The next war is not about to begin with tanks rolling across a border or bombs falling from the sky. It has already begun, quietly, and in plain sight.

This was the stark warning issued this week by the House of Commons Defence Committee, whose latest report exposes a reality many in Westminster still seem unwilling to confront: Britain is dangerously unprepared for so-called “grey-zone” threats.

These are not the conventional invasions of old, but rather the murky, persistent tactics of cyberattacks, state-sponsored espionage, sabotage of critical infrastructure, and online disinformation—all carefully calibrated to destabilise without crossing the threshold into open war. The committee’s report describes this campaign as “unrelenting, rapidly evolving, and largely unchallenged.”

It calls for a “whole-of-society” response, recommending the appointment of a dedicated Minister for Homeland Security and the rebuilding of a civil preparedness culture that has long since been eroded. That such a warning needed to be made at all should trouble anyone who still believes Britain is a secure and resilient state.

Indeed, the reality is that our enemies have already adapted to 21st-century conflict. Russia has spent the last decade perfecting its doctrine of hybrid warfare, blending misinformation, cyber sabotage, political interference and economic leverage into a potent cocktail of disruption. China’s vast surveillance apparatus, industrial-scale intellectual property theft, and infiltration of Western research institutions continue almost unimpeded. Even Iran, with far fewer resources, has demonstrated its capacity to strike from afar through proxy attacks and digital subversion.

Meanwhile, Britain clings to a peacetime mentality. Our borders may be manned, but our minds are exposed. Energy grids, water systems, transport hubs, and hospitals, many now reliant on vulnerable digital infrastructure, remain poorly defended. Universities and tech firms are routinely targeted by foreign intelligence services masquerading as students or corporate partners. The public, for the most part, is unaware. The government, the committee suggests, is too often reactive.

What makes this all the more concerning is that much of the threat now resides not in conventional military terms, but in the grey, ambiguous zone between peace and war, where attribution is difficult and retaliation politically complicated. A cyberattack cripples NHS systems: was it criminal, or state sponsored? A power substation mysteriously catches fire: accident, or sabotage? Anonymous bots flood social media with lies during an election: is this just the price of modern politics, or foreign interference?

For the Kremlin or Beijing, this ambiguity is the point. It allows them to destabilise and distract without prompting a formal response. In essence, it is warfare by erosion.

Britain, for all its world-class intelligence services and impressive cyber capability, still lacks a comprehensive doctrine to deal with this threat. The committee’s proposal for a homeland-security minister is long overdue. The post-9/11 security architecture was built to stop terrorists with bombs, not hostile states with laptops. A new portfolio focused solely on defending the home front from these grey-zone incursions is essential if the UK is to mount a serious defence.

But that alone won’t suffice. As the report makes clear, the solution lies not just in government offices and intelligence cells, but in public awareness and civilian resilience. This is where the challenge becomes cultural.

In the Cold War, Britons were encouraged, however grimly, to prepare for the worst. Civil defence was taken seriously. Today, the very idea of encouraging readiness, from digital hygiene to infrastructure hardening, is often derided as alarmist or xenophobic. The British public has been lulled into a false sense of security by decades of relative peace.

The reality is that peace now looks very different. In a world where cyber weapons can travel faster than missiles and influence operations can reach every household through a smartphone, every citizen is on the frontline. The Defence Committee is right: only a whole-of-society effort can meet this threat. That means education, awareness, and readiness, not just among government officials and private firms, but among ordinary people.

The comparison is not lightly made, but Britain must look again to the Cold War model, not to recreate the paranoia of the era, but to rediscover the seriousness with which it approached national resilience. We must relearn the habits of vigilance and deterrence, this time through digital defences, public information campaigns, and firm boundaries for hostile foreign influence.

This is not about militarising society, but about defending it. For too long, grey-zone threats have been met with grey-zone thinking—ambiguous, half-hearted, and slow. The world has changed. The threats are here. The only question now is whether Britain will wake up in time.

____________________________________________________________________________

Read Also: Europe’s Great Illusion: Why the Continent’s Missile Shield Will Crumble Without America

A brutal lesson is being taught daily over the skies of Ukraine. Swarms of Russian drones and volleys of cruise and ballistic missiles rain down on cities and infrastructure, testing not only Ukrainian resolve, but the adequacy of modern air defences in a 21st-century European war.

____________________________________________________________________________