BRITAIN

EVER SINCE Vladimir Putin launched his barbaric invasion of Ukraine, the West has feared an escalation in the conflict. Those fears have now become reality.

Earlier this week, the Russian dictator denied claims that Moscow had launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at the Ukrainian city of Dnipro – which would have been the first time such a weapon had been fired in combat.

He insisted, instead, that the projectile was a new “medium-range missile tested in response to Western aggression” – citing specifically the use of long-range Western missiles, including British Storm Shadows, in Ukraine.

Separately, however, the Kremlin has warned that a US military base in Poland was “on a list for potential destruction”, and with the Russian ambassador stating that Britian was now “directly involved” in the war, thoughts have turned as to how Putin might respond.

Several military analysts and commentators believe the dictator’s nuclear threats are empty bluster. Even a nuclear test, let alone the deployment of a “tactical” atomic weapon, would bring devastating retaliation.

More pressing is the question whether he could launch a conventional missile attack on Britain? And if he did, could we properly defend ourselves? What else might he do in the weeks ahead to destabilise the democratic world and advance his sordid cause?

If Putin did launch a conventional missile strike, our air-defence radars, as well as our allies’, would identify the projectiles well before impact.

In theory and on paper, at least, we have some protection: primarily our six Type 45 destroyers. Each of these formidable warships carries 48 state-of-the-art Aster air-defence missiles.

Nonetheless, only two of our Type 45s are currently deployable. These billion-pound warships have been plagued by maintenance issues. HMS Daring, for instance, has spent most of its 15-year life in refits: far more than it has spent in active service at sea.  

The powerful HMS Duncan is in service and does carry Aster missiles – which would buy time for our PM to invoke allied support and authorise countermeasures. A lot would be riding on the warship’s efficacy – and in the hope that Putin’s strike would be limited, as its stock of Asters would be swiftly depleted. 

What is more, the Type 45s provide only a partial shield.

If one happens to be in the Thames Estuary at the time of attack, for example, London might be covered – but the rest of the country would be left defenceless.

Needless to say, an intercontinental ballistic missile strike would be many orders of magnitude worse – and far more difficult if not impossible to defend against.

Although we have a handful of state-of-the-art short-range Sky Sabre land-based missile-defence systems, we wholly lack defences against ICBMs (like Israel’s Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile).

Even without such a grim scenario – which could ultimately presage a nuclear exchange, and with it the end of civilisation – a more pressing immediate concern is that Britian is already under attack from Russia, through sabotage and other mischief, and has been for years. This will now escalate.

Russia has become an expert in these ignoble arts, which range from murder to sabotage via cyber-attacks and propaganda operations. They are often carried out by proxies: that is, criminals hired for cash.

Only last month, 20-year-old Dylan Earl, from Leicestershire, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to aggravated arson on a Ukrainian-linked business in London, carried out on behalf of the Russian mercenary Wagner Group – which is still active following the death of its warmongering leader Yevgeny Prigozhin last year in a plane crash.

Other instances are known. Counter-terrorism police are separately investigating a munitions parcel in Birmingham, aimed at bringing down a plane carrying freight. The deadly package, along with others targeting Poland and Germany, was posted in Lithuania – just across the border from the Russian puppet state of Belarus.

Other mysterious blazes have sprung up around the country: at an ammunition plant in Monmouthshire in April, and earlier this month at one nuclear submarine shipyard in Barrow. British defence companies have also suffered alarming fires.

Shockingly, no one in government appears willing to talk openly about these bizarrely synchronised conflagrations. But intelligence predictions will be clear: we are now certain to see more of them.

Then there are cyber-attacks. Earlier this year saw a devastating “ransomware” assault on several major London hospitals – in which hackers demanded money, often in hard-to-trace cryptocurrency, to unlock vital computer systems.

Operations were cancelled, emergency patients had to be transported to other hospitals, and blood transfusions and test results were also affected.

Last year, staff at British Airways, Boots, and the BBC were similarly targeted in Russia-linked cyber-attacks.

These too are surely set to proliferate – not least because North Korea, whose brainwashed soldiers are now fighting alongside the Russians in Ukraine, has its own dedicated army of cyber-hackers in Pyongyang.

A third piece of mayhem is also at play. Russia is already systematically attacking seabed cables and pipelines, the vital arteries of our data and energy flows.

Just this week, a Chinese ship – reportedly captained by a Russian national – was being inspected by the Danish authorities following catastrophic damage to undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, in a suspected malicious attack. As an island, Britian is particularly vulnerable to such assaults – and Putin has been scheming them for years.

Expect, too, more physical intimidation – and worse – of individuals on British soil.

Not just chemical poisonings, as we witnessed in Salisbury against Sergei Skripal, the former MI6 officer, but also the beatings and murders of dissidents.

Russia has been linked to 14 deaths on British soil in recent years, including the assassination of Vladimir Litvinenko in a case of polonium-laced tea in 2006.

Intimidation can also be political. The Kremlin could hack into the private email accounts of senior politicians to leak compromising information – a tactic used to devastating effect against Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign.

Britain’s decision-makers are similarly a top target. Sowing division through rumours and scare stories, including on social media which spreads rapidly, can paralyse a country and its leaders.

This brings all to the most important point of all. Putin’s aim is not to defeat us in military combat: he knows he cannot as of now win against the combined might of NATO, while Beijing remains sceptical in committing millions of troops to his cause.

Instead, his aim is to instil cowardice in the general population – to cause ordinary Britons to turn their backs on Ukraine, and demand that their own government stop supporting the defenders.

These siren voices will sing just why support is being given to Ukraine, when the price is misery at home?

They will ask why we maintain a “tripwire” force at great expense in Estonia? Now that an isolationist Trump is heading back to the White House what is the point of NATO?

Surely it is better, they will say, to pull out of these entanglements and concentrate on our own domestic problems?

Yet, if we allow Russia to conquer Ukraine, the result will not be perfect peace. Instead, the seeds will be sown for a future conflict, one in which Britain will be in a far more parlous position.

Instead of kowtowing to our foes, we should rekindle the spirit that won previous epic contests – two world wars, and the cold war against Soviet Communism.

A new arsenal of crafty, painful countermeasures is also needed such as seizing the frozen £250billion assets of Russia’s central bank and using it to arm and rebuild Ukraine.

So long as our enemies believe they can attack us with impunity, they will not cease from doing so. That is principally why we must continue to support the Ukrainians – and show Putin that we will not back down.