The UK’s strategic defence review will place a significant focus on homeland security in light of increasing global risks and Russian aggression, according to Defence Minister Luke Pollard.
His comments were made during a parliamentary exchange on the evolving security landscape and the UK’s approach to safeguarding its critical infrastructure.
Responding to a question from Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham, Pollard highlighted the review’s expanded scope to address domestic threats alongside the UK’s NATO commitments.
Akehurst stated, “I welcome the strength of the response on protecting our undersea infrastructure. The Defence Secretary has been clear that growing Russian aggression will not be tolerated here or in Ukraine. Will the Minister confirm that homeland security will be a key focus of the strategic defence review?”
Pollard affirmed this, saying, “We live in more difficult and uncertain times, with increasing risks to UK homeland security. That is an evolution from some of the strategic assessments in previous reviews.” He underscored that the review would take a dual approach—supporting NATO allies while bolstering domestic capabilities.
“It is for that reason that the strategic defence review is looking not only at how we support our NATO allies, with a NATO-first approach, but at how we invest in capabilities to ensure that we are looking after the UK homeland—and, Mr Speaker, the UK homeland includes our overseas territories,” Pollard added.
Pollard’s comments suggest that the strategic defence review will likely expand beyond traditional military concerns to address hybrid threats, critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, and emerging challenges posed by state and non-state actors.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Interesting there, that a Minister consciously chose to draw attention to the overseas territories.
We can’t really build up more in the Falklands, maybe an expansion of Gib to take T31s is on the cards?
Maybe Cyprus also?
Both are vital. As are some of our M East sites.
Forward based T31, and in numbers, and FSS are the key to implementing a strategy of global ‘defence engagement’. A friendly base in the Gulf of Guinea might be nice.
HMG keep on with this NATO first thing.
We have been NATO first for decades, it is not new.
Homeland defence is all well and good as long as our expeditionary offensive capabilities are not diminished.
We are not a self defence force, we must be able to project military power.
I would have thought that the utter failure of projecting force to Iraq Afghanistan and Libya would put us off such interventions in future. Commitment to NATO including the far north plus our overseas territories is a fairly substantial one that will of necessity entail some expeditionary capacity. But beefing up our own resilience in the face of Russian threats must be more important than sending some token force to Asia/Pacific.
I would say Afghanistan had succeeded until the Donald threw away a won war.
Given the effect on Russia it may have been Putin’s price for his support in 2016.
Agreed.
This seems to be a change of emphasis, away from the IR global Britain theme and the move to expeditionary capability set out in the 1998 Defence Review. But we have so many approved equipment programmes underway, as well as an uncompleted reorganisation of the army to Future Soldier, which are already stretching the budget, that it is hard to see exactly what changes could be achieved before,say, 2030.
Increasing lethality, not just of ground forces, might be possible – improving missile capability of existing platforms for example- and earlier hints of a new order of Typhoons to restore some of the capacity lost by the RAF since 2010 would be welcome.
AUKUS and Tempest will require substantial funding so it is not at all clear what further major enhancements could be afforded over the next few years.
Pretty much.
Beware the words ‘National security’ for they are the words of the eternal oppressor.
Love is the answer ❤️
Love is indeed the answer, delivered by a 7.62 gimpy in the SF role.
Well as you’re a political warfare operative for an authoritarian regime who disappears and kills dissidents to protect your regime you would know a shed load about oppression. Guess what some of us read Mao as well…so shove this up your political warfare pipe
“Our People’s Government is one that genuinely represents the people’s interests; it is a government that serves the people. Nevertheless, there are still certain contradictions between the government and the people. These include contradictions among the interests of the state, the interests of the collective and the interests of the individual; between democracy and centralism;”
Hiya Jonathan
Bonhoeffer’s theory of stupidity tells us that a mixture of propaganda, fear and ideology makes people stupid which is really dangerous because evil can be reasoned with but stupidity can’t.
The ‘National security’ quote is one of Voltaire’s,
A German and a Frenchman, both educated and intelligent, you seem educated Jonathan, but alas unintelligent.
Peace is the only way ♾️❤️☮️
And you my friend seem very focused on your goals…which is clearly the subversive of the west…but poor show on your part as insults really don’t work well for the subversive, when your out in the open you have failed.
Sounds like the carriers are gone…
They will not get ‘rid of the carriers
Sounds like the government will be investing more in Cyber and checking under sea cables. Both cheap to do, generate lots of media traffic and are pretty much nothing to do with the military.
Hope I’m wrong and we see some investment in more fighter aircraft, more E7’s and a theatre level GBAD system with ABM capability.
They’ve said that quite a few things will be covered by the review, but they won’t commit money in the short-term. I’m starting to think they’re just saying ‘we’re looking at this and we’re looking at that too’ in order to take the pressure off. They can’t fund everything.
Hopefully the focus on home security will be practical measures:
1) GBAD, including Defense against IRBMs
2) patrol craft for undersea infrastructure and mine warfare
3) ASW
4) AEW
5) fast jet fleet
6) air launched ASMs
As well as ensuring the RN has the capability to protect sea lanes and the army can support European allies.
+ Cyber. We should prepare for more attacks on our western lifestyle; on-line banking, on-line groceries, supermarket logistics, airline booking systems. A long list of ways to test our patience and wound our economy.
The west don’t need any help being stupid Jonathan, take a look around.
As for insults, you started it, but mine obviously hit home. 😉
I might not agree with most of what you say but I would fight to the death for your right to say it. 🫶✌️
Mobile forces can set up in homeland or somewhere else.
Can’t wait to see the 15inch guns lining the coast.
Hopefully CAMM-MR makes progress soon , a 100km range SAM will go a long way towards GBAD.
Tempest will add an almost bomber like capability and involvement in ELSA should be an easy way of putting large numbers of 1000-2000km range cruise missiles on ground based launchers, and if they are easily transportable by A400 and C17 then conventional deterrence will be moving in the right direction.
Generally speaking the Mods actions and aquisitions have never deveated from prioritising defence of the nation.
The mod continues to acquire and maintain and prioritise heavy equipment that is very labour and cost intensive to deploy abroad….the majority of it stays here for home defense which is the Mods intention and the basis of a state maintaining a ‘defence force’.
It’s not a mystery and it doesn’t require a strategic review….it’s just the mod experts prioritising natural defence of the nation with very heavy vehicles that fickle politics can’t easily over deploy.
I’ve felt vulnerable at some of our overseas territories recently. It seems we’re reliant more on strong words than kinetics to keep things as they are.
The general weakness of UKAF casts doubt over the effectiveness of our conventional deterrence.
Home land security with a government like this don’t make me laugh 🤗 🙄