Great article. In my view it reinforces the argument that Britain is an Atlantic power first. We are anchored in our geography and our strategic position in the GIUK gap allows us to monitor access and if necessary prevent access in the arctic region. Totally agree with the point that defence underpins all other public spending. We need to start thinking about it in that way, as something never to compromise on.
How many bloody warnings will it take, how long to toughen up our intelkectually soft, spoiled societies before the hard men of the world plough us under!
You're right; it is war. And in a a war you either win or lose. You live and the enemy is killed or the enemy lives and you are killed. Simple and binary.
Most people today in our first-world societies can not and will not comprehend that simple basic fact of war. We've all been trained on collaboration and cooperation, that no problem is to big or complex that some sort of economic compromise can't be reached.
But when the enemy acts like an enemy with only our loss of service, of productivity, of life as it's goal and objective then it's time to defend against the enemy. Deterence is a wartime activity and so is degradation of the enemies physical and personnel resources. In a war there are warning shots. Occasionally. Most of the time you shoot to kill. Ask the Ukrainians.
When enemy ships loiter above valuable infrastructure, we have to move them, or sink them. There is no acceptable third alternative in a war.
When the enemy has hundreds of operatives sending out cyber to disrupt and disable our basic democratic processes fundamental to our way of life then that 6 story office building housing those enemy combatants must be decommissioned. Bomb the hell out of it! If you're squeamish about the body count, do it at midnight.
If we are going to be Mr Nice Guy we'll be dead and occupied before any push back is mounted. Again, ask the Ukrainians; would it have been more or less costly, to lives and material, to have been preemptive rather than reactionary.
Russia is the enemy. So is perhaps China. Now even perhaps the USA. It's time for some serious analysis and honest conclusions.
A fourth requirement for those in the West is to adopt some of the very same “below the threshold of war” tactics as Russia and China, aimed at making their willingness to actively pursue disruption be tested, in some kind of risk/reward manner. If they were to lose the ability to communicate, or have their economic well being challenged or have unexpected disruption in their own towns and cities, they might think twice about taking such actions to disrupt Western allies.
Maybe think a bit more then on the US controlling your northern flank - and that of the rest of the Scandinavian north as well - by having increased hegemony over Greenland. Perhaps y'all's Trump angst is blinding you to the obvious?
Hi Tom, The UK Government Strategic Defence Review 2025 has given added impetus to Whole of Society Approach/ Home Defence work the University of Exeter has been undertaking. We ran a workshop, with local , regional and central government stakeholders in November 2025, which then informed our article - CPUDS Making Sense of Home Defence (22nd Jan)- https://news.exeter.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/CPUDS-Making-Sense-of-Home-Defence.pdf; We want to roll out training at the right level but also want to see how the general public can be attracted/convinced to participate. Broadly, we see home defence as covering everything from community resilience to the continuous at sea deterrent. This would include defence against sub-threshold threats to the homeland, such as cyberattacks and sabotage directed towards the critical national infrastructure (CNI) and supply chains, both military and civil. It would also include the protection of military assets, along with the formation of civilian forces. The contact points are Professor Harry Pitts (f.h.pitts@exeter.ac.uk;) and myself Prof Frances Tammer (f.tammer@exeter.ac.uk) - ex-MoD and Cabinet Office.
I'd be interested to know if the British government takes direct steps to attack Russian IT systems, or encourages more deniable groups to do so. I'd hope that they would, as a potential means for encouraging the Russians to lay off.
That first paragraph is totally incorrect. Investigators have not concluded that any of the incidents in the Baltic are deliberate sabotage. The so called shadow fleet, is an issue, but they are a collection of poorly maintained, poorly crewed vessels, owned by speculators trying to profit from the current geo-political situation.
Also telecoms subsea cable operators have not sacrificed speed over resilience. In any of the Baltic incidents did the customer notice any service disruption?
I accept the thrust of the piece, but it doesn't help when intentional untruths are employed.
This also underlines the dangers we face from our near neighbour, Ireland, continuing its strategy of ‘neutrality’ and spending next to sod all on it’s defence, instead expecting the rest of the British Isles to shell out on it. We need to cut the nonsense and put military resources around all of the British Isles and tell Ireland to stump up for its share.
Great article. In my view it reinforces the argument that Britain is an Atlantic power first. We are anchored in our geography and our strategic position in the GIUK gap allows us to monitor access and if necessary prevent access in the arctic region. Totally agree with the point that defence underpins all other public spending. We need to start thinking about it in that way, as something never to compromise on.
EXCELLENT cautionary analysis.
How many bloody warnings will it take, how long to toughen up our intelkectually soft, spoiled societies before the hard men of the world plough us under!
When Reform UK form the Government, who would you like to see as Defence minister?
You're right; it is war. And in a a war you either win or lose. You live and the enemy is killed or the enemy lives and you are killed. Simple and binary.
Most people today in our first-world societies can not and will not comprehend that simple basic fact of war. We've all been trained on collaboration and cooperation, that no problem is to big or complex that some sort of economic compromise can't be reached.
But when the enemy acts like an enemy with only our loss of service, of productivity, of life as it's goal and objective then it's time to defend against the enemy. Deterence is a wartime activity and so is degradation of the enemies physical and personnel resources. In a war there are warning shots. Occasionally. Most of the time you shoot to kill. Ask the Ukrainians.
When enemy ships loiter above valuable infrastructure, we have to move them, or sink them. There is no acceptable third alternative in a war.
When the enemy has hundreds of operatives sending out cyber to disrupt and disable our basic democratic processes fundamental to our way of life then that 6 story office building housing those enemy combatants must be decommissioned. Bomb the hell out of it! If you're squeamish about the body count, do it at midnight.
If we are going to be Mr Nice Guy we'll be dead and occupied before any push back is mounted. Again, ask the Ukrainians; would it have been more or less costly, to lives and material, to have been preemptive rather than reactionary.
Russia is the enemy. So is perhaps China. Now even perhaps the USA. It's time for some serious analysis and honest conclusions.
A fourth requirement for those in the West is to adopt some of the very same “below the threshold of war” tactics as Russia and China, aimed at making their willingness to actively pursue disruption be tested, in some kind of risk/reward manner. If they were to lose the ability to communicate, or have their economic well being challenged or have unexpected disruption in their own towns and cities, they might think twice about taking such actions to disrupt Western allies.
How do you know we’re not doing this already?
Spot on.
Maybe think a bit more then on the US controlling your northern flank - and that of the rest of the Scandinavian north as well - by having increased hegemony over Greenland. Perhaps y'all's Trump angst is blinding you to the obvious?
Hi Tom, The UK Government Strategic Defence Review 2025 has given added impetus to Whole of Society Approach/ Home Defence work the University of Exeter has been undertaking. We ran a workshop, with local , regional and central government stakeholders in November 2025, which then informed our article - CPUDS Making Sense of Home Defence (22nd Jan)- https://news.exeter.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/CPUDS-Making-Sense-of-Home-Defence.pdf; We want to roll out training at the right level but also want to see how the general public can be attracted/convinced to participate. Broadly, we see home defence as covering everything from community resilience to the continuous at sea deterrent. This would include defence against sub-threshold threats to the homeland, such as cyberattacks and sabotage directed towards the critical national infrastructure (CNI) and supply chains, both military and civil. It would also include the protection of military assets, along with the formation of civilian forces. The contact points are Professor Harry Pitts (f.h.pitts@exeter.ac.uk;) and myself Prof Frances Tammer (f.tammer@exeter.ac.uk) - ex-MoD and Cabinet Office.
I'd be interested to know if the British government takes direct steps to attack Russian IT systems, or encourages more deniable groups to do so. I'd hope that they would, as a potential means for encouraging the Russians to lay off.
That first paragraph is totally incorrect. Investigators have not concluded that any of the incidents in the Baltic are deliberate sabotage. The so called shadow fleet, is an issue, but they are a collection of poorly maintained, poorly crewed vessels, owned by speculators trying to profit from the current geo-political situation.
Also telecoms subsea cable operators have not sacrificed speed over resilience. In any of the Baltic incidents did the customer notice any service disruption?
I accept the thrust of the piece, but it doesn't help when intentional untruths are employed.
Yep came to say similar. After 30 years working in fibre and data centres, Tom is way off. Makes it difficult to read the rest of the piece.
Oh my goodness crazy we need war ships now
The chilling reality precisely laid bare.
This also underlines the dangers we face from our near neighbour, Ireland, continuing its strategy of ‘neutrality’ and spending next to sod all on it’s defence, instead expecting the rest of the British Isles to shell out on it. We need to cut the nonsense and put military resources around all of the British Isles and tell Ireland to stump up for its share.
more bullshit baffles brains
bullshit baffles brains
👍
Mostly inder tory gvts as i recall.