Germany plans rapid bunker expansion amid fears of Russian attack
Germany is drawing up plans to rapidly expand its network of bomb-proof bunkers and shelters, the government's most senior civilian protection official has said, warning the state needs to be prepared for an attack from Russia within the next four years.
Ralph Tiesler, the head of the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK), said Europe's largest economy needed to wake up to the reality of conflict, and that in its current state Germany was inadequately prepared.
'For a long time, there was a widespread belief in Germany that war was not a scenario for which we needed to prepare. That has changed. We are concerned about the risk of a major war of aggression in Europe,' he told the Süddeutsche Zeitung news outlet.
Tiesler called for a national effort to pinpoint and turn tunnels, metro stations, underground garages, car parks and the cellars of public buildings into protective shelters to 'quickly create space for 1 million people'. He said his agency will present a comprehensive plan later this summer.
He added that the country was in a race against time, and to rely on the construction of new bunker facilities was insufficient. Such shelters would take a long time to plan and construct and be very costly, Tiesler said. As a result, existing structures needed to be closely considered more immediately.
Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine has caused fears in other countries, especially in Baltic states but also in Poland and Germany, that Moscow could open new fronts in Europe.
Overnight, Russian forces launched missile and bomb strikes on the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, leaving three people dead and 22 injured. The mayor, Ihor Terekhov, said in a post on Telegram on Saturday that the city was 'experiencing the most powerful attack since the start of the full-scale war'.
Of about 2,000 bunkers in Germany and protection rooms left over from the cold war, only about 580 are in working order and most need multimillion-euro revamps. They would shelter about 480,000 people, just half a percent of the German population. In comparison, the BBK said that Finland has 50,000 protection rooms, amounting to space for 4.8 million people, or 85% of its population.
Tiesler said efforts also needed to be put into fine-tuning information systems, such as apps and road signs, to share with the public exactly where they could seek shelter, as well as upgrading warning sirens. Existing warning apps also needed to be better protected from hackers, he said.
He urged Friedrich Merz's government to ensure funding was in place to enforce his agency's plans. It has agreed the plans are necessary but has yet to formally prescribe funds.
Money is expected to be made available from the billions unleashed after parliament suspended Germany's debt brake in March, allowing large amounts of spending to take place in the military, vital infrastructure – such as bridges and roads enabling them to carry tanks and supplies – and civil defence.
Sign up to Headlines Europe
A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day
after newsletter promotion
Intelligence services and cybersecurity structures, which are in vital need of investment, are also competing for the funds.
Tiesler estimated at least €10bn (£8.4bn) would be needed over the next four years to cover civil defence needs, and at least €30bn over the next decade.
He also called for the establishment of a compulsory or voluntary civil protection service and urged citizens to contribute to making the country more resilient by stocking up on emergency supplies in the case of power and water shortages. 'Our appeal is: build up enough supplies to last you 10 days, if possible,' he told the newspaper, reflecting similar calls by other European governments.
'But even a supply for at least 72 hours would be very helpful,' Tiesler added. 'This can be used to bridge minor interruptions in everyday life.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
What war in the Middle East means for your money
The conflict between Israel and Iran is the latest geopolitical shock set to hamper the outlook for the UK economy — and, ultimately, your bank balance. Since the attacks began on June 12, the price of oil has risen to a six-month high. Hopes for interest rate cuts have been dashed, fears of rising inflation have been amplified, and any respite from stock market turmoil appears to have been short-lived. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This week the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said: 'I'm always concerned about the effect of international issues on people back at home. You saw with Ukraine the direct impact it had on energy bills. Equally, with this conflict, you can see the effect it's having on the economy, particularly on the price of energy.' From petrol prices to pension pots, here's what you need to know: Iran is the third-largest oil producer among the 12 members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), and there are worries about how a wider regional war could affect the transport of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for about 25 per cent of seaborne crude oil transportation, according to the consultancy Capital Economics. The price of a barrel of Brent crude hit a six-month high of about $78 after Israeli attacks on Iran began, up from about $65 at the start of this month. That is bound to have a knock-on effect on motorists, said David Oxley from Capital Economics: 'A rough rule of thumb is that a $10 rise in the oil price will add about 7p to the price at the pump.' It normally takes about two weeks for oil prices to feed into pump prices, Oxley said. Motorists have, however, had some recent respite from the cost of living crisis as petrol and diesel prices hit their lowest in almost four years. Petrol cost an average of 132p a litre last month, the lowest since July 2021, while diesel was at 138p, the lowest since September 2021, according to the motoring organisation the RAC. While prices are likely to rise, they are not expected to reach the high of March 2022, when Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused the oil price to reach $127 per barrel. The price in sterling peaked in July of that year at more than £100 with pump prices hitting 192p per litre for petrol and 199p per litre for diesel. More than a million homeowners whose fixed deals come to an end this year may have their hopes of further interest rate cuts dashed. The lowest two-year fix was 3.72 per cent last month, but rates are starting to tick up again, according to the property portal Rightmove. The lowest two-year deal is now 3.82 per cent from Lloyds Bank for those with a Club Lloyds account. The lowest five-year fixed rate has gone from 3.78 per cent to 3.88 per cent, also from Lloyds. Lenders had been cutting mortgage rates to compete for business, but changed tack after inflation went from 2.6 per cent for the year to March to 3.5 per cent in April. This makes cuts to the Bank of England base rate less likely — the Bank generally keeps the rate high when inflation is above its target of 2 per cent. The Consumer Prices Index inflation figure for the year to May, released this week, was 3.4 per cent. Uncertainty around President Trump's trade tariffs and conflict in the Middle East has also dampened hopes of further base rate cuts. The Bank held rates at 4.25 per cent this week, which, although a lot higher than the sub 2 per cent rates many mortgage holders will have fixed at three or five years ago, is down from the peak of 5.25 per cent in August last year. Fixed mortgage rates are based on swap rates (the rates at which banks lend to each other, which are in turn based on forecasts of where Bank rate is expected to be in the future), which have edged up over the past week or so, suggesting that mortgage rates could follow. Homeowners who want certainty can lock in a new deal up to six months before theirs ends yet still swap if a cheaper deal comes along. Rising oil prices could also cause other expenses to creep up, particularly if the Iran conflict continues or escalates. Lotanna Emediegwu, an economics lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, said that prolonged conflict could drive up energy bills. The price cap that limits how much suppliers can charge customers on standard variable tariffs will work out at an average bill of £1,720 a year for gas and electricity from July 1 (down 7 per cent from today's cap). At the moment analysts expect the cap to go up 2 to 3 per cent in October, but this could change dramatically. He said: 'Until recently, fuel prices had been rising less than other things, so actually mitigating some inflationary pressures. The recent conflict is expected to reverse this trend. 'The financial repercussions extend beyond immediate energy costs into transportation and logistics. Transport expenses are particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in fuel prices. This affects everything from airline fares to shipping costs for products, ultimately hitting consumer prices.' Before June 12, when Israel launched strikes on Iran, inflation had been expected to rise to 3.5 per cent by the autumn — now it could go further. A sustained $10 per barrel rise in the oil price typically pushes up annual inflation by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points, according to The Economist, meaning that it could be closer to 3.7 per cent by September. Emediegwu said a prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz shipping route could add a further 0.5 to 1 percentage points, which could take it close to 5 per cent. So far the stock market has been fairly resilient to the conflict in the Middle East. The UK's FTSE 100 is down about 0.77 per cent since the turmoil started, while the US's S&P 500 is down about 1.06 per cent. If a sustained conflict leads to an increase in the price of oil, stock valuations may fall — this is because higher oil prices lead to higher inflation, which means interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer, which makes it more expensive for companies to borrow money to grow and often curbs investors' risk appetite. Losers are likely to include airline and travel stocks, as well as so-called growth stocks, which include technology and healthcare companies. Many investors will have exposure to the US 'Magnificent Seven' tech stocks of Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Tesla, Amazon, Meta and Nvidia. These companies are often valued on their future earnings potential, which means their stock price can be volatile if company results or wider economic conditions point towards a slowdown of earnings. The good news is that Iran and Israel are a very limited part of the global stock market, so direct exposure for most UK investors will be immaterial. However, Michael Field from the research firm Morningstar said that the risk is that wider markets get jittery about the potential for the conflict to escalate further. Investors should avoid making any kneejerk changes to their portfolio. Ultimately, while geopolitical tensions may create short-term turmoil, historically markets have been resilient in the long term. Jacob Falkencrone from the investment bank Saxo said: 'As an investor, your greatest tool is a disciplined approach — staying informed, remaining calm and focusing on your long-term investment goals rather than reacting impulsively to temporary shocks.'
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Putin says 'Ukraine is ours' and threatens nuclear strike - showing how he feels about Trump
He may have been speaking at an economic forum, but that didn't stop Vladimir Putin from issuing his most hawkish comments on Ukraine in a very long time. During a Q&A at Russia's flagship investment event in St Petersburg, the Kremlin leader was asked what his end game was in the conflict. He replied: "I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours." The answer received rapturous applause from an auditorium full of fawning politicians and business figures. And there was more. "There is an old rule," he said. "'Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours'." In short, he was saying that he wants the whole lot. The comments came as a surprise because they are in sharp contrast to the Kremlin's recent rhetoric. Ever since Donald Trump began his push for a peace deal, Moscow has adopted a softer tone, more conciliatory - in an apparent attempt to show Washington that it is interested in a settlement. But there was none of that kind of language here. Quite the opposite. The Russian president even, for the first time in months, threatened a nuclear strike on Ukraine. Asked how Moscow would respond if Kyiv used a dirty bomb against Russian forces, he promised "catastrophic" consequences for his enemy. "This would be a colossal mistake on the part of those whom we call neo-Nazis on the territory of today's Ukraine," he said. "It could be their last mistake. "We always respond and respond in kind. Therefore, our response will be very tough." The Kremlin's nuclear sabre-rattling was an almost weekly feature during the last days of the Biden administration, but the sabres stilled when Mr Trump came to power. But now, all of a sudden, he's returned to it. It felt like a very deliberate message from Vladimir Putin that, despite peace talks, Russia has no intention of backing down, neither on the battlefield nor at the negotiating table. I think it shows that Moscow is not too worried about upsetting Donald Trump. The American leader appears to have distanced himself from trying to mediate the conflict, but still seems to be pursuing warmer ties with Moscow.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's plan for the NHS: more money plus vital reform
The commitments that the Government made to our NHS in the Spending Review were made in full recognition of the scale of the challenge we inherited and the bold reforms we're already implementing. While it is correct that NHS productivity has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, it is wrong to imply that our response has been to throw more money at the problem, without an equal focus on productivity. Let's be clear: after 14 years of mismanagement, we found an NHS in crisis. Not just underfunded, but fundamentally broken in its structures and operations. The waiting list stood at 7.6 million people in September 2024. 10 per cent of patients were waiting more than 12 hours in A&E. Public satisfaction had dropped to record lows. This crisis demands not just investment, but radical reform. That's precisely what we're delivering. Take our decision to abolish NHS England. This isn't an ideological choice – it's a practical one that will cut duplication, remove unnecessary bureaucracy, and crucially, redirect hundreds of millions of pounds straight to frontline services. The bloated administrative structure created under the previous government hasn't delivered better care – it's created waste, confusion, and ultimately contributed to worse outcomes for patients. We are also tackling the scandalous spending on agency staff. Under the last government, one trust paid an agency £5,100 for a shift by a single doctor in 2022/23. We've cut almost £1 billion in agency spending and our ambition is to eliminate agency use entirely in the coming years. Those billions will be reinvested in permanent staff who provide better continuity of care. We've upgraded the NHS App so that it now sends appointment reminders and test results digitally instead of by post, saving £200 million on stamps, envelopes, and printing. We found an NHS drowning in targets – many contradictory, some counterproductive. We've halved the number of targets set for NHS trusts so that they can focus on what matters to patients: waiting times for operations, ambulances, A&E attendance, rebuilding general practice and dentistry, and improving mental health services. As a result, waiting lists are at a two-year low – but we know they need to fall further. Our Plan for Change outlines how 92 per cent of elective patients should wait less than 18 weeks. We're laser-focused on that goal. Similarly, we've halved the targets that GPs are measured on. The previous government even introduced a target measuring GPs' wellbeing, while simultaneously overwhelming them with bureaucracy. We're freeing doctors to focus on patients by bringing back the family doctor model and ending the 8am phone scramble. These are precisely the productivity measures which are needed by our NHS and by Britain. Last week's Spending Review delivered a £29 billion real terms increase for the healthcare system to 2029. But let's be clear – a lot of this money is linked to reform. Every penny we invest comes with expectations of reform and improved outcomes. We're cutting waste, streamlining bureaucracy, and empowering frontline staff to deliver better care. That's why we're developing a 10-Year Health Plan for publication in the coming weeks, built around three fundamental shifts: from hospital to community care, from analogue to digital systems, and from treatment to prevention. The problems in our NHS didn't develop overnight, and they won't be solved overnight either. But unlike our predecessors, we're not afraid of making difficult decisions and driving through the reforms our public services desperately need. Public service productivity does matter – that's why we're reforming the NHS to deliver better care at better value for taxpayers. Our plan combines investment with genuine radical change. After 14 years of decline, that's what real change looks like.
