Sir Ed Davey’s recent Defence proposal to start selling war bonds so that we can “move far faster” on UK defence spending, was welcome. The state of our armed forces is far poorer than these dangerous times call for. The UK’s ability to project its defensive capabilities within our own neighbourhood would be severely tested and likely found wanting if it were to be needed any time soon.
Whilst I was pleased to see that there were the beginnings of a party plan on funding the defence investment needed. I was left wondering how ready we are as a party for war, hybrid war or almost war. Sir Ed rightly called out that “we’re in almost a Cold War type scenario” with a nod to Russian use of drones, submarines and shadow fleets, calling it a “serious threat”. However, I believe this underplays our current predicament.
If we take stock of where we are today: the Russian state has poisoned British citizens in Salisbury; assassinated an opposition leader in London; directed relentless cybercrime attacks against the UK costing us billions; had its ships cutting our allies communications cables; is likely directing drones interfering with our military bases; using our children as tools of attack against us; caused the death of many UK citizens through disruption to the NHS; is directing arson attacks on London and may be encouraging another migrant crisis to disrupt social cohesion.
Is this peace? It doesn’t feel like it.
Is it too hard to believe that with a mixture of dark web, bitcoin, crime gangs and vulnerable youth we are close to the Kremlin orchestrating a campaign of disruption and destruction across Britain? Our transport links are vulnerable to something as simple as a person being seen walking on or near a train line. We’ve already seen what damage untrained amateurs can do to our defence capabilities.
We recently heard the head of the British Armed Forces Sir Richard Knighton comment on the UK’s domestic preparedness and national resilience in the event of a conflict. Sir Richard said the UK was not doing “as well as I would want us to” and that there needed to be more work on ensuring infrastructure such as railways and flood defences could be protected against sabotage.
Sir Richard was also pressed on whether the UK would have the capacity to treat increased numbers of wounded soldiers in the event of a conflict, to which he said: “We don’t have a holistic plan for how we would mobilise the NHS in times of all-out war in Europe” and that the UK is “not as ready as we need to be for the kind of full-scale conflict we might face”, the situation we face is dire indeed.
To this I hope that we can meet this challenge with our values and our patriotism, because if we don’t the worse instincts of the other parties certainly will. Authoritarianism from Labour, Subservient Trumpism from Reform and total ignorance from the Greens.
What do we do when willing or tricked 5th columnists turn 2027 into a steady stream of seemingly random crimes against UK national infrastructure? When that coincides with a Kremlin orchestrated uprising in the Baltic states, Russian and Belarusian troops move in as peacekeepers to secure the path to Kaliningrad, what then?
There are lessons we can take from the last war, but should we?
- Conscription, or some lighter touch national service?
- A Home Guard to give greater protection to our key Infrastructure, or perhaps an expanded Reserves and Territorial Army?
- Internment, with or without trial of those suspected to be actively supportive of the Kremlin?
As Liberals we may baulk at some or all of these, but we can’t limit ourselves to saying no to risk mitigations that go against our values, we must instead propose better solutions.
In this case I suggest prevention is better than cure. We need a concerted communication and outreach effort now, identifying those at risk of being used by Russia Hybrid War tactics, then engaging and disincentivising them. This will not only lessen the likelihood of the threat manifesting but also mean we learn more about the Kremlin methodologies and may identify other means of disrupting them.
A reasonable counter to the above is that our best route to safety from Russia is through Ukrainian success and that is where we should put most of our focus. Whilst true, the risk that uncontested Russian hybrid war in the UK will undermine our willingness to support Ukraine can’t be ignored and needs to be countered as well. We need to wake up, the hour is later than we think, we are already at war in one sort or another.
* William Gleeson is the pseudonym for a member of the Liberal Democrats known to the LDV team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mary Reid
Meg Thomas
Institute of Urban T
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
12 Comments
“ we can’t limit ourselves to saying no to risk mitigations that go against our values, we must instead propose better solutions”
This worries me. I doubt even Reform UK will be discussing issues around conscription, national service and Interment without trial. We certainly shouldn’t be unless in the context of us completely ruling them out.
“Internment, with or without trial of those suspected to be actively supportive of the Kremlin?”
“Conscription, or some lighter touch national service?”
Come on get real. This is overkill +++ !
Russia has a population of around 145million. It’s GDP is around $2.5 trillion. About the same as Italy’s. The EU + UK+ Norway, has a population of 530 million and a GDP of $27 trillion.
I’m sure we can cope. There’s no need to panic.
Sir Richard Knighton and others have been talking about national resilience. The Swedes have been working on a “whole of society” resilience concept.
So instead of ideas such as conscription and a Home Guard, could we focus on how civil society could be enabled to be more resilient, rather than the top-down ideas that seem to be coming from Whitehall. This is more in line with our values.
One quick way for people thinking about this to help understanding would be to look at what Eric Pickles de-funded in 2012 in the Civil Defence area. Not to simply put it back but to understand what previous cohorts thought worth having. Things like county level emergency committees and staffs, RAYNET, stocks of equipment on hand, call lists and so on.
Those in the boating community can see an example of how this can work. After a recent canal breach at Whitchurch the Canal and River Trust sprang into action. Within 24 hours there was a coffer dam, a temporary road, and large bits of kit in motion. Water levels outside the critical section were restored and those worst affected were in temporary accommodation with online fund-raising started. Preparation is everything.
“Internment, with *or without trial* of those suspected to be actively supportive of the Kremlin?”
“is a member of the Liberal Democrats in Kingston-upon-Thames”
OK – WTF did I just read! I am really glad I’m not a member of this party anymore!
Before I retire to the land of nod this evening, I’ll check for some reds under my bed.
Internment – whatever next – public flogging.
Hywel – Here is inevitably sometimes a big gap between the personal policies of a poster and the policies of the Party. Such is the case here with internment. I’m sure, in fact I know, when you were a member, you had some policy ideas that the Party wouldn’t adopt in a million years. So please don’t criticise the party on internment, when it isn’t party policy… Thankfully.
@Big Tall Tim
I agree that individual members of the party may have positions that are not party policy. I, for example, believe that all personal allowances should be fully transferrable between married couples/civil partners to ensure that couples who earn the same income as a unit pay the same amount of income tax, irrespective of the how much income each individual earns towards the total. That position may not be party policy but it is in line with liberal principles of equality.
However, internment could not be viewed as an acceptable idea to Liberal Democrats, so it is very concerning to see it raised in an article, even if it is softened by then asking for ‘better solutions”.
@Peter Chambers thank you for actually reading what I’d suggested: “a concerted communication and outreach effort”.
I like your points around the Civil Defense area and the boating community. It reminded me of a reasonably successful programme on the south coast over the last few years of raising awareness and security around outboard motors that were being stolen for people smuggling. It took several years of engagement, advice and monitoring but the issue has lessened. Perhaps a version of that more geared towards civil preparedness.
@Others Seems pretty bad faith to read my post as a full-throated call to internment without trial, when the whole point of it was to look for other, better, less authoritarian ideas.
Last year’s Strategic Defence Review recommended the recreation of a ‘Home Defence Force’ as part of the UK’s response to intensified threats to our territory. The government has so far ignored most of the SDR’s recommendations…
@Big Tall Tim
I once remember someone asking me if there were any party policies I actually did agree with so it is a point that has to be taken 🙂
But I very much doubt I held any positions that were wildly inconsistent with a liberal ideology.
The party has changed quite significantly since those days though with big influxes of members who are much more moderate centrists than liberal and I see far too much of that in party policies and statements at all levels to see it as a party I would be comfortable being a member of. And don’t really vote for that often but that is perhaps more a function of being in the desolate wastelands of west yorkshire!
@William
Thank you for reminding me of the recent Farage (&co) protest against the RNLI at Poole and the (bigger) counter-protest. I had meant to send the RNLI a one-off donation, as I did the last time Farage pulled such a stunt. As a charity – not tax funded – the RNLI saves lives at sea as part of civil society – not a government agency.
I have heard that the charity has said that Nigel Farage is turning out to be their greatest fund-raiser. Every time he opens his mouth about safety of life at sea, people send more donations to the RNLI. Civil resilience in action.
@William Wallace
The SDR has the drawback that it was independent. It can be dismissed as opinion, or overtaken by events. Giving it serious consideration would upset the hyper-optimised long-term budget process of the MOD. After the Cold War the savings of the Peace Dividend required both smaller forces and fewer Pounds per Bang. This was achieved by processes such as “cost profiling” where spending is pushed into the future and in-year spending is firmly capped. Total costs rise, perhaps to double international norms. This does not defend the nation well,, but the financial goals of the Department can be met.
It would take serious ministerial grit and either a serious financial boost or a determined push to do less in selected areas. Are our parliamentarians ready?