The case I made on @BBCr4today at 0720 was this. The disclosure of all documents and messages relating to the Mandelson appointment is vital. But the ISC requirement here goes much wider and (perhaps inadvertently) risks collateral damage to UK diplomacy. isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/u...
Prescriptive, and politically instrumental, debates about British values will struggle to capture this intrinsic plurality of experiences that Britishness encompasses.
This commentary rightly highlights the fluidity of national identities: they are contested, reshaped over time. The debate about defining Britishness as a national identity is also complex as the UK is a pluri-national state, & with many overlapping factors shaping personal identity experiences.
Collective defence agreements with Global South states are clearly a non-starter - if indeed that is what Polanski was trying to articulate (not entirely clear) - but all the effort to enhance European defence can be done without leaving NATO.
This by @georgeeaton.bsky.social neatly summarises the Green Party’s NATO own goal. I wonder why they’ve persisted for so long with a stance more extreme, unworkable & presumably off-putting-to-voters, than they needed to in cementing the left-of-Labour vote. www.newstatesman.com/politics/gre...
This is an interesting essay. I think two things missing are (1) assessment of international security risks posed by China and (2) the continuing importance of hard power, notwithstanding the value of pursuing broad multilateral and normative diplomacy.
Corbyn: “An independent foreign policy is one that understands all of the challenges we face: global inequality, displacement and environmental disaster.” Are they really *all* the UK’s challenges? And there’s an implicit assumption, I think, that greater moral clarity is enough to achieve outcomes.
Good @nytimes.com story about recent US use of cyber capabilities as part of integrated operations, particularly noteworthy emphasis on complementarity and the challenge of building a cyber force. www.nytimes.com/2026/01/27/u...
This is a persuasive case. I also think liberal democracies need to adopt a pro-active, aggressive threat-hunting approach to identifying and extirpating influence/information operations by hostile state actors. You could call it a campaigning, persistent engagement approach.
If done well, and properly resourced, this could improve UK counter-cybercrime efforts.
There’s a good case for a bicameral system leading to more considered legislation. If the elected first chamber employs a legitimacy argument against the unelected second, there’s an obvious solution that a government with a commanding majority could decide to pursue. What might it be?
I think much of what this oped advocates could be achieved without leaving NATO, and that leaving NATO would make the UK’s current situation worse. But its arguments about the need for the UK to reduce reliance on the US are fair.
The UK clearly needs to invest in greater independence of capabilities, and intensify cooperation with the NATO MSs that believe in the principles of the NAT, but similarly there’s a strong argument for leaving the diplomatic space to salvage the US relationship post-Trump. Calibration is key.
Worth separating the fact that it could well be smart politics domestically for Polanski to secure this NS oped today, harnessing anti-Trump sentiment as Starmer tries to walk a tight rope, & that some of his arguments (unilateral abolition of nuclear deterrent), are much less smart for UK strategy.
The Trump cyber boast is obviously classic him, but we now know a lot more about how governments think about this than, say, a decade ago, both from deliberate public statements, and then from the larger body of unattributable leaks to media, which obviously require careful interpretation.
Definitely worth reading this alongside listening to @thegrugq.bsky.social & Tom Uren’s recent discussion of the same topic - role of cyber capabilities in the Venezuela raid. Top line: cyber operations contributed, that wasn’t surprising, & shouldn’t be the main takeaway from the raid.
Two big things have changed since the SDR was published. One is the more tangible commitment to putting a brigade-sized force into Ukraine. The second is falling trust in the United States, esp post-Greenland. Both could put huge stress on UK defence.
bsky.app/profile/shas...
I think, if you are under fire for lots of U-turns, you should reflect before you repeatedly use the phrase “we are turning the country around.” And around. And around.
This is persuasive, both re: the U-turns and also in the other recent stories about different policy/strategy views emerging in the leadership challenge conversations, and new initiatives to foster intellectual debates across the party. They all highlight the shortcomings of the current centre.
This is a good report about Iranian government efforts to control internet access, including the most recent and most severe cut off during the current protests.
And you need for your MPs to not be increasingly of the view that you yourself are, in fact, a barnacle.
This is an interesting analysis of how treaty commitments would shape NATO member states’ responses to a US attack on Denmark. I wonder about the likelihood of a different scenario - not an attack but a declared fait accompli - and what the response of Denmark’s allies would be in practice.
Link here to a commentary I wrote recently on this topic, which I think provides some useful context for how the UK cyber strategy has evolved and why a more implementation-focused approach is a good idea in principle. bsky.app/profile/joed...
This is a good report on the latest details about the emerging UK government cyber security refresh, with good expert comments too. The language is positive, but I think Jamie sounds the right note of scepticism in his quoted remarks.
Nothing says Christmas week like sitting down to read about the ghosts of cybersecurity strategies past, present, and yet to come. With thanks to @lawfaremedia.org for publishing.
Two more examples: shielded Jonathan Powell from all but one begrudging private JCNSS meeting (no good reason not to appear, it’s just because he can); & recent ISC report indicates its budget/staff/remit could/should be better. Quick wins for a government serious about doing scrutiny better.
The big aid cut was always going to have international security implications, once decisions started to be made about where it fell. Is this the first reported impact on the UK’s international cyber priorities too?
Exclusive: The UK's elections watchdog says it's taken three years and at least a quarter of a million pounds to fully recover from a hack that saw the private details of 40m voters accessed by Chinese cyber spies. www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/...
RUSI @rusi.bsky.social invited experts to discuss strengthening UK cyber defences ahead of the new cyber strategy.
Dr @joedevanny.bsky.social emphasises doing more with existing resources through strategic collaboration across government, industry & international partners.
🔗Read: bit.ly/423GwQT
