Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 19 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

The Foreign Office’s exposure and sanctioning of Russian individuals and organisations working against the UK demonstrates that we are a prime focus for Putin’s political warfare, which is the use of all means other than armed conflict to achieve the state’s objectives. Russia’s targets are worldwide, but it is obvious that Britain is a priority given our leading role in supporting Ukraine. Indeed, some have suggested that the UK is the number one target behind Ukraine, even above the US, as Putin still hopes to lure Trump away from giving his full backing to Kyiv.

Russian objectives include directly disrupting military aid to Ukraine as well as sowing division at home and inflicting greater costs on us through sabotage and cyber warfare. There have been repeated attacks in Britain and across Europe against infrastructure and transport hubs involved in shipping aid to Ukraine. A warehouse fire in London and an incendiary attack against a DHL hub in Birmingham are both likely to be the work of agents of the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service.

Cyber attacks have targeted media outlets, telecoms providers, political institutions, government bodies and energy infrastructure in the UK. The Ministry of Defence has repelled 90,000 cyber attacks from hostile states in the last two years. Many originated in Russia, usually via proxies. Espionage and disinformation are also critical elements of Russian political warfare. Earlier this year a group of six Bulgarians living in the UK was convicted of spying across Europe on behalf of Russia, and Moscow devotes immense resources into bot farms attempting to inject its anti-Ukraine narrative into social media sites.

Beyond sabotage, cyberwar and disinformation, Moscow’s political warfare operations include direct threats to life. Since Putin came to power there have been at least six assassinations or attempted assassinations in the UK that were likely the work of the GRU. Three of the GRU units the Foreign Office has sanctioned have been implicated in the failed murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018.

The cyber components of two of these units were involved in targeting Skripal and then sought to disrupt UK and international investigations into the events. The third unit, known as 26165, was directly responsible for the attempt on Skripal’s life. The same unit, in March 2022, conducted online reconnaissance on civilian shelters in Mariupol and Kharkiv, lining up artillery strikes which killed non-combatants sheltering there.

Despite its current emphasis on undermining Ukraine and its allies, Russia’s political warfare campaign goes much further, encompassing all areas of its national interests, including economic development, fostering allies and destabilising the West. A few years ago the head of Nato confirmed Russia had infiltrated environmental movements in Europe to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas. Since the start of the Gaza conflict in 2023, Russia has used armies of fake social media profiles to disproportionately amplify Pro-Palestinian voices in the UK to promote public discord and influence government decision-making.

‘The Kremlin should be in no doubt,’ according to David Lammy, ‘we see what they are trying to do in the shadows and we won’t tolerate it. That’s why we’re taking decisive action with sanctions against Russian spies.’ He is right to impose these sanctions, but even assuming many of our allies follow suit, they will have little impact. Nor will the detailed exposure of Moscow’s political warfare apparatus and some of its key players deter them. On the contrary, their activity will increase and become more sophisticated, especially with the development of artificial intelligence.

In this situation, we need to constantly improve our defences, both in cyber security and intelligence. There are opportunity costs to that though. A few months ago the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, admitted he had been forced to “pare back” on counterterrorism to deal with the growing threat posed by Russia and other hostile states. And don’t for one moment think that Putin is not exploiting the waves of small boat Channel crossings that are filling our country with people we know nothing about.

But defence is not enough: we must also fight fire with fire. The GRU, as well as the other Kremlin organs involved in attacking us have to be made to pay a price well beyond this sanctions regime. That means our own offensive political warfare campaign against Russia. Here, the Foreign Office sounds a hopeful note, claiming to be countering Russian attacks both publicly and “behind the scenes”. But do we have the capability, the legal freedom and the political will to inflict the damage that is required?

Image: UK Government

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 15 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

According to the anti-Trumpers, the president’s efforts to end the Ukraine war by mediation were a terrible betrayal and now his attempt to drag Vladimir Putin to make peace by stepping up military and economic pressure on Russia is not enough. These critics, especially the Europeans, would be more convincing if they had their own realistic proposals to end hostilities, but they do not.

Trump’s plan – to supply weapons to Ukraine but make the Europeans pay – is sheer genius, at least as a concept. It forces the EU countries and Britain to put their money where their mouth is, rather than allowing them to get away with weak pleas like “we would do more but we just don’t have the weapons”. It fits perfectly with his determination to make Europe shoulder more of the burden for its own problems. And it ought to play well to American voters, among whom continued US funding of Ukraine’s defence is not popular.

A key element of the proposal is to assist with the defence of Ukrainian cities from dramatically increased Russian missile and drone attacks. Trump said that Patriot interceptors would be sent – and these will likely either be purchased directly from the US or, if quicker, provided from Nato nations’ own stocks and replaced.

Boris Pistorius, the German defence minister, however, said it would take months before the first Patriots could be sent to Ukraine, which evidently means Berlin is not willing to transfer its own missile systems.

He must of course worry about Germany’s own air defence, so it is a balance of risk between a hypothetical threat and an actual constant barrage of attack. In any case, there is not an unlimited supply of Patriot missiles, which cost about $4 million a shot, and are not the answer to Russian drone swarms which have been doing the most damage. But his comments were a telling indication of where Europe’s priorities still lie, despite the continent’s supposed insistence that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine win.

A key element of the proposal is to assist with the defence of Ukrainian cities from dramatically increased Russian missile and drone attacks. Trump said that Patriot interceptors would be sent – and these will likely either be purchased directly from the US or, if quicker, provided from Nato nations’ own stocks and replaced.

Boris Pistorius, the German defence minister, however, said it would take months before the first Patriots could be sent to Ukraine, which evidently means Berlin is not willing to transfer its own missile systems.

He must of course worry about Germany’s own air defence, so it is a balance of risk between a hypothetical threat and an actual constant barrage of attack. In any case, there is not an unlimited supply of Patriot missiles, which cost about $4 million a shot, and are not the answer to Russian drone swarms which have been doing the most damage. But his comments were a telling indication of where Europe’s priorities still lie, despite the continent’s supposed insistence that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine win.

As far as we know, Trump has not yet committed to sending offensive weapons, but in a recent call with Volodymyr Zelensky, he reportedly asked if Ukraine could hit Moscow and St Petersburg. Perhaps Trump had in mind last month’s Israeli air campaign against Iran’s drone and missile capabilities. Zelensky’s response was effectively a Churchillian ‘give us the tools and we will finish the job’.

This is critical: imposing restraints on Kyiv against attacking targets inside sovereign Russian territory has been gravely damaging to Ukraine’s own fortunes. As important as protection of its cities is, the provision of large quantities of long-range offensive weapons and the freedom to use them would probably have the most decisive impact on Putin’s decision-making, both in the short and long term.

Making it harder for him to hit Ukrainian cities due to improved defences is not going to make him rethink. Smouldering military bases, government buildings and energy installations on a large scale might well do so. The Kremlin has pretty much made that concern clear, saying that Patriots do not cross a red line. But it angrily threatened Chancellor Merz that Germany supplying Taurus long-range missiles would bring it directly into the war.

Trump’s proposed new secondary tariff regime against countries that do business with Russia could also have a persuasive impact, with the Russian economy already under great stress. The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, however, said that Trump’s 50-day deadline for Putin to come to the table is ‘very long’. Perhaps Kallas, then, should immediately impose EU secondary tariffs, rather than shouting criticism from the sidelines? We all know that won’t happen.

Trump has correctly adjusted his policy towards Ukraine to account for Putin’s unwillingness to seek peace. It might be that the Russian leader will never accept a settlement, especially one clearly imposed by the US president. Could he even survive that eventuality, given the extent to which he has tied his own personal legitimacy with prosecuting a war to wipe Ukraine off the map?

But Trump’s latest gambit still has a chance of success, supposing that Putin believes that the Europeans are also serious about forcing Russia to the negotiating table. Sadly, they are failing to consistently indicate that they are. Do they really want to help Ukraine win its war, or do they just want America to do it for them?

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 9 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

Last week David Lammy proclaimed himself the first UK Minister to visit Syria since Assad’s retreat to Moscow. Renewing British relations with Damascus, Lammy proudly posed for a photograph with a smiling president Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa.

Lammy argues that a stable Syria is in the UK’s interests: it reduces the risk of illegal immigration, ensures the destruction of chemical weapons and tackles the threat of terrorism. Yet predictably he has not acknowledged that this possible move towards stability is solely down to a country he has vilified, scorned and accused of war crimes.

Assad hung on to his reins amidst years of violent uprising due to Iranian support backed up by Russia. Al-Sharaa was only able to seize power because Israel had smashed up Hezbollah, which otherwise would have stopped him in his tracks. Nor could the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ride to Assad’s rescue because the IDF would not have permitted it to do so.

Israel went further, dismantling Syria’s military hardware, Iranian bases and chemical weapons factories in relentless pre-emptive strikes following Assad’s downfall. Again, Lammy should be thankful for that, because however the situation develops in the future, neither al-Sharaa nor any other Syrian warlord will have the means to deliver extreme violence without rebuilding these capabilities.

Indeed, that calculation was probably decisive in the Foreign Office’s decision to send Lammy to deliver overtures to al-Sharaa, making the whole enterprise far less risky.

But immense risks nevertheless remain. As well as the Syria-focused Al-Nusra Front and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, Al-Sharaa’s jihadist credentials include Al Qaeda and the Islamic State by proxy, both of whom have of course targeted and attacked UK interests at home and abroad. The same is true of many of his long-standing henchmen now in the interim government. As well as fighting to establish an Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Mirror, 7 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

Twenty years ago today these four men killed themselves and 52 others when they detonated their bombs on three trains and a bus in London in the first Islamist suicide attack on UK soil.

A further 770 people were injured in the 7/7 bombings, which signalled the start of a new era of terrorism in Britain. There is now an ever-present terror threat, and with ever-changing weapons would-be attackers are adapting.

But, in the shadows, MI5 and counter-terror police are surveilling terror cells and lone wolves, building up evidence and striking to prevent attacks.

They have seen terrorism up close and understand what the public do not see – that evil is out there and another attacker could strike at any time.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 4 July 2025. © Richard Kemp

Visiting Israel during the recent Iranian attacks, several times I saw Israeli interceptors hurtling single-mindedly through the night sky over Tel Aviv towards an unseen Iranian ballistic missile. I’d been in active warzones before, but even so, in my experience it is a uniquely reassuring sight.

The IDF Air Defence Command shot down around 86 per cent of some 500 missiles Iran fired during the twelve day war, and stopped 99 per cent of over 1,000 drones. If drones are the future of warfare, they were a busted flush in this conflict, when faced with the most sophisticated air defence system in the world. That system is made up of a wide range of expensive and precisely directed and coordinated interceptors including Arrow, David’s Sling, Barak and Iron Dome, supplemented by US Thaad launchers and SM interceptors fired by US warships near Israel.

Ever since Saddam Hussein fired 42 Scud missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, Jerusalem has been working assiduously to defend its people against all forms of air attack. Thirty four years of research and development and tactical and technical innovation accompanied by heavy financial investment has more than paid off in the face of missile and drone attacks from Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Israel’s strategy is not just to meet threats from the air but to overmatch them, and the IDF continues to work flat out to maintain its qualitative edge as its enemies learn from their own failures.

Now I’m back home in Britain, and to be honest I don’t feel nearly as safe as I did in Israel under active attack. The UK has made almost no effort in this sphere and today we are undefended against all but the most limited forms of attack. What defences we do have are too few to cover much of our territory.

Our only protection against ballistic missiles is the Royal Navy’s six Type 45 destroyers, armed with Sea Viper anti-air missiles – just two of these ships are typically available for duty. Even their capabilities are limited compared to the Israeli equivalent: HMS Diamond did shoot down an Iranian ballistic missile fired by the Houthis last year, but Sea Viper is not meant to be capable of ballistic intercept and the enemy weapon was probably quite basic: of the type often dubbed ‘quasi ballistic’. If one of our aircraft carriers sails across the world, as is the case today, she takes a destroyer with her and we are down to one to protect the UK.

Aside from our one available destroyer, a few RAF quick response fighters can be launched to intercept enemy planes, cruise missiles and drones. The Army has a few batteries of short-range air defence missiles. We do not have any up and running airborne radar systems, meaning that we have very limited ability to detect low-flying incoming threats. Our combined defences don’t come anywhere close to meeting the threat we face today.

The UK homeland can easily be struck by a range of Russian missiles – ballistic, cruise, hypersonics and drones – fired from Russia itself or from its aircraft, ships or submarines. There is a man in the Kremlin who has proved his willingness to use the weapons against military targets as well as population centres, and has already ordered lethal attacks of a different type against civilians in our country.

I wonder if Keir Starmer realised that, and our inability to effectively defend against such strikes, when he led with his chin on heading a “coalition of the willing” against Russia. Perhaps he has realised now and maybe that explains why he’s gone so quiet. But it only gets worse. Within 15 years ballistic missiles fired from anywhere in the world will likely be able to hit targets anywhere else in the world: such systems have already been tested. Unless our capabilities improve dramatically, we will be comprehensively deterred from any unilateral action, no matter how vital it may be.

The Israelis also understand something else we seem to have forgotten: attack is the best form of defence. During the twelve day war they didn’t just rely on their interceptors but, using combat planes, ships and drones, they relentlessly struck at Iran’s launchers, knocking out at least half of them – as well as missile and drone stocks and production facilities. Meanwhile our Attorney General, Lord Hermer, reportedly advised Starmer that Britain’s participation in these operations would be illegal. Churchill received no such advice when he launched a 600 bomber raid against the German V-weapon missile development site at Peenemunde in 1943 and then, Israel-style, proceeded to pummel warehouses, storage facilities, rail tracks and launch sites connected with the V-weapons.

As well as re-discovering the political spine necessary to defend ourselves, we need to rapidly build up our missile defences. That’s not going to be achieved by decades of the glacial procurement processes for which the Ministry of Defence is infamous. It would be a good idea to follow the German example of buying Arrow off the shelf from Israel. But wait, the Government has an arms embargo against the Israelis.

Perhaps, however, we should not be listening to the pro-Hamas hordes on our streets (just four per cent of Brits supported Hamas in a YouGov poll in March, while over half said they had at least some sympathy for Israel). We might rather consider our own national security interests instead of performatively attacking an ally in need – an ally that can also help us.

It’s past time for joined up strategic thinking plus some Churchillian “action this day”.

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 26 June 2025. © Richard Kemp

Only those who don’t understand Middle East politics will take seriously reports that some Arab leaders and diplomats are concerned about Israel’s recent pre-emptive action against Iran. This mostly amounts to posturing for the benefit of their own populations. Many of their people are vehemently against Israel, for religious reasons but also to a large extent due to their governments’ own anti-Israel indoctrination from previous times.

It is a similar position to the one Western European governments find themselves in. Keir Starmer’s false criticisms and actions against Israel, such as arms suspension and sanctions, are surely due not to genuine concerns about Israel but the need to bolster support among Labour’s electorate, much of which is vehemently anti-Israel.

Arab leaders are well aware of the dangers they face from Iran. The ayatollahs are most vocal against Israel but they hate the Sunni Arab states just as much, if not more. This is more than mere rhetoric. Iran’s proxies have attacked the UAE and Saudi Arabia in recent years and Iran itself attacked US bases in Iraq and a few days ago in Qatar. Meanwhile Iran has for years been working to subvert Jordan and use it as a base of attack against Israel.

An Iranian nuclear capability threatened Arab countries as well as Israel. For years Israel has been understood to possess a nuclear capability. The Arabs knew that presented no threat to them. Only as the Iranian nuclear programme gained momentum did several countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, begin to seriously investigate acquiring their own nuclear capability.

With the exception of Iran itself and Syria, Israel has not attacked any country in the region and the Arabs know it will not. All of its offensive operations, in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, have been only against Iranian proxies that have attacked Israel.

In the case of Syria, which is formally at war with Israel, the destruction of much of its military capability was a necessary defensive action to counter a potentially developing threat.

And today Israel and the new regime in Syria have a constant dialogue with talk of al-Julani normalising relationships and even potentially joining the Abraham Accords. That of course remains precarious, to say the least, but is perhaps symptomatic of a new reality in the Middle East that is forming as a result of Israel’s strong defence against Iranian aggression.

With talk of Arab fears of Israel, what’s been happening on the other side of the ledger? When Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel in April last year, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain joined in its defence. And behind the scenes many Arab countries have been quietly cheering Israel on in its war against Hamas in Gaza. Some have provided practical support. They want Israel to prevail in Gaza because they also fear the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot. They know that if Hamas prevails it will encourage jihadists in their own countries.

The main motivation for Arab countries joining the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration was Israel’s military strength and Benjamin Netanyahu’s willingness to use it. That was bolstered by Obama’s apparent abandonment of America’s Sunni allies in favour of strengthening Iran. If America could no longer be relied upon to shield them from Iranian aggression, Israel could be. That has been redoubled in the recent 12-day war. This makes an expansion of the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries much more likely. They may have confidence in the current US administration, but what about the future? They may not fall in love with Israel but they do know that it has no choice but to remain the strong horse forever.