Picture courtesy of UK Foreign Office

 

Blaise Metreweli, the new MI6 chief, will address the "acute threat posed by Russia" in her debut public speech today. She will highlight concerns over hybrid warfare, including cyber attacks and the suspected use of drones by Russian proxies targeting critical infrastructure. Metreweli will firmly describe Russia as aggressive and expansionist, insisting that Britain will maintain pressure on President Vladimir Putin amidst the ongoing war in Ukraine.

 

Since stepping into her role on 1 October, Metreweli has been focusing on modern threats and the importance of technology. Sanctions against Russian entities for information warfare and cyber activities from China-based companies have been pivotal points in Britain's strategy. With Russia's economy shifting its exports to China and India due to sanctions, Putin remains unwavering in his campaign against Ukraine.

 

Metreweli's speech will also discuss the importance of technology in intelligence work. Having a background from MI6's Q Branch, she stresses the need for intelligence officers to be adept in technology, noting the importance of understanding programming languages like Python. She stresses the challenge spies face with advanced data systems that can expose false identities instantly.

 

Elsewhere, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, will advocate for a "whole of society approach" towards national resilience against growing threats. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London, Knighton will emphasise that national defence requires participation beyond the military and involves the entire nation’s resources, from universities to the NHS.

 

Knighton plans to address the skills gap and announce a £50 million investment in new defence technical excellence colleges. He underscores the urgency of building national resilience given the turbulent global landscape. Recent discussions in the UK have been compared to plans in France and Germany regarding national service, reflecting a rising debate on how to tackle growing international uncertainties, reported the BBC.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• Blaise Metreweli, MI6 chief, highlights Russia's threat via hybrid warfare.
• Emphasises technology’s role in modern espionage and national resilience.
• Sir Richard Knighton calls for a societal approach to bolster the UK’s defence.

 

Related story:

Breaking Barriers: Blaise Metreweli Becomes First Woman to Lead MI6

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-12-15

 

 

 

Should the UK stop waging war with Russia? All great fun for the left when they were blasting ultra high tech missiles at Russia - yay Putin will be gone in 24 hours. Yet now its clear even to the most gullible msm consumer that Russia overwhelmingly has the upper hand. Should the UK say "sorry Vlad we got carried away in the moment, we have taken a hard L please forgive us" and hope he understands.

Brits should not be surprised when Russia retaliates. 

56 minutes ago, webfact said:

insisting that Britain will maintain pressure on President Vladimir Putin amidst the ongoing war in Ukraine.

 

How's that been working out since this 2022 battle map published by CNN?  Hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides since then, because BoJo and the Neocons convinced Zelensky to keep sending kids into the meat grinder.  And give them just enough to keep the war going.

 

 

I'm pleased that Europe and the UK are finally stepping up and spending their money to defend themselves instead of counting on the US taxpayer to carry them.  It's about time.  But I get the sense that they won't be satisfied until they spark off WW3 and nuclear Armageddon.

It's years past time to stop the killing and dying and start the rebuilding in Ukraine.  Then ask yourself, are the people in the area really worse off than they were under Ukraine- which was and is arguably the most corrupt gub'ment in Europe?  (The people...  Not the politicians and grifters) 

 

This isn't a Nazi war of lebensraum.  Nobody's being annihilated or enslaved to make room for the master race.

They still can't forget their failure in Turkestan in 1920. They are seeking a revenge.

 

"Britain Turkestan India failure" refers to key episodes where British policy, military action, or colonial administration in Central and South Asia resulted in significant negative outcomes or did not achieve their strategic objectives. These events include the British military mission to Turkestan during the Russian Civil War and the chaotic and violent Partition of India.

The British Military Mission to Turkestan (1918–1920)

This mission, led by Major-General Sir Wilfrid Malleson, was a British intelligence operation launched during the Russian Civil War with the goal of preventing German and Turkish forces, and later Bolshevik forces, from gaining control of Central Asia and threatening the security of British India.

Objective: To establish a buffer against the spread of German and Turkish influence and to counter Russian expansion towards the "jewel in the Imperial Crown," India.

Failure: The mission failed in its primary objective of rallying local forces to the British cause and establishing a strong, pro-British presence. Malleson later publicly criticized the British government for failing to recognize his mission's services and for the overall lack of success in achieving its strategic goals in the region. The number of troops involved was small, the political situation complex and rapidly changing, and ultimately the mission achieved little lasting strategic success.

The Partition of India (1947)

The British withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent, culminating in the Partition of British India into the independent dominions of India and Pakistan (which later saw Bangladesh emerge after a civil war), is widely viewed as a significant failure of British imperial policy and administration.

Background: For nearly 200 years, the British employed a "divide and rule" strategy, exacerbating divisions along religious lines to discourage unified campaigns for independence. By the end of World War II, Britain was economically and politically exhausted and could no longer afford to hold onto its colonies.

Failure and Consequences: The British departure was characterized by "reckless haste" and a "botched withdrawal," with the actual geographical boundary (the Radcliffe Line) only revealed after independence was declared. This resulted in:

 

• Massive violence: Widespread communal violence and ethnic cleansing along the new borders.
• Humanitarian crisis: An estimated one million deaths and the displacement of over ten million people (estimates vary).
• Ongoing conflict: The hasty and poorly planned division sowed seeds of discontent that continue to fuel regional tensions and conflicts between India and Pakistan to this day.

These events highlight the challenges and ultimately, the failures of the British Empire in managing decolonization and executing complex strategic objectives in Asia.

2 hours ago, Hakuna Matata said:

They still can't forget their failure in Turkestan in 1920. They are seeking a revenge.

 

"Britain Turkestan India failure" refers to key episodes where British policy, military action, or colonial administration in Central and South Asia resulted in significant negative outcomes or did not achieve their strategic objectives. These events include the British military mission to Turkestan during the Russian Civil War and the chaotic and violent Partition of India.

The British Military Mission to Turkestan (1918–1920)

This mission, led by Major-General Sir Wilfrid Malleson, was a British intelligence operation launched during the Russian Civil War with the goal of preventing German and Turkish forces, and later Bolshevik forces, from gaining control of Central Asia and threatening the security of British India.

Objective: To establish a buffer against the spread of German and Turkish influence and to counter Russian expansion towards the "jewel in the Imperial Crown," India.

Failure: The mission failed in its primary objective of rallying local forces to the British cause and establishing a strong, pro-British presence. Malleson later publicly criticized the British government for failing to recognize his mission's services and for the overall lack of success in achieving its strategic goals in the region. The number of troops involved was small, the political situation complex and rapidly changing, and ultimately the mission achieved little lasting strategic success.

The Partition of India (1947)

The British withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent, culminating in the Partition of British India into the independent dominions of India and Pakistan (which later saw Bangladesh emerge after a civil war), is widely viewed as a significant failure of British imperial policy and administration.

Background: For nearly 200 years, the British employed a "divide and rule" strategy, exacerbating divisions along religious lines to discourage unified campaigns for independence. By the end of World War II, Britain was economically and politically exhausted and could no longer afford to hold onto its colonies.

Failure and Consequences: The British departure was characterized by "reckless haste" and a "botched withdrawal," with the actual geographical boundary (the Radcliffe Line) only revealed after independence was declared. This resulted in:

 

• Massive violence: Widespread communal violence and ethnic cleansing along the new borders.
• Humanitarian crisis: An estimated one million deaths and the displacement of over ten million people (estimates vary).
• Ongoing conflict: The hasty and poorly planned division sowed seeds of discontent that continue to fuel regional tensions and conflicts between India and Pakistan to this day.

These events highlight the challenges and ultimately, the failures of the British Empire in managing decolonization and executing complex strategic objectives in Asia.

 

And the relevance of this anti-British diatribe to the current day threat posed by Russia to the UK is what exactly?

On 12/15/2025 at 1:23 AM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Should the UK stop waging war with Russia? All great fun for the left when they were blasting ultra high tech missiles at Russia - yay Putin will be gone in 24 hours. Yet now its clear even to the most gullible msm consumer that Russia overwhelmingly has the upper hand. Should the UK say "sorry Vlad we got carried away in the moment, we have taken a hard L please forgive us" and hope he understands.

Brits should not be surprised when Russia retaliates. 

What a BS answer. The UK is not firing missiles at anybody. The UK, just the same as other NATO countries, are supplying arms to a friendly nation that was invaded by Russia. What is there for Russia to retaliate against.

15 hours ago, Hakuna Matata said:

These events highlight the challenges and ultimately, the failures of the British Empire in managing decolonization and executing complex strategic objectives in Asia.

How did the de-colonisation of French Indochina go then?

I see a few posters whom are either unpaid agents for Russia are posting again, or are Russians posing as other nationalities.

9 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

I see a few posters whom are either unpaid agents for Russia are posting again, or are Russians posing as other nationalities.

Commies and tankies everywhere, sir Jomtien is stuffed with them. There’s hardly anyone here compared to the days of yore, and you can only imagine how wonderful those days were - new poster as you are. It's nearly chucking out time at the last chance saloon. Thai Visa - RIP. 

On 12/15/2025 at 8:23 AM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Should the UK stop waging war with Russia? All great fun for the left when they were blasting ultra high tech missiles at Russia - yay Putin will be gone in 24 hours. Yet now its clear even to the most gullible msm consumer that Russia overwhelmingly has the upper hand. Should the UK say "sorry Vlad we got carried away in the moment, we have taken a hard L please forgive us" and hope he understands.

Brits should not be surprised when Russia retaliates. 

Who's chucking missiles at Russia? The Ukrainians are, to preserve their sovereignty as outlined in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership,