Britain faces war with Putin's Russia within next five years, warns ex head of British Army
Former Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders, 59, said the UK must accept that armed conflict with Vladimir Putin by 2030 is a "realistic possibility".
2
Gen Sir Patrick, who retired from the military last year, cautioned that the Army is currently too small to survive more than the first few months of such a war.
And he added that he did not know how many more "signals" ministers needed to realise it must strengthen the nation's defences.
He said: 'If Russia stops fighting in Ukraine, you get to a position where within a matter of months they will have the capability to conduct a limited attack on a Nato member that we will be responsible for supporting, and that happens by 2030.
'I don't know what more signals we need for us to realise that if we don't act now and we don't act in the next five years to increase our resilience … I don't know what more is needed."
The former rifleman fell out of favour with the Government while leading the Army for being seen as too outspoken against troop cuts.
It was announced under the previous government that the Army would be reduced from just over 80,000 personnel as of October 2020 to 72,500 by 2025.
Gen Sir Patrick said: 'At the moment, the British Army is too small to survive more than the first few months of an intensive engagement, and we're going to need more.
'Now the first place you go to are the reserves, but the reserves are also too small.
"Thirty thousand reserves still only takes you to an army of 100,000.
"You know, I joined an Army in the Cold War that was about 140,000 regulars, and on top of that, a much larger reserve.'
Nato jets scrambled as Putin launches one of war's biggest attacks in Ukraine
Gen Sir Patrick said he was disappointed the Strategic Defence Review published last month 'didn't touch on this at all'.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves last month committed to the defence budget rising to 2.6 per cent of the UK's GDP by April 2027.
And PM Sir Keir Starmer pledged the UK would spend 5 per cent of GDP on national security within 10 years, with 3.5 per cent of that amount going to core defence matters.
But Sir Gen Patrick said that during his time at the head of the Army there had been unsuccessful 'conversations' with the government about building bomb shelters for civilians and underground command centres for the military to prepare for an attack.
He said: 'It always came down to a conversation of it being too costly and not a high enough priority and the threat didn't feel sufficiently imminent or serious to make it worth it.
'Finland has bomb shelters for 4.5 million people. It can survive as a government and as a society under direct missile and air attacks from Russia. We don't have that."
Despite the biggest threat coming from Russia, Gen Sir Patrick also warned that Iran could act through proxies 'to attack British interests in the UK'.
2
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
30 minutes ago
- The National
Labour minister refuses to rule out tax rises
Rumours of an incoming wealth tax were spurred after Prime Minister Keir Starmer ignored a question from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch when he was asked about implementing one. On Sunday, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander refused to be drawn on the issue. She also said that Cabinet ministers did not 'directly' talk about the idea of a wealth tax during an away day at the Prime Minister's Chequers country estate this week. READ MORE: Ultra-Unionist fringe group fails to reach crowdfunder target According to the Financial Times (FT), analysts have suggested Chancellor Rachel Reeves will have to plug a £20 billion black hole in the public finances. This was made deeper by the £6.2bn cost after the UK Government was forced to U-turn on its planned changes to disability benefits after a backbench revolt. After committing not to increase income tax, VAT and employee payroll tax, in its manifesto, Reeves will have to find other ways to balance the books. The Chancellor has refused to rule out tax rises at the budget since ministers were forced into the U-turn. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has previously said that introducing a wealth tax would be the 'wrong solution'. But, former Labour leader Neil Kinnock has called for a two per cent annual levy on assets over £10m, claiming this could raise about £10bn a year. Unite has called for a one per cent wealth tax on the super rich, while Scottish Greens leadership contender Ross Greer called for one to be introduced in Scotland as he launched his campaign last week. (Image: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA Wire) Fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) this week warned that the UK's state finances are on an 'unsustainable' path due to a raft of public spending promises the Government 'cannot afford' in the longer term. Meanwhile, economists have warned Reeves on several occasions that her fiscal headroom – the leeway within the Government's self-imposed spending rules – could be eroded by unexpected economic turns. Asked by Sky News if such a tax had been discussed at the Cabinet away day on Friday, Alexander said: 'Not directly at the away day.' Pressed on what she meant by not directly, the minister replied: 'I think your viewers would be surprised if we didn't recognise that, at the budget, the Chancellor will need to look at the OBR forecast that is given to her, and will make decisions in line with the fiscal rules that she has set out. 'We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that.' READ MORE: Inside the Scottish Greens leadership contest Asked again if this meant there will be tax rises in the budget, Alexander replied: 'So, the Chancellor will set her budget. I'm not going to sit in a TV studio today and speculate on what the contents of that budget might be. 'When it comes to taxation, fairness is going to be our guiding principle.' In response, shadow home secretary Chris Philp told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: 'That sounds to me like a barely disguised reference to tax rises coming in the autumn.' Philp said tax rises were now being discussed due to the economy shrinking in consecutive months, unemployment being 12 per cent higher than when Labour came to office and that the Government had 'completely failed' to reform welfare. He added: 'They can't get anything past their own back benches. The consequence of all of that is going to be tax rises for people who are working hard and on businesses. 'It's nothing to do with fairness, it's a symptom of Labour failure.'
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why any ceasefire in Gaza will not hold
Could there be a temporary Gaza ceasefire and partial hostage deal in the next days or weeks? Yes. Would it lead to the end of the war and a ' postwar Gaza ' structure? No. Why? For a multitude of of reasons, but the one overarching and overriding reason is that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want to end the war. He is infatuated with his 'wartime leader' status, convinced that he is drastically remodelling the Middle East geopolitical landscape in Gaza, Iran and elsewhere. And for his political interests and expediency, he needs to perpetuate a war and emergency atmosphere. The New York Times Magazine just published a comprehensive and detailed account of how Netanyahu has been prolonging the war since early 2024. By all indications, this policy trajectory continues and applies to both Gaza and to a future, second strike against Iran, as Netanyahu himself attested during his visit to Washington during the past week. How does this affect the chances of a ceasefire? The endless talk and abundant speculation of an imminent Gaza ceasefire has become tragically tedious and predictable, with each day bringing a combination of reasons why a deal is just around the corner and the caveat that it won't last. There's an explanation for that: the deal that is being negotiated at varying pace – which includes a 60-day ceasefire, a partial exchange of 10 live Israeli hostages and 18 deceased hostages, in exchange for an undisclosed (but large) number of Palestinian prisoners, some convicted of terrorism and murder – is partial. It is supposed to lead to a bigger agreement, and thus its principles, tenets and stages are derived from that 'postwar Gaza' framework. On that framework the sides are not even close. In fact, it is safe to assume that even if a ceasefire deal is struck in the next days or weeks, its durability is highly questionable. It is almost inevitably doomed to be violated just like the almost identical truce agreement that was in place in January, lasted for 58 days and was then breached by Israel in mid-March. The reasons for this realistic but patently pessimistic outlook are both substantive and political and are manifest in glaring inner contradictions between the two phases. There is a series of unanswered questions underlining the current negotiations, with a short answer to each: will Hamas stay in power? De facto yes, according to the current deal. No, according to the postwar plans that Israel, the US and some Arab countries are considering. Will Israel redeploy and gradually withdraw from the Gaza Strip? Yes, according to the agreement. No, according to Israel, which insists on large and wide buffer zones and total control over Rafah, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. Are these reconcilable? Of course not. Then comes the question of what guarantees exactly did the US provide Hamas that Israel will not resume the war after 60 days? Unclear. How are those assurances consistent with a postwar plan that disposes of Hamas? They are not. Who is in charge of humanitarian aid and the supply of food and medicine to Gaza? Not clear. What is included in the so-called 'postwar Gaza' political plan and power structure? The US is favorably considering a primarily Emirati plan, which others, but not Israel, have contributed to. The plan has five main principles, all based on the successful implementation of the 60-day cessation of hostilities: A gradual transition to governance by 'non-Hamas Palestinians״ backed by five Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. A security force will be drawn from some of those countries, backed by US private contractors and possibly a US Command and Control center, situated outside Gaza. The plan will be launched after the Palestinian Authority invited those countries to execute the plan. That way, the Palestinian Authority is involved, but Israel could credibly claim that it is not a part of the governing structure. The Arab partners will vet, recruit and train a new security force and raise the necessary funds (estimated in excess of $60bn) for Gaza rebuilding. This plan will impel the Palestinian Authority to reform and become a reliable interlocutor. Does Israel agree to such a plan? No. Does it have an alternative plan? Not really. And that brings us to the second paradox that dooms a long-term agreement: the so-called ' humanitarian city '. The term is morally depraved Orwellian 'Newspeak' likely borrowed from some third-rate dystopian sci-fi movie and the would-be place has been described as a location for ethnic cleansing and forcible displacement. Clearly, in order to advance this patently unviable objective (which the Israeli military opposes vehemently) Israel needs to maintain vast military presence in Gaza. So yes, a temporary ceasefire agreement is possible and should be welcomed given the alternative. But no, this does not portend any permanent agreement as long as Mr Netanyahu believes the war must continue.
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
BBC lost public trust over Glastonbury fiasco, Ofcom boss says
The BBC lost public trust over the Glastonbury fiasco when it broadcast anti-Israeli chants, the head of Ofcom has said. Dame Melanie Dawes, the regulator's chief executive, called on BBC bosses to act more quickly to recognise issues with their coverage and said she was 'frustrated' with the organisation. The BBC was widely condemned last month when it broadcast Bob Vylan, a band, chanting: 'Death, death to the IDF.' The footage remained available on BBC iPlayer for several hours after it happened, prompting calls for the resignation of senior executives including Tim Davie, the Director-General. The corporation was also criticised after it broadcast a documentary about Gaza, which featured the son of a Hamas official. 'I think it's very frustrating that the BBC has had some own-goals in this area, with the Gaza documentary and then with the Glastonbury coverage,' Dame Melanie told the BBC's Laura Kuennsberg programme. 'It does start to erode public trust and confidence,' she added. 'I think I would say that above all, what frustrates me and others is that when these things go wrong, it can take a long time for the BBC to see that something's happened when everybody else was there within a matter of hours. 'So I would say to the BBC [that] I think they need to get a grip quicker, get these reports and investigations concluded sooner. Otherwise, there is a real risk of a sort of loss of confidence in the BBC, which is a shame.' She added that 'day by day' the BBC produces 'really high quality journalism' but had been let down recently by several editorial mistakes. Ofcom previously said that the BBC had 'questions to answer' over the Bob Vylan chants. The corporation has apologised for the broadcast and said 'high risk' acts would not be broadcast live in future. Next week the BBC will publish a report into the Gaza documentary, which drew condemnation and accusations that it was broadcasting propaganda by Hamas. It will also report on Gregg Wallace, the former MasterChef presenter, who has been accused of inappropriate behaviour on set. Mr Wallace said this week that his failure to wear underpants while working at the BBC was a result of autism. The broadcaster will also release its annual report, which could address wider cultural issues at the corporation and recent controversies. Separately, Dame Melanie said she thought the Government may have to go further with its online harms legislation to protect children from AI chatbots. Some AI services have reportedly encouraged children to self-harm, raising concerns among parents about the accessibility of unregulated bots. The Online Safety Act, passed by the previous Conservative government, covers some AI services linked to social media companies but there are already warnings of 'loopholes' about new platforms developed since it came into force in 2023. 'There are some forms of new AI which are going to be covered, but there are some that may not,' Dame Melanie said. 'I think this is a general point…that as the internet keeps changing, as new forms of AI come in very rapidly, there may need to be some changes to the legislation to cover that.'
