Battle Lines: ‘Prepare for war with Russia by 2030'
Speaking exclusively to our Defence Editor Danielle Sheridan, the former head of the British army points to the Nordic countries and says we need to start taking a leaf out of their book.
He also discusses why an Iron Dome couldn't work in the UK, his thoughts on the recent Israel-Iran war, and why he didn't encourage his son to join the army.
General Sanders stood down as head of the British army last summer. The former rifleman had been tipped to be the next Chief of the Defence Staff but fell out of favour with the Government for being too outspoken about the extent of troop cuts.
Our defence editor Danielle interviewed him in his garden at his home in rural Wiltshire, with his blonde Labrador Fargo by his side.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kids need lessons on misogyny and Andrew Tate at school – who else is going to teach them?
I had one of those startling and shocking 'overwhelmed parent' moments, last week. The kind where you feel a sudden and all-encompassing crushing sense of helplessness. I literally put my head in my hands and sighed. The reason? My teenage daughter told me that a kid at school had spotted her Pride bracelet from the parade we'd been to, the weekend before – pointed and shouted 'Eww'. He then proceeded to quiz my little girl, incredulously by the sounds of it, on why she supported LGBT+ rights. Upon which – slightly flustered – she did something I'm achingly proud of: she took a spontaneous straw poll of tolerance in her classroom; asking each child around her whether or not they supported Pride (and all that it stands for). Her passion at 13 impressed me, but didn't surprise me. After all, just the week before, she came with me to The Independent's annual protest at Pride 2025 – as the official publishing partner for Pride London, we march proudly and openly in the parade. She was by my side as we listened to impassioned speeches from those who have experienced LGBT+ targeted hate crime; as we confronted small and unwelcome pockets of prejudice on the streets; as we danced and cheered and clapped. Our overt display of support couldn't come at a more crucial time: this year, the UK dropped down the European rankings for LGBT+ rights to 22nd – we were once top. In April, we witnessed the clampdown on trans rights as the Supreme Court ruled on the 'biological' definition of sex. It is entirely our duty, as parents and carers, to educate the next generation to keep fighting this fight for all our rights. Now, here for the head in hands bit: my daughter dug around in her blazer pocket while telling me about what had happened in class, then produced a piece of bedraggled paper. On it, she'd written two columns – 'For' and 'Against'. In the 'for' column were eight names, mostly girls. In the 'against' column were 14 names, overwhelmingly boys. The next lesson that day, she said, had been PSHE – Personal, Social, Health and Economic education ('sex ed', to you and me). The teacher told them all of the different definitions that fall under the LGBT+ umbrella – from asexual to aromantic; lesbian, gay and bisexual to trans, intersex, queer and questioning. At the end of the lesson, the original kid who'd shouted 'Eww' turned to my child with an eye-roll and said, 'I bet you loved that lesson.' He meant it as an insult, of course. Now, while this example is about LGBT+ rights – and I'm as offended and saddened as any other liberal parent that some kids are taught to stigmatise those with lives different to them – I can't blame the teachers. They seem to be doing a banging job of explaining the need for diversity and inclusivity in the curriculum (though a special exception goes to the teacher who told my daughter and the rest of Year 7s that abortion meant 'killing children' in last year's science lesson). So, who's really to blame? It can only be other parents. Which is why I believe it entirely right that our schools take over responsibility for teaching our kids how to combat issues including misogyny and how to resist 'incel' ('involuntary celibate') culture under new school guidance which was published on Tuesday – the rules will be mandatory from September 2026. The vital guidance will be taught as part of the relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) framework and according to the government, will specifically aim to help boys find positive role models – and counter the increasing spread of sexist online content from so-called 'manosphere' influencers like Tate. Secondary schools will also be required to provide young people with greater awareness of AI, deepfakes – and the links between pornography and misogyny – but will also aim not to 'stigmatise boys for being boys'. It couldn't come at a more pertinent time – the Department for Education (DfE) reports that misogynistic attitudes have reached 'epidemic scale' among young people, with 54 per cent of those aged 11-19 saying they had witnessed misogynist comments. My daughter is one of them. The kind of prejudice she witnessed about LGBT+ rights in her classroom is by no means an isolated example – these kinds of negative comments are also, far too often, aimed at girls. We already know that research suggests some 22 per cent of primary school-aged girls have seen or been shown 'rude images online'; and just last year, Ofsted reported a 'scourge' of sexism in the classroom – upon which, Labour promised to tackle misogyny in UK classrooms as part of its pledge to halve violence against women and girls. This guidance would go some way towards making this happen – in allowing teachers to 'sensitively respond to topics that children might have seen online or heard from their friends'. Like anti-LGBT+ sentiment, I suppose. And for those kids who are LGBT+, Tuesday's guidance also includes requirements on helping children with their mental health, including working with mental health professionals to discuss suicide prevention 'in an age-appropriate way'. We can't do this alone – there are far too few of us committed to teaching our kids to do the right thing, or brave enough to mention it at all. If watching Adolescence taught us anything, it's that education starts within the home – this goes for tolerance or prejudice. What we need to do is teach our kids to clap back against prejudice, wherever they see it. To counter hate with education, to protest against discrimination. But I'm not convinced that all other parents are doing a great job – that's why it's so vital that their teachers do.
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's Turnberry faces logistical hurdles for British Open return
President Donald Trump is not getting a British Open to the Turnberry course he owns in the near future, an issue the R&A's new chief executive said Wednesday was more about transportation than politics. Turnberry is regarded as the most beautiful of the links on the Open rotation, set along the Ayrshire coast in Scotland across from the Ailsa Craig. It last hosted the Open in 2009, before Trump bought the resort. Mark Darbon, who took over at the R&A this year from Martin Slumbers, said Turnberry had not been taken off the list of potential British Open sites, but transportation and other issues had to be addressed. 'I think we've been extremely clear on our position in respect of Turnberry. We love the golf course but we've got some big logistical challenges there,' he said. 'You see the scale of their setup here and we've got some work to do on the road, rail and accommodation infrastructure around Turnberry.' Darbon said the R&A met with Eric Trump and other leaders of Trump Golf a few months ago and the talks had been constructive. 'I think they understand clearly where we're coming from. We talked through some of the challenges that we have so we've got a good dialogue with them,' he said. Slumbers had previously said the R&A would not be going to Turnberry until it was comfortable the topic would be about golf and not the owner. Turnberry has only hosted the British Open four times, first in 1977 with the famous 'Duel in the Sun' when Tom Watson beat Jack Nicklaus. But the Open is getting bigger, and the roads are limited getting to Turnberry. There has been speculation Trump, whose golf courses have never hosted a men's major, might ask the British government to intercede in getting the Open back to Turnberry. 'We have an ongoing dialogue with the UK government given that we're a major event that creates significant value into the UK economy,' Darbon said. "We've spoken to them specifically about Turnberry and I think they've made it clear that the decision around where we take our championship rests with us. 'I would find it difficult to predict whether there will be any discussion on The Open if the President is making a visit here.' Turnberry is not the only Scottish links being ignored by the R&A. Muirfield, located along the Firth of Forth east of Edinburgh, is reputed to be the purest of links courses. Its first Open was in 1892, and there have been 15 others, most recently in 2013 won by Phil Mickelson. Only St. Andrews has hosted more Opens than Muirfield. But it has not been back there since 2013 as the R&A has been geared toward taking golf's oldest championship to courses that can hold big crowds. It is expected 278,000 spectators will be at Royal Portrush this week, the second-largest behind St. Andrews. The last Open at Muirfield had 142,000 spectators. The Open will be at Royal Birkdale next year, and then St. Andrews in 2027. The site for 2028 has not been announced. Muirfield has never gone more than 11 years — except for interruptions from World War I and World War II — between Opens. 'We love the golf course at Muirfield. We're in a discussion with the venue right now,' Darbon said. "There's some things that we need to evolve at Muirfield — the practice ground in particular is a challenge for us with a modern Open and there's some work we need to do with the venue to facilitate some of the infrastructure that we require. 'But it's a good dialogue and we'd love to be back there in the future.' ___ AP golf:
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Amess family ‘deeply hurt' after Home Secretary letter following Prevent review
A 'dismissive' letter from the Home Secretary to the family of murdered MP Sir David Amess following a review into Prevent's contact with his killer is designed to 'protect the Government following its failings' and not support them, their spokesman has said. Radd Seiger said Sir David's family were 'deeply hurt and angered by the utterly dismissive tone' of Yvette Cooper's letter and that her 'piecemeal approach… will never deliver the whole truth, accountability and justice.' He also said the family were given 'next to no notice' of the timing or advance sight of the report, adding media leaks were a further insult to the family. The Amess family have said they will respond in full to the report once they have consulted their legal team. In her written statement laid before Parliament, Ms Cooper said: 'My department remains steadfast in its commitment to keeping the public safe and safeguarding people at risk of radicalisation. 'The victims, their families and those who survived the Southport attack but continue to live with the physical and emotional pain, and Sir David Amess's family remain in our hearts and prayers.' In his review, Independent Prevent Commissioner David Anderson KC said 'intensive' efforts have been made to improve Prevent processes, but the 'jury is out' on some of the changes In the Home Secretary's letter, seen by the PA news agency, Ms Cooper said she realises the 'seriousness' of the failings in Sir David's case and that she hoped the family found Lord Anderson's report to be 'thorough and considered'. Sir David's terrorist killer Ali Harbi Ali was referred to Prevent seven years before the so-called Islamic State fanatic stabbed the veteran MP at his constituency surgery in Essex in October 2021. He was sentenced to a whole-life order the following year. In her letter, Ms Cooper said Lord Anderson had 'conducted an incisive analysis of the perpetrator's case management, the findings of the Prevent Learning Review and the impact of changes made since then'. She added: 'I realise the seriousness of these failings and it reflects the deep concerns you have long held about what went wrong. 'Lord Anderson acknowledges improvements made to Prevent since then but also identifies further important opportunities for change in the wider Prevent system.' Her letter added: 'My determination to make whatever changes are considered necessary is unflinching and a further formal Government response to Lord Anderson's report will follow in the autumn. 'However, I want to be clear that it is without question that where recommendations can be implemented immediately, I will ensure that these are delivered.' Mr Seiger told PA the letter had left the family 'retraumatised, blindsided and feeling marginalised'. He said: 'This is an absolutely appalling letter from the Home Secretary who frankly should know better than to insult the family in this way. 'They are deeply hurt and angered, by the utterly dismissive tone as well as the timing of the Home Secretary's letter accompanying the publication of Lord Anderson KC's report. 'It is difficult to see it as anything other than a calculated exercise in damage limitation, designed not to support the family in their search for answers but to protect the Government following its failings. 'Yet again, we see victims being kicked when they are down. 'This supposed act of courtesy has left the family retraumatised, blindsided, and feeling marginalised in a process that should have had their voices and wellbeing at its heart from the outset. 'The Prime Minister and Home Secretary must understand that a piecemeal approach, which is what they are taking, however well-dressed in public relations, will never deliver the whole truth, accountability and justice for Sir David.'
