The UK is moving onto a war footing— and Russia  is the reason why. This isn’t just about troops or  

weapons anymore. It’s about preparing the entire  country for conflict. Behind the scenes, a Cold  

War–era plan is being revived—updated for modern  warfare, and built to keep Britain functioning  

under sustained attack. It covers everything:  infrastructure, supply chains, civilian response,  

and how the state operates when normal rules  no longer apply. At the center of it all is  

a document most people have never heard of— The  Government War Book. This comprehensive document  

lays out exactly how the UK will deal with a new  war against Russia – but not just for the nation’s  

armed forces. It’s a strategy for building  resilience across the entire society. Let’s  

take a look at what this secret plan is all about,  and how it fits into the growing preparations for  

war against Russia. The revival of the Government  War Book was revealed by the UK’s defense chief,  

Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, at  the London Defense Conference in April 2026.  

Asked in an interview about whether the UK was  reviving the old government war book, he said: “I  

think that's right.” He also described what that  would look like. “NATO describes the transition  

to conflict as a military component, but it also  has a civilian component,” the defense chief said.  

Civilians, he said, need to be aware that the  relative peace the UK has enjoyed over the past  

30 years is under increasing threat. During the  Cold War, the UK considered its main threat to  

be a Russian invasion or full-scale nuclear war.  But times have changed, and so have the threats.  

As Knighton explains, “That requires us to educate  ourselves and help the population understand some  

of those threats and help them understand what  they can do to support the nation and potentially  

support the armed forces.” That’s exactly what the  new War Book is intended to do: build resilience  

across the whole of society so that the UK will  be able to prevail in a new conflict with Russia.  

According to Knighton, the updated iteration  draws on lessons from the Cold War but “in a  

modern context, with a modern society, with modern  infrastructure.” So, what does this plan entail?  

Well, it’s still being drawn up, and like its  predecessors, it’s likely to be highly classified.  

But we can get a good idea of the framework from  previous iterations. The original War Book emerged  

during the First World War, and was maintained  throughout the Twentieth Century. The primary  

assumption throughout the Cold War period was that  the main threat was an attack by the Soviet Union.  

Nothing’s changed today, except the official name  of the aggressor nation. Back in 2009, renowned  

British historian Peter Hennessy convinced UK  authorities to give him access to a Cold War-era  

version of the plan. Hennessy – or to use his full  title, Baron Hennessy of Nympsfield, FBA – has  

been the Attlee Professor of Contemporary British  History at Queen Mary University of London since  

2001. He also serves as a crossbench peer in the  UK’s House of Lords. Hennessy was amazed by the  

contents, telling the BBC's Today program that  “The surprise really is the width and magnitude  

of it – 16 chapters to get the nation from a  peacetime footing to a total war footing. It is  

a remarkable enterprise.” Over those 16 chapters,  the document gives precise plans and instructions  

for the steps British officials would take both  during the build-up to a confrontation and after  

the bombs started falling. It covers these steps  in mind-boggling detail, on the assumption that  

they’d need to be implemented with as little as  seven to 28 days’ notice. According to the plans,  

the country would have been divided into 12  regions, each governed by cabinet ministers  

with wide powers. They would be aided by senior  military officers, chief constables, and judges  

– all based in bunkers. Other senior figures  would have retreated to a central government  

shelter under the Cotswolds. From these protected  positions, an entirely new system of local,  

regional, and central government would be put  in place. Parliament could vote on essentially  

abolishing itself, replacing the centralized  democratic government with a series of “Regional  

Commissioners.” These were Ministers who would  have absolute control over one of the now devolved  

regions of the UK, including the power to approve  death sentences. The volumes of the War Book in  

the Archives at Kew also contain extensive files  covering how to close motorways, how to draw  

up stockpiles of food, and how to put in place  wartime broadcasting arrangements. The documents  

also describe in detail feeding arrangements, the  necessity of maintaining large stockpiles of basic  

foods, and give guidance to farmers on how to  protect their herds from radiation. Extensive  

supplies, stockpiles, and facilities were to be  put in place to support the transition to war.  

This included emergency feeding equipment to cover  survivors, including basic foodstuffs held in 65  

“buffer” depots nationwide. Most utility companies  maintained war stocks. For example, British  

Telecom, or BT, had emergency depots containing  stockpiles of cables and poles that could be used  

to reestablish communication networks. Many local  BT exchanges also had on-site stores and food,  

as well as emergency bricks to build a temporary  fallout shelter. These formed part of an extensive  

and highly resilient communication infrastructure  put in place across the UK. This infrastructure  

included hardened facilities, underground bunkers,  microwave towers, and emergency networks designed  

to bypass nuclear-devastated cities. The plans  even went as far as the removal of art treasures  

from London to Scotland, the emptying of hospitals  of all but the most acutely ill, and blanket  

information control – aka censorship. Indeed, as  a former civil servant, Sir David Omand, who was  

involved in the planning, recalls, “My favorite  measure, the one which always aroused a lot of  

debate … was the introduction of censorship for  private correspondence. You can imagine that was  

something that ministers would only agree to right  at the very end when it was clear that war was  

inevitable.” We could go on and on. The attention  to detail in the War Book is truly astounding. Of  

course, as the nature of warfare and the threats  faced by the UK evolved over the years, so did the  

War Book. Regular exercises based on the book were  held every two years by senior civil servants like  

Omand, bolstered by daily internal briefings and  ongoing national preparedness schemes such as the  

stockpiling of food and building materials for  shelters. The process of maintaining, refining,  

and implementing appropriate measures on the  basis of the War Book continued for decades.  

The measures in the War Book became part of  the everyday fabric of British life. And then,  

just like that, the Soviet Union crumbled, and  the primary threat to the UK subsided into more or  

less irrelevance. And with it went the UK’s focus  on war preparedness. The headline numbers tell  

the tale. In the 1950s, government spending on  public health amounted to around 3 percent of GDP.  

By 2020, it was around 12 percent. Conversely,  defense spending fell from nearly 8 percent of  

GDP in the mid-1950s to roughly 2.3 percent today.  The result? From a military perspective, to use  

the phrase coined by current UK Defense Secretary  John Healey and his predecessor Ben Wallace,  

the UK’s Armed Forces have been “hollowed out” by  years of underfunding. At the peak of its powers,  

the British Empire was the most powerful nation  on the planet – a hegemon whose empire ruled over  

a quarter of the world’s population and a quarter  of its land area. The British Navy – the primary  

means of projecting power globally – was larger  than the next two largest navies combined. The  

total size of the UK’s regular Armed Forces in  1990 was roughly 305,000 to 311,000 personnel,  

not 150,000. Additionally, the force was not “half  the size” of the 1980 force, which stood at around  

327,000. It appears the script may have confused  the size of the entire Armed Forces with that of  

the British Army alone, which was roughly 152,000  personnel in 1990. To be sure, the UK is still  

considered to be the sixth most powerful military  in the world, behind the U.S., Russia, China,  

India, and South Korea. Its nuclear arsenal,  large network of global bases, array of advanced  

weaponry, and enduring soft power mean that very  few powers can compete despite its decline. Still,  

the numbers make unpleasant reading. In the  1980s, the Army had more than 1,000 main  

battle tanks. Today, it has about 200, of which  perhaps half are serviceable. For reference,  

Russia has already lost over 4,300 to date in  Ukraine. The Royal Navy has taken a few (verbal)  

shots from President Donald Trump, who described  its two aircraft carriers – HMS Prince of Wales  

and HMS Queen Elizabeth – as “toys” that are “too  old” and “don't work.” UK Defense Minister Luke  

Pollard dismissed Trump’s claims, saying, “No,  we’ve got a strong Royal Navy.” But Trump does  

have somewhat of a point. The Royal Navy is  often said to have more admirals – 40 – than  

warships – about 13. And although its two aircraft  carriers are designed for 36 fighter jets,  

neither has carried more than eighteen because of  a shortage of suitable aircraft. Now, from the end  

of the Cold War up until early 2022, outside of  certain minority circles, the “hollowing out” of  

the British armed forces was basically not much of  a concern for the average Brit. Most seemed quite  

happy with increased government spending on public  health and other public services, even if that  

came at the cost of what was euphemistically  described as a “leaner military.” After all,  

with a weakened Russia and the threat of terrorist  attacks from Islamic jihadis largely contained,  

imminent threats to British security had all but  vanished. The meticulous planning in the War Books  

was put on a shelf to gather dust, and the very  idea of cultivating wartime resilience largely  

disappeared from public and private discourse. The  meticulous preparations painstakingly compiled,  

rehearsed, and revised over decades had made  the UK one of the nation's best-prepared for  

conflict. But it didn’t matter anymore. Peacetime  had arrived, and it was here to stay. Or at least  

that’s how it seemed. Then Russia invaded Ukraine  in February 2022, and the Russian threat cast its  

ominous shadow over the British Isles once  more. During the war, the UK has, of course,  

been one of Ukraine’s most involved allies.  From February 2022 until February 2026, the  

UK has pledged at least £21.8 billion to Ukraine,  worth around $29.5 billion. Almost 60 percent of  

that – $17.66 billion – has been direct military  aid, with a further $4.06 billion pledged annually  

until 2030/31, or “for as long as it takes.”  The UK has also trained over 62,000 Ukrainian  

personnel in the UK under Operation INTERFLEX. A  landmark battlefield technology sharing agreement  

was signed in June 2025. And production of drones  for Ukraine under joint ventures between Ukrainian  

and British companies is growing. A partnership  between Ukrainian company Skyeton and the UK’s  

Prevail Partners aims to scale up production  of Skyeton’s battle-tested Raybird drone at  

Prevail’s UK-based facilities. Meanwhile, mass  production of Ukrainian Octopus-100 interceptor  

drones under another UK/Ukrainian joint venture  called Project Octopus began in the UK in January  

2026 at a new factory in Mildenhall. The facility,  which is operated by the Ukrainian manufacturer  

Ukrspecsystems UK, aims to produce thousands  of drones per month. The first drones were  

sent to Ukraine for testing in January 2026, with  successful flights reported. Tired of seeing the  

same stories and the same tired analysis on every  military news channel? Here on the Military Show,  

we dig deeper, putting the stories into context  and explaining why they matter. Subscribe to the  

channel so you always understand exactly what’s  going on and why. Now, with the high level of  

military involvement we’ve just outlined, not to  mention the mountain of diplomatic, financial,  

and humanitarian support that the UK has provided  to Ukraine, it’s not surprising that the Russians  

have taken a rather dim view of it all. In fact,  Russia’s concerns about the UK seem to have  

slipped into outright paranoia. In the aftermath  of Ukraine’s audacious Operation Spiderweb in June  

2025, Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Andrey Kelin,  accused the UK of being involved in organizing the  

multi-pronged attack on Russian strategic  airfields. In an interview with Sky News,  

he said that the success of the operation required  access to “high-tech geospatial data” that only  

the United States and the United Kingdom possess.  The U.S. had denied involvement, he said – but  

the UK hadn’t. “We know very well how involved  London is, how deeply British troops are involved  

in cooperation with Ukraine,” he added. A few  months later, Russia’s SVR intelligence agency  

went a step further, claiming that the UK was  the world’s biggest “warmonger” and engaged in  

actively undermining Trump’s attempts to negotiate  peace. “It is time to expose them and send a clear  

signal to the treacherous Albion and its elites:  you will not succeed,” they stated threateningly.  

Added to this increasingly aggressive Russian  rhetoric are increasing reports of Russian “gray  

warfare” or “hybrid warfare” operations across  Europe and in the UK. These include cyberattacks,  

economic pressure, disinformation campaigns,  drone incursions, sabotage, and disruption  

of infrastructure. Most recently, the UK accused  Russia of conducting a covert submarine operation  

threatening the UK’s undersea cables and pipes.  According to British Secretary of State for  

Defence John Healey, the operation lasted over a  month, although no cables were ultimately damaged.  

However, together with allies, the UK had tracked  “every mile” of the deployment involving three  

Russian submarines: an Akula-class and a pair of  Main Directorate for Deep Sea Research, or GUGI,  

surveillance subs. Other than a satellite image  of the three ships leaving Russia’s Olenya port,  

purportedly heading for British waters, no hard  evidence has been presented to support the claims.  

Russia dismissed the claim as “impossible to  either believe or verify [… which] apparently,  

is precisely its purpose.” Taken in isolation,  they may have a point. But it’s not an isolated  

incident. Incidents of potential or actual Russian  sabotage of critical infrastructure, cyberattacks,  

drone incursions, and similar “hybrid war”  provocations certainly appear to be on the  

increase. So, you can see why a growing number  of European and British officials have convinced  

themselves that once Russia is done in Ukraine, it  will turn its aggressive intentions towards NATO.  

And the warnings have become ever more frequent  and stark as the war in Ukraine has developed.  

For example, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of  the General Staff of the British Army, warned in  

May 2025 that the threat to NATO is “real” and  emphasized a “lack of time” in preparing for  

future Russian aggression. Newly-appointed head of  British intelligence agency MI6 Blaise Metreweli  

described Russia as “aggressive, expansionist,  and revisionist” in her first public speech in  

December 2025, asserting that Putin seeks to  subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. Knighton  

himself stated in December 2025 that the situation  is “more dangerous than I have known during my  

career.” He called for a “whole society” approach  to defense in the face of growing uncertainty and  

threats, highlighting an increased probability  of Russia invading a NATO country. Now,  

the revitalization of the War Book pulls that  call firmly into reality. The UK has already taken  

significant steps to overhaul its armed forces and  bring them back to a state of wartime readiness as  

quickly as possible. Defense spending is on the  rise. Sir Keir Starmer’s government has committed  

to an increase to 2.7 percent of GDP by 2027 –  a total of around £270 billion, or $365 billion.  

That will be followed by an increase to 3 percent  “in the next parliament,” and 3.5 percent by 2035.  

A New National Defense Strategy has been  unveiled, which highlights Russia as the UK’s  

primary threat. And a critical 10-year Defense  Investment Plan is eagerly – or impatiently,  

in many cases – awaited. On the military front,  things are moving rapidly. But it’s not just the  

military that needs to be geared up for war.  War affects the entire country – government,  

business, and ordinary people. And if the UK  military is, by its own admission, not ready  

for war at this point, British society is even  more unprepared. That’s why the new War Book is  

such an important step. It signals a fundamental  change in posture – from defense to resilience.  

The difference has far-reaching implications.  Defense is about trying to stop threats,  

while resilience assumes that some threats will  land — and focuses on absorbing and recovering  

from them. The War Books of the Cold War era  considered two main threats – nuclear war and  

an actual invasion of the UK by Russian forces.  Measures to improve resilience were thus based  

around these threats. Today’s War Book must  counter an entirely new range of threats,  

ranging from cyberwarfare and severed undersea  communication cables to attacks by long-range  

drone and missile swarms. According to Knighton,  protecting critical national infrastructure such  

as power stations and water supplies will  be central to the new approach. “[…] When we  

think about renewing our water infrastructure  or electricity or transport infrastructure,  

[we need] to think about the threat of action from  an adversary that is above the threshold of war,  

not just a hybrid threat," he said. “That requires  us to educate ourselves and help the population  

understand some of those threats and help them  understand what they can do to support the nation  

and potentially support the Armed Forces,"  he added. But perhaps most telling is his  

remark that the process of building resilience  “requires making some different choices and  

different priorities.” The statement suggests  that resilience might involve some fundamental  

changes to life in the UK, including some that  might be hard for many to swallow. It remains  

to be seen whether the new War Book is quite as  comprehensive as its predecessors. Perhaps AI  

and other modern technologies can streamline what  was, by all accounts, a time-consuming and costly  

process. In addition to strengthening protection  of critical infrastructure, the new plan is likely  

to involve increasing domestic production  capacity, especially in defense and energy.  

Like in previous iterations of the War Book,  much greater coordination between industry and  

government will be required. More controversially,  reserve and mobilization frameworks will almost  

certainly need to be revised. Conscription  may be considered. And perhaps most crucially,  

mass public awareness campaigns about national  security risks will be required. Along with them,  

expect to see increasing information control and  censorship. As Russia is currently discovering  

with massive public outrage over Moscow’s blocking  of the messenger app Telegram, even in wartime,  

such measures don’t tend to go down well. But  perhaps the most crucial change is psychological.  

With the reimplementation of the War Book, the  UK isn’t just preparing for war. In many senses,  

it’s redefining what “security” means in the 21st  century. Of course, the UK is far from alone in  

adjusting to the new multi-layered global threat  environment. Countries like Sweden, Finland,  

and Germany have published emergency preparedness  guides, advising citizens to stockpile food,  

water, and medicine. France is preparing to  release a new 30-page civil defense manual,  

although officials insist it is not specifically  related to war. Germany has also updated its  

emergency preparedness recommendations, advising  people to stockpile 10 days’ worth of essentials.  

Poland has built border barriers and introduced  firearm training in schools. And countries like  

Lithuania and Estonia are conducting large-scale  military and medical emergency exercises,  

preparing hospitals for wartime, and stockpiling  critical medical supplies. While few seem to have  

gone as far as the UK’s War Book, the shift to  a new model of defense posturing across Europe  

is clear. In this new model, war isn’t an event  but a condition. The frontline isn’t a place but  

a system. And the participants aren’t just  soldiers but the whole of society. And that  

changes everything, because once a nation changes  its headspace in this way, it doesn’t easily  

reverse. Now, if you’re living in a large UK city,  starting to panic about the imminent prospect of  

war with Russia – don’t. Preparing for war doesn’t  necessarily mean it’s going to happen. As the  

Latin maxim goes, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”. If  you want peace, prepare for war. It’s not that the  

UK and the other European nations starting to get  serious about defense and resilience, expecting  

war imminently. At this point, there’s as much  evidence that the cacophony of warnings about an  

imminent Russian attack is motivated by lucrative  defense procurement contracts as genuine Russian  

intent. War may be imminent, or it may not.  What resilience-enhancing moves like the dusting  

off the War Book really signal is that the UK no  longer assumes that peace is stable and reliable.  

Given the growing tensions and military flare-ups  around the world, it would be naïve to assume  

otherwise. And when a nation – especially one as  powerful as the UK – stops assuming stability,  

it starts behaving differently. It starts building  resilience – systematically and at scale. The  

reintroduction of the War Book indicates that the  UK is emerging strongly from decades of military  

slumber. No wonder the Russians are in such a  flap. For more details on how that resilience is  

being built into the UK’s defense forces, check  out this video next. And thanks for watching.