Russia has expelled six British diplomats as tensions escalate between Moscow and Western powers over Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a direct warning to the United States and the United Kingdom, cautioning that enabling Ukraine to strike Russian territory would effectively put NATO countries at war with Russia. This warning is unusually specific and has raised alarm across the West.
According to The New York Times, Putin’s statement marks a critical point, signaling that Western support for Ukraine could lead to broader conflict. He warned that providing long-range weapons to Kyiv would provoke serious consequences, placing European and U.S. forces at risk of retaliation.
Responses from Analysts and Commentators
Russia justified the expulsion of British diplomats by accusing them of engaging in “subversive activities” that threatened its national security. However, Steve Rosenberg, the BBC’s Russia editor, believes Putin’s reaction could go beyond diplomatic expulsions. Rosenberg referenced Putin’s remarks from June, where he suggested that Russia could arm its adversaries in ways that could destabilize Western interests abroad. “The response could be much broader than just expelling diplomats,” Rosenberg said.
The New York Times also suggested that Russia might aid hostile nations like Iran in attacking American interests in the Middle East. There are concerns that Russia could share advanced technology with Iran and its proxy forces, enabling them to target U.S. forces. Additionally, Russia could strike NATO military supply hubs that are assisting Ukraine. Another possibility is that Russia may engage in cyberattacks, aiming to cripple U.S. and European infrastructure.
Cyber warfare has been a key component of Russia’s strategy in recent years. According to Politico, Russia has already launched cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and NATO member states before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Some experts believe these attacks could escalate to target critical infrastructure in Europe and North America.
Earlier predictions from The Daily Mail suggested that a full-blown conflict between Russia and NATO would likely begin with cyberattacks and missile strikes. The paper anticipated that Russia could launch a comprehensive assault on Eastern Europe, followed by ground, air, and naval invasions of countries like Lithuania, Estonia, or Poland. Retired U.S. General Ben Hodges, former commander of NATO’s ground forces in Europe, stated that Putin “will not be bashful” in using long-range precision missiles to hit civilian targets across Europe if tensions spiral out of control.
The possibility of a nuclear conflict has also been raised. Dmitri Trenin, a senior analyst from Moscow’s Institute of World Economy and International Relations, mentioned in an interview with PBS that Russia could threaten nuclear strikes on NATO targets in Europe. According to Trenin, this could be a way to “sober up the enemy” and force them to back down. This is a particularly troubling prospect as both Russia and NATO maintain vast nuclear arsenals.
Despite these dire warnings, some analysts believe that Putin’s rhetoric is more bluff than reality. Steve Rosenberg of the BBC pointed out that Russia has issued similar threats in the past without following through. When Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine, he warned that any interference by external powers would result in consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history.” Yet, as Rosenberg notes, Western leaders largely ignored these threats, viewing them as mere “nuclear sabre-rattling.”
There is also skepticism within U.S. military and intelligence circles about the likelihood of a direct Russian conflict with NATO. Several military analysts and former U.S. officials, speaking to The New York Times, argued that Russia has had multiple opportunities to escalate the conflict but has not done so. For instance, Ukraine’s recent incursion into Russia’s Kursk region did not result in any major response from Moscow. To these analysts, this suggests that while Russia continues to issue threats, it may not have the intention or capability to take on the full might of NATO.
What’s Next?
As diplomatic and military tensions continue to rise, Western leaders are seeking to navigate the situation cautiously. British Labour Party leader Keir Starmer is scheduled to meet with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington today. On his way to the U.S., Starmer dismissed Putin’s threats, stating that Russia alone is responsible for the conflict. “We don’t seek any conflict with Russia, that’s not our intention in the slightest,” Starmer said. “They started this conflict, and Ukraine’s got a right to self-defense.”
Starmer’s comments reflect the broader consensus among Western leaders that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine cannot go unanswered, but they are also wary of escalating the conflict into a broader war involving NATO. While the West remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine, there is an understanding that direct involvement in the conflict could have catastrophic consequences, including a potential nuclear escalation.
At the same time, Moscow is framing Britain as the principal antagonist in the ongoing conflict. Professor Mark Galeotti from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) told the BBC that the diplomatic expulsions are a sign of Russia’s growing frustration with Britain’s role in the crisis. According to Galeotti, Moscow wants to present the U.K. as being at the forefront of the “anti-Russia campaign.”
This diplomatic row comes amid growing military activity in the region. Just yesterday, the British Ministry of Defence confirmed that the Royal Navy had “shadowed” a Russian attack submarine as it passed through the English Channel. This incident, reported by The Times, underscores the growing military tension between Russia and NATO, particularly in strategic locations such as the English Channel and the Baltic Sea.
Western capitals are on high alert, monitoring Moscow’s next moves closely. While some experts believe Putin’s latest threats are a bluff, others are not so sure. The expulsion of British diplomats could be just the beginning of a broader strategy aimed at deterring NATO from further involvement in Ukraine. For now, the situation remains fluid, and the risk of escalation is ever-present.
As Russia continues to grapple with the West over Ukraine, the world watches anxiously. The expulsion of British diplomats is a stark reminder that the conflict has global ramifications, and the West must tread carefully to avoid an even more dangerous confrontation. The coming days and weeks could be crucial in determining whether the crisis de-escalates or spirals into something far more serious.