Following reports that Ukraine had used drones made by two British companies to strike oil and logistics facilities inside Russia, Moscow’s embassy in London accused the United Kingdom of deliberately escalating the war. It promised “consequences” would follow. The deeper the U.K. became involved in the war, Russia said, “the higher the price it will pay.”
What that price might be was left unstated. But that is the point. A vague threat invites the British public to imagine everything from cyber disruption to more Novichok nerve agent-laden assassinations to a Russian strike on London. Moscow wants the warning repeated widely; the fear does the rest.
Recommended Stories
The U.K. has armed Ukraine since before Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. It has provided a wide range of weaponry, including more powerful Storm Shadow cruise missiles. The newly reported Nyan drone, produced by BAE Systems, carries a relatively small payload over a range of more than 150 miles. Ukraine is using such weapons against the depots and logistics networks that sustain Russia’s war. Russia, meanwhile, continues to bombard Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles and drones.
Moscow wants British voters to associate their government’s support for Ukraine with increasingly intolerable danger at home. It wants the fear of uncontrolled escalation to lead to public pressure on the U.K. government to retreat. The warnings are intended to widen existing political divisions and make assistance to Kyiv appear reckless.
Yet the Kremlin has already repeatedly crossed U.K. red lines.
In 2018, Russian military intelligence officers traveled to the U.K. and used the Novichok nerve agent in an attempt to kill a Russian intelligence defector, Sergei Skripal. While Skripal survived, he, his daughter, and a responding police officer were all seriously injured. Another innocent Briton was killed when she found the callously discarded Novichok delivery weapon. On top of this, a Russian network recruited local men to burn a Ukraine-linked warehouse in east London in 2024 and discussed further arson and kidnapping. That July, an incendiary parcel caught fire at a DHL facility in Birmingham as part of a suspected Russian operation to target cargo planes. And Russian hackers relentlessly target British institutions, infrastructure, and public trust. These actions are calibrated to hurt Britain while remaining below the threshold of conventional war.
Yet Moscow’s confidence in issuing such threats also reflects weaknesses created in London.
The once formidable British Army has shrunk to around 80,000 active personnel, roughly half its 1991 strength. Parliament recently found that while Britain can respond to limited crises, its ability to sustain forces in a prolonged, high-intensity war is doubtful. Underinvestment did not create Russian aggression. It did, however, weaken deterrence and give Moscow reason to believe that threats can impose political costs on Britain. The government is now promising increased spending, but the question remains open as to whether it will be sufficient.
LINCOLN PROJECT STRUGGLES TO STAY RELEVANT DURING TRUMP’S SECOND TERM
U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said this week that his country would continue to support Ukraine “100%” because it is no fair-weather friend. He is correct to do so. Giving way after Moscow threatens consequences would reward its intimidation campaign and encourage the Kremlin to return with greater threats in the future.
London should continue arming Kyiv while strengthening its own defenses.
