Brit kids 'must do their bit' amid threat of war in UK, government report warns
Britain has been plunged into a dangerous crisis zone 'between peace and war' with increasing attacks from hostile states led by Russia, an alarming new report reveals. And the cross-party Defence Committee has called upon Britons - including even children - to be taught measures to combat the threat, which is just below the 'threshold for war.'
Called Defence in the Grey Zone it warns we need a 'whole of society' approach to beat attacks from countries such as Russia. It warns the UK is being targeted in the 'Grey Zone' between peace and war and it is worsening daily with attacks of sabotage, espionage, cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns.
One of the biggest threats that may still be below the threshold for all-out war, it to the UK's undersea cables linking Britain and Europe's communications to the US. And chillingly the report, out today but launched two years ago, said that: 'Recently, the speed, scale and intensity of grey zone threats in the UK has increased.'
It identifies the main and immediate threat as Russia, which has become alarmingly aggressive since the Ukraine invasion and the UK's support for Kyiv. The report reads: 'Russia's hostility has long been evident.'
'Witness the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 and the assassination attempt on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in 2018 using the Novichok nerve agent, but has accelerated significantly since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It argues that the MoD must help spread awareness of the threat to wider society, even dumping some responsibility for the battle on schoolchildren.
And once society has become used to the precautions it must take against hostile threats, that will leave the military to prepare for the possibility of going to war. The report says: 'Defence in the Grey Zone' urges the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to proactively engage with wider society – including businesses, schools and communities – to help generate an informed dialogue around grey zone threats to the UK and build consensus around a common response.
'The MOD could pitch this 'offer' to society, in conjunction with building cyber skills and awareness – from protecting critical national industries, and preventing ransomware attacks, to teaching school children to stay safe online. 'By sharing its crisis management expertise with other departments and wider society, the MOD can help strengthen long-term resilience planning and preparedness across the UK.
'This would also allow the Armed Forces to focus on their primary responsibility during any serious international conflict, deterring or defeating military threats. . .' The Committee argues that nobody in the UK is excluded from the daily threat which chairman, Labour MP Tan Dhesi says helps 'unsettle the fabric of our day-to-day lives.'
He added: 'Grey zone threats bring war to the doorstep of each and every one of us. These attacks do not discriminate; they target the whole of our society and so demand a whole of society response, in which we all must play our part.'
And he said the nature of this new Cold War - often called a 'hybrid war ' means the responsibility of fighting it does not just fall on the MoD. He said: 'The MOD plays an important part in defending the nation from grey zone attacks, but it is only a part.
'We must now assume that any vulnerability will be exploited against us. The industries and technologies we rely on most are clear targets for hostile states. This is why, in today's report, we are calling for a shoring up of our digital and cyber skills and protections. The report argues that often hostile states disguise the source of the attack by using proxies, such as extremist sympathisers, 'hacktivists' or criminal gangs.
These can launch cyber or sabotage attacks leaving the enemy state at arm's length.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Base instincts: unease on the garrisons housing Afghan refugees
Helping Afghan refugees escape Taliban retribution has not proved easy; ensuring their integration into their host countries more challenging still. In September 2021, a month after the United States completed its mass evacuation of refugees from Afghanistan, a serving female soldier was reportedly assaulted by a group of Afghan men at Fort Bliss in New Mexico. The incident caused a brief scandal but that was swiftly contained. Within six months, 76,000 Afghan evacuees had been processed and resettled into American communities. The UK has taken a different approach. As part of the Afghan resettlement programme, around 39,000 refugees have been brought here since the fall of Kabul. Some 2,300 Afghans, many of them young men, are housed not in civilian accommodation, but on active Ministry of Defence property, including housing estates reserved outside military bases. This means they live alongside serving military personnel and their spouses and children. In some garrison towns, significant blocks of military housing have been effectively turned over to this purpose. Soldiers and local government officials say that it is not always a harmonious arrangement. One soldier told me that groups of Afghan men stand outside family homes at all hours. Unregistered vehicles, he claimed, appear in the middle of the night, revving their engines. Women on the bases, the soldier added, have altered their dog-walking routes to avoid these groups, as some of the men react aggressively to dogs, even in some cases kicking them. On Facebook groups for military personnel in the areas surrounding these barracks, similar complaints are made. One post from Alanbrooke barracks in North Yorkshire recently claimed Afghan teenagers were ganging up to fight local teenagers. Another post on a page about Durrington barracks in Wiltshire alleges an Afghan teenager stole flowers from a memorial on a bench outside a local Tesco. These are two isolated incidences, of course, but they illustrate unease among communities about the handling of Afghan resettlement. Several soldiers I spoke to said that when concerns are raised and sent up the chain of command, they go unanswered. The assumption among personnel, whether or not it is correct, is that this intransigence is political, because senior members of the military establishment are unwilling to confront integration issues. Simon Diggins, a former colonel who served as defence attaché in Kabul between 2008 and 2010, told me that while successive governments worked hard 'to get people into the country', they did 'not put time and money into integration'. The country's largest military base is Catterick in North Yorkshire. With a population of more than 14,000 and covering over 2,400 acres, since last September it has been home to around 64 settled Afghan families, housed mostly in MoD properties that were intended as service family accommodation. Catterick is a town entirely shaped by the military and its history, and the names of the streets where many Afghan families find themselves reflect this. Amiens Crescent is named after the first world war battle where there were 22,000 British casualties; Aisne Road takes its name from the three battles where hundreds of thousands of Allied troops were killed or wounded. There were cans and crisp packets strewn outside the homes. Nearby Allenby Road – Viscount Allenby led the Egyptian Expeditionary Force against the Ottoman Empire – had become a fly-tipping site, with stained mattresses dumped on its grass verges. The litter and tipping were unpleasant, but it was unclear who was responsible for the mess. While locals asserted that littering had increased recently, I could see no sign of groups of Afghan men standing around on the streets being intimidating, as some locals claimed. One ex-serviceman in Catterick offered a more nuanced perspective on the Afghan resettlement. He told me the problem was not those who had served alongside the armed forces, but those who 'bring their friends and family over', as 'this is how it starts'. He was not the only soldier I spoke to who equivocated. Some military personnel felt the need to caveat their complaints about their new neighbours with assurances that they were not racist and that they valued their allies. Some spoke at length about their admiration for the Gurkhas and had positive things to say about other Commonwealth units and their families in the area ('Commonwealth soldiers bring their families as well and nobody has an issue with that,' one told me). The concerns expressed about recent Afghan arrivals is to do with the speed and scale of the change which military communities have faced. Many soldiers have chosen to vote against these rapid changes with their feet. Serving and former personnel told me of colleagues who have quit the army in response to the Afghan resettlement – specifically for the safety of their families. And now many of them are also planning to vote against what's going on at the ballot box. One captain explained that when he was leading a training exercise during the 2024 election, almost every soldier under his command said they were planning to vote Reform. That was not just confined to the lower ranks. A local in Catterick said that of the five senior officers he knew, four intended to vote Reform at the next election. Centrist politicians have long claimed that a vote for Reform is just a passing protest. But if those who have served in uniform see both main parties housing thousands of Afghans in homes which were designed for hard-pressed military families, this reaction is unsurprising. The armed forces are the spine of the state – called upon when the NHS, the police, border force and prison services are stretched beyond capacity. If they feel their fears are going unaddressed, then their quiet quitting should concern us all.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The High Court's war on truth
In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, Humpty-Dumpty tells Alice: 'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.' The assertion is intentionally absurd. If every-one adopted their own idiosyncratic lexical definitions, language wouldn't function, and we'd all blither unintelligibly in a Tower of Babel. But then, Humpty missed his calling as a British High Court judge. Sitting on the bench rather than a wall, the big egghead might never have had that great fall. During this Afghanistan data leak scandal, we've learned that Afghans deemed at risk of Taliban retaliation for collaborating with British troops have been allowed not only to resettle in Britain but to bring along as many as 22 'additional family members' (AFMs). The Ministry of Defence believes the 'vast majority' of 2022's preposterously profuse 100,000 claims to have worked with British armed forces were bogus. Obliged to house the purportedly endangered and their relatives, the MoD restricted AFMs at first to spouses and children. Yet UK-resident Afghans sued the Foreign Office in the hopes of importing fellow nationals with no legal or blood connection to them. One petitioner pleaded before an imaginative High Court judge, Mrs Justice Yip, who has a future as a postmodernist in her nearest philosophy department. (AI explains that the 'yips' are 'characterised by a sudden inability to execute a familiar and previously mastered skill' – in this instance competent jurisprudence.) 'The term 'family member',' her ruling states, 'does not have any fixed meaning in law or in common usage. Indeed, the word 'family' may mean different things to different people and in different contexts. There may be cultural considerations… there is no requirement for a blood or legal connection.' This novel lingual latitude greatly expanded the population of AFMs covertly airlifted to the UK. Funnily enough, the Oxford Desk Dictionary at my elbow doesn't identify 'family' as 'a word with absolutely no meaning', for a word with no meaning isn't apt to appear in a dictionary. Page 276 also says nothing about 'family' meaning whatever different people choose it to mean, because a dictionary doesn't have Carroll's sense of humour. Instead, it is shockingly specific: '1. Set of parents and children, or of relations. 2. Descendants of a common ancestor.' Though perhaps Mrs Justice Yip would countenance the third definition, 'brotherhood of persons or nations united by political or religious ties', as that definition potentially encompasses billions of people and would therefore mean that our Afghani petitioner could bring just about anybody to Britain. Which, thanks to her ruling, appears to be the case. This is important because – sorry to state the obvious – laws and regulations are drafted in words. Government can only function if language functions. MPs vote on bills written in words that must mean roughly the same thing to every other MP. Citizens are told what laws to follow in words as well. Yet if judges may subsequently interpret legal text like Humpty-Dumpty, there are no laws. The whole set-up falls apart. We're ruled by arbitrary court decrees, which are not bound by the Oxford Desk Dictionary or any other staid reference book insisting that words mean something in particular. Through the Looking-Glass ceases to be a satire and becomes a primer. Language joins truth – my truth – as capricious, mutable, mercurial and subjective. Presumably, then, maybe to you a law against 'theft' prohibits taking other people's stuff. But maybe to me 'theft' means crossing the street against a red light, so you can't put me in jail for lifting your laptop. Surprise – Justice Yip's ruling acknowledges the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the basis of so many similar decisions deeming 'asylum seekers' legitimate and impervious to deportation regardless of their nonexistent persecution or their criminality. The ECHR is itself notoriously vague, broad and flabbily written. It's this lexical blobbiness that enables judges to regard it as a 'living document', whose scope can expand without limit and whose meaning can be twisted to suit a judge's whim on a given day. The nebulous 'right to family life' has proven especially elastic, even preventing candidates for deportation from being separated from their pets – and the provision grows only more usefully ambiguous now that 'family' refers to people to whom you have no connection. I gather the ECHR was never intended to be the basis of adjudication in the first place. But then, pleas from countless pundits such as yours truly for Britain to please withdraw from this catastrophic charter for crooks and charlatans fall without fail on deaf political ears. Contorting once-standard vocabulary whose meaning we recently all agreed upon is a commonplace technique on the left. Aside from its secondary definition (the proportion of a property whose debts are paid off), 'equity' in my 1997 Oxford Desk Dictionary means 'fairness'. And who could oppose fairness? Except that, thanks to the wokesters, equity now means 'achieving an equal outcome', aka Marxism. 'Inclusion' means exclusion. 'Gender' used to be a synonym for sex and otherwise only applied to grammar; now it's a sensation of wearing a frock or growing a beard in your head. Most famously, of course, 'woman' now means 'man'. The lesson here? Not only should parliament renounce the ECHR, but lawmakers must routinely draft all legislation as plainly and simply as possible, nailing its purpose down so that activist judges cannot conveniently misunderstand complex syntactic constructions such as 'dog' and 'go'. Parliament might also pass a bill obliging these postmodernist adjudicators to rule in accordance with words as they are understood by ordinary people – some of whom may be stumped by 'eschatology', but none of whom scratch their heads over the meaning of 'family member'. The bill could even cite a reference book to which these befuddled jurists might resort when confused by challenging vocabulary ('a', 'an' and 'the' come to mind) whose precise meaning might be obscured by 'cultural considerations'. I'd be willing to loan out my Oxford Desk Dictionary for a good cause.
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Turkey's Islamist-leaning government risks putting off Western tourists
A recent crackdown on booze-fuelled nightlife in the popular Turkish resort of Marmaris, and sensationalist reports that it has subsequently turned into a 'ghost town', have led to speculation that the country's conservative, Islamist-leaning government is reducing Turkey's appeal to Western tourists. This is a worry not only for the tourists concerned, many of whom return to this beautiful country time and again (not least Britons, 4.43 million of whom came in 2024), but for everyone in Turkey employed by tourism. Any significant drop in visitor numbers would be a major headache for the government too, with the industry accounting for 12 per cent of the country's GDP. But before looking at the likelihood of Turkey turning into another Dubai, where drinking is strictly regulated for visitors and forbidden for Muslims, it's worth looking at what happened in Marmaris at the beginning of the summer. Far from a curfew or slew of new, stricter rules on the closing times of bars and clubs, the local authorities simply started enforcing regulations which had been in existence over a decade. This means most bars must close at midnight, with a half-hour grace period. And the many premises on one 'zoned' street, Barlar Sokak (Street of the Bars), are permitted to stay open until 4am. A primary motivation for the local municipality, led by mayor Acar Unlü, to clamp down on bars in the town is that many were flouting existing regulations. At least 28 establishments were temporarily closed for breaking the rules, though one premise that persisted in staying open beyond the statuary time has been permanently shut. To find a raft of bars closed, and an increased police presence, when you're looking for a late-night beer in Marmaris, must have been annoying. But it's hardly evidence of a government plot to introduce ever-stricter rules around alcohol. Especially when you consider that both the municipality and the province of which it is a part are both strongholds of the staunchly secularist opposition CHP (Republican People's Party). Another much-touted reason for the clampdown is public ire about the number of bars where shirtless male waiters danced on the tables. Turkey may be a polarised country, with a sometimes-unbridgeable chasm between the ruling AKP (Justice and Development Party) and the CHP, but Turks of nearly every stripe are united in their relative conservatism. Fire-safety concerns also played their part in the 'crackdown', as part of the tabletop revelry often included sparklers and other fireworks as part of the impromptu 'show'. Both activities are now banned. I talked to long-term residents involved in the tourism trade in the pretty resort of Kaş, Turkey's outdoor adventure capital, and the resort city of Antalya, both in Antalya province. They told me that, as in Marmaris, bars in Kaş close at midnight, clubs at 1am. In Antalya, many bars remain open until 2am, though live music is required to cease at 1am. There have been no recent clampdowns or curfews in either of these major tourist centres. So what happened in Marmaris appears to have been an isolated event caused by specific circumstances. But there is little doubt that the current government, in power since 2002, have made Turkey harder for drinkers. Laws introduced in 2013 forbade alcohol to be sold within 100 metres of a mosque or school, and off licences and markets could only sell alcohol between 6am and 10pm. Alcohol advertising on TV became unlawful in the same year, with authorities even enforcing the blurring of alcoholic beverages on TV and cinema screens. Massive increases in the price of alcoholic beverages have crept in during the current government's reign too – up to 70 per cent of the retail price of many alcoholic drinks is now tax. Once considerably cheaper than the UK, a pint of beer in a cheap bar in Marmaris, Kaş or Antalya will now cost you around £4, but it's way more in more upmarket establishments. Hotel prices can be extremely high: £10 for a 33cl beer and £12 for a glass of wine are now common. The number of Turkish tourists holidaying in long-time rival Greece rather than their own country made the news in 2024. This trend shows no sign of abating – Aegean Airlines opened a new, twice-weekly route between Istanbul and Santorini at the end of May. One motivating factor for this exodus to Turkey's Aegean neighbour is that Greece is cheaper than Turkey for many things – including alcoholic drinks. A glass of wine in a modest Greek taverna is around £2.60; it's hard to find one for less than £5.50 in Turkey. But despite government-led moves to restrict opening hours, 'zone' drinking establishments and increase the price of alcoholic drinks well beyond the rate of inflation, Turkey is highly unlikely to become another Dubai. Although the number of Turks who admit to drinking is only 17 per cent, the true figures are probably much higher, and the government cannot afford to completely alienate too many of its own citizens. And tourism is far too valuable to the economy to risk putting off foreign visitors by introducing Dubai-style rules. Yet it remains impossible to gauge how much tourism in Turkey will be affected long-term by the spiralling costs of alcoholic drinks, or concerns that Turkey is becoming a less liberal destination. A friend who runs a travel agency in Antalya told me that, after a decent spring, numbers had dropped in June, and that Antalya's walled old quarter of Kaleiçi was quiet. She attributed the fall to the unrest in the wider Middle East, however. Official figures also show signs of falling demand – in late June, Hürriyet Daily News published figures from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism showing a 1.8 per cent year-on-year drop in foreign visitors for May 2025 over the preceding year, and a more modest 1 per cent overall drop in the first five months of 2025. Yet in the same five-month period, the number of Britons coming to Turkey actually rose by 1.3 per cent. In recent decades, Turkey has weathered coups and wars, terrorist atrocities, hyper-inflation and many other setbacks. Yet tourism has grown exponentially. In 2003, 16.5 million tourists came to Turkey, by 2011 that had risen to 30 million, and 57 million tourists visited in 2024, making Turkey the fourth most visited country globally. The Turks are far too resilient and resourceful to let slip the appeal of the country of which they are so proud to foreign visitors, especially when it is so vital to the economy.
