The Kremlin has often issued threats that Britain will “pay a higher price” for its role in Ukraine — as it did again this week following reports of British-made drones striking deep inside Russian territory — But Moscow’s sabre-rattling is rarely meant for Britain alone.
Here, Katia Glod, deputy head of foreign policy at the New Eurasia Strategies Centre (NEST) think tank, speaks to The Independent to break down the intended purpose of Vladimir Putin’s aggressive posturing.
“Putin’s threats should be taken seriously — but not toward the possibility of a real, kinetic move against Britain” in terms of war, says Glod.
Glod emphasises that such threats are not new for the UK, where for decades, Moscow has used Britain as a staging ground for actions to garner global attention, while being able to deny them as Kremlin-directed.
Incidents like the 2006 assassination of former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko via radioactive polonium-210, and the notorious Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury should be seen in that context, although they are extreme examples.
More recent examples include the Leyton warehouse arson in March 2024 — where Russia was found to have recruited proxies to set fire to a Ukrainian-owned commercial facility — or the 2024 and 2025 reconnaissance by the Russian vessel Yantar, which was detected loitering near the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure.
But while Russia is content meddling with British affairs from afar, the Kremlin remains highly aware that direct strikes on the UK would be “playing with fire,” says Glod, given the mutual defence agreement between allies in Nato.
“No-one really knows what Nato’s response to a Russian attack on the UK would be, and Putin doesn’t want to find out. He knows that Russia doesn’t have the capacity to respond.”
Instead, the threat posed by a potential NATO intervention means that the Kremlin will most likely look toward “hybrid attacks.”
Hybrid attacks often use non-military actions to harm a rival country without starting a traditional war.
Such attacks include: cyber-crime, harassing diplomats, recruiting criminals on British soil to help achieve Russian objectives, or approaching British airspace and waters.
“These things will all continue, or even escalate, but it is hard to say if it is solely because of the UK supplying drones to Ukraine, or if they would have happened anyways,” explains Glod.
For Putin, empty threats have created a problem. “His two main objectives are conflicting,” Glod stresses. “While he’s trying to signal that anyone who helps Ukraine will face retaliation, he also wants to avoid being directly affiliated with any kinetic action against a Nato member.”
“What Putin really wants is for Western states to understand that assisting Ukraine will result in escalation.”
But with Putin taking no direct action against Nato members over the past four years, Russian credibility to back up its threats is waning. “Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons in the past, and just hasn’t followed through,” says Glod. “And the thing about deterrence is, if you don’t follow through, it wears out.”
Because of this, the Kremlin’s reliance on unfulfilled threats has done little other than reveal that Russia is severely constrained in how it can retaliate against Ukrainian deep strikes without risking a larger war with the West.
While an open military assault remains unlikely, the threats from Moscow have highlighted concerns over British air defence capabilities. At present, Russia does have the capacity to strike the UK using its missile systems in Belarus.
“The worry for the UK is it doesn’t have the air defence capacity to be able to defend against an air attack,” Glod says.
While several European allies rely on US-made Patriot air defence systems — widely recognised as the gold standard for tracking and intercepting high-speed ballistic and cruise targets — the UK does not field these systems.
Nevertheless, Glod stresses that a direct missile strike remains improbable. “Russia doesn’t want to engage in active war with the UK,” she notes, “because it knows that Nato’s collective response would be far worse.”
