her social media due to gendered trolling attacks. The attacks against her cite her gender as the reason for her position, and it is because of this that the airfield security failed.
In a paradoxical twist, the effort to resolve such issues of gendered discrimination is far reaching in its risk of being a mere rhetoric of inclusion. Within the same week of the sinking of the HMNZA Manawanui, Kevin Maher states in The Times, “I couldn’t interview a female film director – because I’m a man”. Whilst written with clear panache to maximise impact, his outrage is clear. “I’m [now] loudly agitating against the possibility that my female colleagues will ever interview a male Hollywood director again. Oh, you want to speak to Scorsese? And you’re a woman? Forget it honey”. Positive action turned positive discrimination can gain quick, uncontrollable momentum.
Stoking discontent
How better to stoke discontent than by reinforcing messages of gender divisions and politicised diversity and inclusion. No one got the job they were qualified to do. Experience doesn’t count. The only thing that matters is the gendered group to which you belong. Significantly, it is this paradoxical impact of diversity and inclusion policies that makes everyone feel they are being treated unfairly. From not being given opportunities because of your gender, or for being given opportunities based solely on your gender. Who has the worse part of the deal?
These experiences are not unique. In fact, the weaponisation of gendered narratives through the use of gendered disinformation campaigns is not a new concept at all. They are established tactics employed to target social cohesion and increase polarisation. The importance of detecting and preventing these threats through public and political unity are outlined in the NATO Women Peace and Security policy 2024 as part of NATO’s core task of deterrence and defence.
My PhD research project aims to explore these exact issues and so far, the data is concerning. To date, 100% of my research sample of serving and veteran military women have explained and outlined similar experiences. It is only too similar to my own military service experience. Female research participants up to OF5 level, responsible for upwards of 1000 personnel and thousands of pounds are constantly questioning their own abilities, not least their own decision making. If I am only here because I am a woman, how much more do I need to prove myself? How could this not change behaviours, or risk appetite, just to prove oneself? Or does it question more than that – by increasing the division between those in command and their subordinates. How is it that we have come to undermine our leaders so much at a time when we should be working together against common goals and threats.
“Too big, too divided, too diverse and too slow”
As Lucas writes, “NATO is too big, too divided, too diverse and too slow”, we are reminded of the challenges in the breadth of the coalition. But is diversity not the key to success? Recent research at RAND cautions to the contrary. Diversity, when harnessed effectively will provide innovation. Diversity of thought can enhance the quality of decision making and strengthen the ability of an organisation to respond to a rapidly changing operational environment. However, when failed to be effectively managed, diversity is actively disruptive and fosters competition. The dangers of diversity managed wrongly are far reaching and impactful. And at the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, as 13% of all women reporting being subject to some form of sexual harassment in a Service environment, it would suggest that the current MoD organisational culture does not foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.
The biggest concern here is that the political agenda and drive to promote diversity targets has and will continue to undermine Defence’s ability to effectively harness its diversity. It arguably doesn’t matter if individuals are genuine diversity hire’s anymore, because whether qualified or unqualified, perceptions remain. This internal distraction, self-imposed dilemma and subsequent stoked divisions are risking the organisation ability to effectively act and only strengthening adversary assumptions of weakness. Not only are Russia very good at sensing and exploiting weaknesses, but by internally creating these dilemmas we are effectively doing the enemies job for them.
As Lucas writes, we need to rethink our response to these sub-threshold attacks. That is not to create more divisions. With strong unity in its diversity, Defence can be flexible, adaptable and responsive. Failing to do so will be catastrophic.
Amy Hill
Amy Hill is a PhD student at Newcastle University. Her research focusses on the gendered organisational culture of the RAF and is influenced by her service experience. She is a current RAF Reservist and having left RAF Regular service in 2023.