Moscow has revoked the accreditation of six British diplomats after Vladimir Putin warned the West against allowing Ukraine to use long-range weapons to target Russia.
The Russian president told the US and UK that giving Kyiv the green light would mean that "Nato countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia " – an "unusually specific warning", said The New York Times (NYT).
Russia accused the British diplomats of "subversive activities" that threatened its security, but Putin's potential response is "much broader", said Steve Rosenberg, the BBC's Russia editor. For instance, based on remarks he made in June, Putin might arm Western adversaries to "strike Western targets abroad".
There are "many ways" for Putin to "retaliate", said the NYT. There are already signs that Russia could provide technological help that would "allow Iran and its proxy forces to attack American forces in the Middle East". Targeting military supply hubs for Kyiv in Nato members' territory is also possible.
Another front could include cyberattacks on US and European infrastructure. "Hacking efforts" have already included attacks on Ukrainian groups ahead of Russia's invasion, along with "critical infrastructure organisations in Nato member states", said Politico .
Earlier this year, the Daily Mail predicted that a Russian conflict with Nato would begin with "massive cyberattacks" and "missile strikes" on targets in Eastern Europe and beyond. Russia would later embark on a land, sea and air invasion of Lithuania, Estonia or Poland.
Putin "will not be bashful" about "using hundreds of long-range precision missiles against civilian targets all over Europe", retired US General Ben Hodges, former commander of Nato's ground forces in Europe, told the Mail.
Then there is the spectre of a nuclear exchange . Speaking to PBS in July, Dmitri Trenin of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, a Moscow think tank advising the Kremlin, said Russia could threaten nuclear strikes on Nato targets in Europe to "sober up the enemy" and get it to back off.
But some feel that Putin's latest warning is a bluff. Russia has "drawn red lines before" and "seen them crossed before", said Rosenberg. When he launched the invasion of Ukraine, Putin warned "those who may be tempted to interfere from the outside" that the "consequences" would be immediate and "such as you have never seen in your entire history". Yet Western leaders "ignored" what was widely seen as "nuclear sabre-rattling", said Rosenberg.
To a "growing number of military analysts and former US officials", said the NYT, the fear of a Russian war on Nato "makes no sense" because Ukraine's incursion into Kursk has "yet to elicit an escalatory response from Moscow".
What next?
Keir Starmer is meeting President Biden in Washington today. On his way to the US, the prime minister dismissed Putin's warnings of war with Nato, arguing that the Russian leader can "end this conflict straight away".
"We don't seek any conflict with Russia, that's not our intention in the slightest," said Starmer. "They started this conflict, and Ukraine's got a right to self-defence."
But the Kremlin wants to present Britain at the front of the "anti-Russia campaign". Professor Mark Galeotti, from the Rusi think tank, told the BBC that the move against diplomats is "alarming" and shows that Russia is "particularly annoyed with Britain".
The Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday that the Royal Navy "shadowed" a Russian attack submarine through the English Channel, said The Times . So alarm bells will continue to sound in many Western capitals.
Local News
