Putin is up to something – it will be dirty and deniable

Our global order is deteriorating fast. Authoritarian states are growing bolder, old alliances are being tested and conflicts are multiplying. Most consequentially, America is increasingly going its own way, questioning the alliances and responsibilities that have underwritten Western security for eight decades. Little wonder there are uncomfortable echoes of 1937. Yet Britain still seems to be in denial. As our Nato allies increase defence budgets, consider the return of national service and prepare seriously for a new era of insecurity, the UK remains dangerously exposed. That complacency may soon be tested if Vladimir Putin makes good on his threats of retaliation after Ukraine sent a volley of UK-built drones deep inside Russia, striking critical national infrastructure including oil depots. These long-range strikes do not simply escalate the war. They shatter the fiction Putin sells his people: that his “special military operation” is proceeding according to plan and, crucially, that Mother Russia remains insulated from the war he started. Putin has just recalled his ambassador from London, too often a signal that the Kremlin is up to something. The head of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, was even dispatched on a surprise trip to Moscow this week to warn Russia against attacking Nato. Shorts London is sharing top-secret cruise missile blueprints with Kyiv while gaining access to a gold mine of sensitive battlefield data offering invaluable insight into how Russia fights. This has not escaped the notice of the Kremlin. To understand what may come next, we should consider Putin’s view of Russia itself. From Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, Russia has long been ruled from the centre by strong authoritarian figures. Its vastness, as the largest country on Earth, sprawling across 11 time zones, has always been difficult to defend. The best form of defence? Attack. Rulers repeatedly sought security through strength, strategic depth and expansion. Putin has wrapped himself in that history and, still angry at the fall of the Soviet Union, is determined to rekindle Russian influence across Eastern Europe. Ukraine’s determination to escape that sphere therefore represents more than a military problem. It challenges Putin’s entire world view. It’s therefore right we stand tall with Ukraine and do not blink. But make no mistake: we are now in Putin’s crosshairs and, if we are honest, unprepared for the escalation in grey-zone warfare he may unleash. Vladimir Putin is determined to rekindle Russian influence across Eastern Europe (Photo: Gavriil Grigorov/Sputnik/Kremlin Pool via AP) Britain can be proud of our support to date. Andy Burnham’s visit to Kyiv continues the leadership established at the start of the war under Boris Johnson and then-defence secretary Ben Wallace. When others hesitated, Britain understood that Putin would interpret hesitation not as restraint, but weakness. We provided vital weapons and ammunition that helped Ukraine fend off a Russian takeover. But the strategic landscape is changing. For eight decades, Europe has operated beneath an American security umbrella. From Nato to protecting sea lanes and deterring Russia, Washington has been the ultimate guarantor of the Western-led international order. Donald Trump is challenging that assumption. His “America First” approach asks why Washington should continue carrying such a disproportionate share of Europe’s defence burden. At the same time, old dividing lines are shifting. Moscow’s relationship with Pyongyang has deepened dramatically, with North Korea supplying troops, missiles and ammunition to Russia. Europe confronts an uncomfortable possibility: an increasingly aggressive Russia just as America becomes less willing to underwrite European security. And our actions will come with consequences for which we are unprepared. Putin does not need to send bombers over London or tanks towards the Channel to hurt us. Russia is already waging grey-zone war against us. It may be about to move up several gears. We have seen Novichok deployed on British streets. Russian-linked cyber operations have targeted Western institutions and infrastructure. Russian vessels have gathered intelligence around the undersea cables and pipelines upon which our economy depends. Russian warships are routinely shadowed through the English Channel. Conflict is no longer confined to distant conventional battlefields. Britain’s electricity grid, ports, satellites, telecommunications networks, financial system, water infrastructure and supply chains are all potential pressure points. And unlike a conventional missile strike, grey-zone attacks offer something Putin prizes: deniability. A cable mysteriously breaks. A hospital network goes offline. GPS signals are disrupted. A company’s systems suddenly collapse. Disinformation spreads online. Another hostile vessel appears close to critical infrastructure. Individually, each can be explained away. Collectively, they can weaken an adversary without crossing the threshold that would trigger a conventional military response. The devastating Jaguar Land Rover cyber attack – the most expensive in UK history, causing an estimated £1.9bn damage to the economy – illustrated the wider lesson: a single digital strike can inflict enormous damage without a shot being fired. This is where Britain’s defence debate is dangerously outdated. We still separate economic policy from national security, as though one belongs to the Treasury and the other to the Ministry of Defence. In grey-zone warfare, that distinction disappears. An economy unable to withstand sustained disruption is a national security vulnerability. That’s the warning for Burnham. He has made a litany of expensive domestic promises but said far less about strengthening our defences, particularly homeland resilience. As Britain helps Ukraine take the fight deeper into Russia, we should expect Putin to retaliate. Not necessarily with missiles or soldiers, but by going lower: dirty, deniable and directed at our weakest seams. That is not an argument for abandoning Ukraine. Quite the opposite. If threats of Russian retaliation intimidate Britain into retreat, Putin has already won. But courage abroad must be matched by resilience at home. Backing Ukraine is right. Leaving Britain dangerously exposed is not. In this darker era, economic security is national security. We must prepare Britain for Putin’s revenge. Tobias Ellwood is the author of Ten Steps to Prevent World War Three