Is it time for the United Kingdom to go on a war footing?
Keir Starmer seems to think so. His government is busily updating the Cold War-era war plans that were last looked at seriously 20 years ago.
EXC: Britain is secretly preparing for a direct military attack by Russia.
Officials have been asked to update 20-year-old contingency plans, first used to plan for a nuclear attack during the Cold War, which would put the UK on a domestic war footing.https://t.co/sLbhAxyMdN
— Tony Diver (@Tony_Diver) May 5, 2025
There’s nothing unusual about major powers having war plans for outlandish scenarios sitting on the shelf. No doubt the United States has plans for a Canadian invasion (which, come to think of it, is no longer as far out of the realm of possibility as you would think). Every once in a while, strategic planners will update them, both as a contingency and as an intellectual exercise to keep the staff officers sharp, or at least busier than they might otherwise be.
During the Cold War, it made sense for Britain to have serious contingency plans for a war with Russia, not because nuclear war was super-likely, but because it was possible and the costs of not planning for war were too high to contemplate.
But, according to The Telegraph, the current round of planning is something else entirely, and at least from my point of view, is little short of insane.
Britain is secretly preparing for a direct military attack by Russia amid fears that it is not ready for war.
Officials have been asked to update 20-year-old contingency plans that would put the country on a war footing after threats of attack by the Kremlin.
A classified dossier will set out how the Government would respond to a declaration of war, including bunkers to protect the Cabinet and the Royal family, public service broadcasts and the stockpiling of resources.
Ministers fear that Britain would not only be outgunned by Russia and its allies on the battlefield but would also be unprepared and poorly defended at home.
Kremlin officials have repeatedly threatened the UK with a direct attack over its support for Ukraine, which may soon include British troops on the ground.
Experts have warned that the country is vulnerable to an assault on its critical national infrastructure, including gas terminals, undersea cables, nuclear power plants and transport hubs.
The Telegraph understands that an update to the classified “homeland defence plan” will set out a strategy for the days immediately after a strike on the UK mainland by a hostile foreign state.
Russia has indeed made noises–more grunts–threatening Britain with retaliation should it directly enter the Ukraine War, but then again, it has been musing about using nuclear weapons in the conflict as well, and at least those threats have a plausible connection to tactical considerations. While it is generally understood that tactical nukes are actually pretty useless in battles–the cost of using them compared to the potential benefits in a war that doesn’t include massed armor clashes is ridiculously high–no serious person expects that Russia either would or could use ballistic missiles to take out UK infrastructure.
The plan, by the Cabinet Office’s Resilience Directorate, will direct the Prime Minister and Cabinet on how to run a wartime government and when they should seek shelter in the Downing Street bunker or outside London.
The war strategies for the rail and road networks, courts, postal system and phone lines are all expected to be examined. It is unlikely that the document will be released to the public for decades, if at all.
The Cabinet Office has already modelled a scenario in which a hostile state launched missiles and cyber attacks on national infrastructure at the same time.
Cyberattacks are very plausible because they are used in the “gray zone” of warfare, and they are regularly used in conflicts other than war. China, famously, uses cyberwarfare against Western powers, and Russia attacks internet infrastructure such as underwater cables. Even sophisticated criminals or terrorists might use these tactics.
But generally speaking, you wouldn’t call preparations for and plans to counteract such things a “war plan.” Starmer is preparing for actual kinetic conflict.
And, let’s face it, such a conflict would only happen if Britain directly attacks Russia. War plans in this case really mean preparations for attacking Russia and Russia’s response. Russia has already tolerated attacks on its homeland through the West’s Ukrainian proxy, so we have a good idea of what its “Red Line” is. Any sense that Russia has designs on Germany, France, or Britain is a fever dream.
Ken McCallum, the director of MI5, said in October that the number of state threats investigated by the agency had increased by 48 per cent in a year, and that Russia had increased its cyber attacks because of the war in Ukraine.
Russia’s sabre-rattling against the UK has continued despite Donald Trump’s plan for a peace deal in Ukraine. Last month, ministers officially designated Russia a national security threat for the first time.
The plan is modelled on the War Book, a secret Cold War dossier of instructions on how the government should respond to a nuclear attack, which has since been published in the National Archives.
The War Book included evacuation plans for the prime minister and key members of the Cabinet, who would be moved to a bunker in the Cotswolds if London was bombed. Queen Elizabeth II would have escaped to safety on the royal yacht.
Whatever the likelihood of a direct attack on the United Kingdom, it makes sense to have contingency plans for low-risk but high-cost events, but leaking that Britain is ready to go on a war footing–combined with escalating anti-Russian rhetoric–seems directed at creating a sense of crisis domestically. Russia presents no real threat to Britain unless Britain engages in direct conflict with Russia.
To be fair, Starmer has implied this many times in recent months. The idea is absurd–Britain can barely commit 10,000 troops to a peacekeeping force in Ukraine, and has no logistical means to move equipment to Ukraine without US support. That’s why a “coalition of the willing” peacekeeping force has been quietly shelved for the moment.
Dovile Sakaliene, Lithuania’s defence minister, was said to have told her counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”
— Larisa Brown (@larisamlbrown) April 29, 2025
European countries may be preparing to “decouple” their defense from the United States, and are trying to gin up the political will in the populace to pay more for defense.
I really can’t imagine any other reason for leaking this to the media. It is in line with the release of trial balloons about reimposing conscription–an idea walked back rather quickly, and the dramatic increase in saber rattling in Europe.
I’d be shocked, though, to see Europe rouse itself enough to dramatically increase its military capability and genuinely prepare for war with Russia. Building up a logistics base alone would be an incredible task after decades of allowing their militaries to decline. European countries may have some very capable elite troops, but armies capable of force projection without US support? Not so much.
In short, this is more a political document than an indication that Britain expects a war with Russia. It is not going on a “war footing” because it can’t without NATO, and NATO can’t without the United States.
I do hope Britain bolsters its home defense capabilities and bulks up its power projection capabilities. But given the state of British and European militaries it will take a lot longer than 5 or even 10 years to get back into shape.
