A step away from warpath? Russia and UK can just stumble into war

Russia has moved from warning Britain against supporting Ukraine to explicitly threatening British military targets inside and outside Ukraine. Moscow has not declared Britain a belligerent and there is no evidence that either side wants a direct war.

But Britain's expanding role in Ukraine's long-range strike capability is making the boundary between military support and participation in the war increasingly contested. The danger may therefore lie less in a deliberate decision to start a UK-Russia war than in a sequence of retaliation and miscalculation that neither side can easily control.

ALSO READ | Russia says it could strike UK military targets in response to Kyiv's use of British missiles


Russia is drawing a new line around British weapons

The latest warning came from Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Thursday, after Britain agreed to give Ukraine classified technology needed to manufacture Storm Shadow cruise missiles domestically. Zakharova said Russia had repeatedly warned that British military installations and equipment in Ukraine and beyond its borders could be targeted if Ukraine used British weapons against Russian territory.

She said Britain was “one step away” from becoming legally complicit, in Moscow's interpretation, in what Russia calls terrorism against Russian civilians. She warned of “inevitable catastrophic consequences” unless London changed course and accused Britain and France of “playing with fire”.

ALSO READ | Russia bombards 9 Ukrainian cities overnight, calling the strikes 'massive'

The language is more specific than the usual Russian warnings against Western arms supplies. Moscow is now explicitly linking British military assets to Ukrainian strikes and extending the potential target area beyond Ukraine.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had already said that Moscow could regard Britain's involvement in attacks using British missiles as participation in the war. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Britain was participating in the conflict and that Russia was gathering intelligence on facilities involved in producing missiles and other military equipment.

The immediate trigger is Britain's decision, announced on Monday, to give Kyiv access to technology that could allow it to manufacture Storm Shadow missiles itself. The change could eventually give Ukraine a larger and more sustainable ability to strike deep inside Russia without depending entirely on missiles supplied directly by Britain.

That helps explain Moscow's reaction. Ukraine is not simply receiving another shipment of weapons. Britain is helping create a domestic Ukrainian capability to produce a sophisticated long-range weapon.

A dangerous confrontation, not an imminent war

Matthew Savill, director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, argued after the recent Ukrainian drone strikes that the use of British weapons against targets inside Russia was not in itself a wholly new escalation. Russia already views Ukraine as a proxy conflict and considers itself to be in a broader confrontation with NATO.

Savill's more important assessment was that Russia remains deterred from a direct attack on Europe. He expects Moscow to continue testing NATO's air defences and response times and British readiness around UK airspace and territorial waters. He also argued that Russian threats are intended partly to make Britain consider the risks of escalation.

That makes the current situation more complicated than a simple question of whether Russia will attack Britain. Moscow can regard Britain as increasingly involved in the war without believing that a direct attack is worth the military and political consequences.

Tim Willasey-Wilsey, a senior associate fellow at RUSI and a former British diplomat, makes a similar distinction in a report published by the i Paper nearly a week ago. He pointed to Russia's ability to operate in the grey zone, particularly through attacks on undersea infrastructure, cyber operations and arson.

Such measures allow Moscow to impose costs while avoiding an unmistakable military attack on a NATO member. They can also be presented as retaliation for British support to Ukraine.

That distinction could become increasingly important. A cyberattack on a British defence contractor would be a serious hostile act but would not necessarily lead to a military response. An operation that kills British personnel or destroys a British military facility would create much greater pressure on London to retaliate.

The danger is that Moscow could choose an action it considers limited while Britain regards it as an act that cannot go unanswered.

A direct clash could begin outside Britain

Britain does not have to be attacked on its own territory for British and Russian forces to fight each other. The Baltic is one possible route. Britain is a major NATO military power and would face pressure to contribute forces if Russia attacked a Baltic ally. Russian and British aircraft or naval forces could then come into direct contact.

This possibility gains relevance from a recent Wall Street Journal report that CIA Director John Ratcliffe travelled to Moscow this week after a US intelligence assessment that Russia might be considering a limited attempt to test NATO's resolve. The reported scenarios ranged from a cyberattack to a small-scale incursion, particularly against a Baltic country. The Kremlin has denied that Russia intends to launch such an attack.

The report is not proof that Russia is preparing an attack. But it points to the kind of scenario that worries NATO: not necessarily a Russian attempt to conquer a member state but a limited action designed to test how quickly and firmly the alliance responds.

An August analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies examined Russia's military position in the Baltic and its combination of air defence, long-range strike, electronic warfare and drone-enabled reconnaissance. The IISS assessment suggests these capabilities could complicate NATO's ability to reinforce the Baltic states during a crisis.

That creates a route to a UK-Russia confrontation without Moscow ever deciding to attack Britain. A Russian move against a Baltic NATO state could bring British forces into the fight. Once deployed, those forces could themselves become targets.

The grey zone can turn into a military crisis

Willasey-Wilsey's earlier RUSI analysis of Russian retaliation against Britain examined the problem of actions that sit between peace and conventional war. He discussed the possibility of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure and attacks on Britain's maritime communications, while noting the risks Russia would face if it deliberately crossed the threshold into an overt attack on Britain.

The important lesson is that there is no single moment when the relationship necessarily jumps from hostility to war. Consider a hypothetical sequence. Russia conducts a cyberattack or sabotage operation against a British defence network. Britain attributes it to Moscow but responds with sanctions and covert countermeasures. Russia then attacks a British-linked facility in Europe. British personnel are killed. London decides that a military response is necessary. Russia treats that response as proof that Britain is a direct participant in the war and retaliates against British forces.

None of the individual steps requires either government to decide at the outset that it wants a war. That is what makes miscalculation more important than intention.

Britain's deeper role in Ukraine raises the stakes

The Storm Shadow decision gives this problem a new dimension. Britain is helping Ukraine acquire the means to manufacture a long-range strike weapon rather than simply supplying finished missiles. Russia can therefore portray Britain's role as extending beyond arms transfers into the creation of Ukrainian military capacity.

Britain rejects that interpretation and says it is helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia's invasion.

The two governments are consequently operating with fundamentally different definitions of participation. Moscow increasingly treats British military assistance as part of the attacks it is experiencing. London regards those attacks as Ukraine's legitimate defence against Russian aggression.

That disagreement creates a potential retaliation loop. Russia can threaten British military facilities because British weapons are being used against Russia. Britain can argue that Russia has no right to attack British interests because Ukraine is exercising its right to self-defence. Each position reinforces the other's justification for continuing its policy.

Article 5 is part of the deterrence problem

The central restraint on Russia is the possibility that an attack on Britain or another NATO member would produce a collective response. That does not mean every Russian action would automatically trigger Article 5. A cyberattack, sabotage operation or ambiguous maritime incident creates very different political questions from a missile strike on British territory.

This is precisely why a limited Russian action could be tempting. Moscow could seek to impose costs while keeping the incident below the level at which NATO feels compelled to respond militarily.

The UK's parliamentary inquiry into deterrence in an age of Russian aggression has examined this problem with senior defence and security figures, including RUSI Director-General Rachel Ellehuus and former NATO ambassador Sir Adam Thomson. The inquiry has specifically considered the risk of direct Russian action against NATO members.

The issue is not only whether NATO would respond. It is whether Russia knows in advance what would happen after a particular action. That uncertainty can weaken deterrence if Moscow thinks the alliance will hesitate. But it can also increase danger if Britain or another NATO country responds more forcefully than Russia expected.

Britain is preparing for a broader confrontation

The British government is now also reassessing how the country would cope with a major national emergency. The Cabinet Office is preparing a public resilience campaign encouraging households to keep basic supplies such as bottled water and tinned food. It is also reviewing preparations for a military attack or other major crisis affecting Britain. This does not indicate that London expects a Russian attack. Governments prepare for low-probability events because their consequences can be severe.

But the shift reflects a broader change in British defence thinking. Russia is increasingly treated not simply as a threat to Ukraine but as a country capable of directly disrupting British infrastructure and challenging British forces.

The Royal Navy is also devoting more resources to monitoring Russian activity around UK waters and the North Atlantic.

At the same time, Russian activity across Europe is creating more opportunities for incidents. The more often Russian and NATO forces operate in close proximity, the greater the chance of an accident, misreading or deliberate but limited provocation.

Neither side needs to choose war for war to start

The current evidence does not support the claim that Russia is preparing to attack Britain. Savill's assessment is that Russia remains deterred from a direct attack on Europe. Willasey-Wilsey's analysis points instead to retaliation below the conventional military threshold. The reported US warning to Moscow, if accurately described by the Wall Street Journal, suggests Washington is also concerned about preventing a limited Russian test of NATO.

But the absence of an intention to start a war does not eliminate the risk of one.

Britain is deepening Ukraine's long-range strike capability. Ukraine is attacking targets deeper inside Russia. Moscow increasingly describes British assistance as direct participation in the war. Russia is already using methods of confrontation that sit below the threshold of conventional conflict. NATO is preparing for the possibility that Moscow could test its resolve.

The most dangerous scenario may therefore be a limited Russian action that Britain believes it has to answer.

If London absorbs it, Moscow may conclude that its threats work and can be repeated. If London retaliates, Moscow may decide that Britain has crossed from supporting Ukraine into fighting Russia directly. That is the escalation trap.

Russia and Britain may not be headed into war. Neither government appears to want one. But the distance between their present confrontation and a direct clash is no longer measured only by intentions. It is also measured by how each side responds when the other crosses what it considers a red line. And once those responses start accumulating, a war neither side deliberately chose can become possible.