Britain urged to ‘stand strong’ against Russia’s nuclear threat

BRITAIN must “remain firm” in the face of nuclear threats from , experts warned last night.

’s decision to update ’s nuclear strategy, making it easier for him to push the button and trigger a Third World War, has been calculated to make his opponents cower, says a former minister.

“Putin is using threats to try to frighten us into inaction. It has worked for too long,” said former security minister Tom Tugendhat MP.

“’s counterstrike into Kursk has proven that the red lines he claims are fiction. We need the courage to stand with them and give them the ability to fight back.”

Tensions over are mounting among some Western leaders who, with the advent of a Trump election win, are split between those who want to roll back support and those who want to help gain every advantage to boost its position before an “inevitable” peace negotiations next year.

Last week the Russian autocrat ruled that Moscow would be entitled to launch nuclear weapons if attacked by a non-nuclear country, such as , that is supported by a nuclear state, such as the US or UK.

It followed the decision by outgoing US President to allow to fire long range ATACMS missiles deep into .

Downing Street had previously limited the use of its Storm Shadow missiles to , believing anything more would escalate tensions.

But last week it emerged that the UK had followed Washington’s lead by permitting Kyiv for the first time to launch the longer-range cruise missiles – ideal for penetrating hardened bunkers and ammunition stores – into . It prompted ’s ambassador to Britain Andrei Kelin to declare that Britain was”now directly involved” in the war.

According to Russian channels, ‘s Air Force used at least ten Storm Shadow air-launched missiles against a fortified underground command center in the hashtag#Kursk region. This strike resulted in the deaths of 18 Russian officers, including a senior commander, and three North Korean officers.

However, while can retaliate with a raft of sophisticated conventional weapons – including hypersonic missiles – it is highly unlikely that he will respite to the nuclear option, some of Britain’s most eminent experts said last night.

Reasons range from the poor condition of ‘s nuclear warheads to the displeasure such a move would cause for vital Russian allies and partners, such a China and India.

Last night one expert warned that any launch of a nuclear missile “would lead the West to seriously think about regime change” in Moscow – a danger of which Putin is all too aware.

“At the moment a lot of what Putin is saying is bluff, He knows that every time he uses the N-word, the West gets terribly alarmed and there will be a certain constituency of people who immediate say how dangerous the situation is an that we need to find some way of de-escalating – meaning we should be facing the Ukrainians to make an ugly peace,“ said Prof Mark Galeotti, author of The Great Bear at War.

“If the concern of nuclear weapons is holding back from further support of Uus kraine , then that’s a mistake. Putin has lots of de-escalatory options at his disposals – he won’t fast forward the nuclear option before using these, he said,

“If we think that our interests benefit by pushing Putin back, we absolutely should not let the fear of his nuclear weapons stop us.

holds more nuclear warheads than any other nation at an estimated 5,580, which amounts to 47 per cent of global stockpiles, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

But they have not been modernised for decades.

“Putin’s nuclear weapons are stored in 12-20 arsenals around , but they haven’t been used or even exercised since Soviet times” aid Prof Galeotti.

“There is no-one currently in service with personal experience of having worked on one , so they will have to operate off manuals.”

Warheads could then have to be transported to whichever launch system is chosen which involves a large convoy of specialised vehicles.

“There will need to be at least one test because from from Putin’s point of view the only thing worse than launching a tactical nuclear weapon is launch one that doesn’t go off,“ added Prof Galeotti,

“So we can expect at least a couple of weeks notice while Western reconnaissance and intelligence structures look on.”

The odds of Putin choosing this option are long, however.

First is the risk of despising Russians powerful ally, China, and India which provides Moscow with valuable revenue through Russian oil imports.

Both and Narendra Modi are anxious that deploying nuclear weapons will increase the delicate proliferation balance, , with other countries using the launch as an excuse to acquire them for “defensive purposes”.

For China there is an additional factor – the prospect that just one tactical nuclear wen could wipe out any naval Taskforce invading Taiwan.

And then there is the human factor .

The Russian nuclear briefcase – the so-called “Cheget” which is carried by an aide wherever Putin goes is little more than a Telex machine with authorisation codes to ’s military HQ.

“First the order needs to be approved by the Chief of General Staff before it is is transferred to launch HQ.

“In some ways there is quite a bit of leeway for human beings to question the wisdom of this, and not go ahead. Of course, they risk treason charges, but it’s certainly not automatic,“ he said.

That would particularly apply if Putin decided to launch a tactical nuclear bomb at Kyiv.

“Thought not a Nato nation, it would lead to a genuine catastrophic escalation – it would be a suicidal order,“ he said.

“Putin is not a ideologue – he is not willing to see the world burn for an ideal. And even the fiercest hawks around him like Nikolai Patrushev have children and grand children and there is a strong awareness with the military that this is not a situation in which is existentially at risk.

“There are considerable grounds for believing people will talk him down.”

Even a “show of strength” launch into the Black Sea would incur the heaviest penalty,

“At the moment the mantra is Putin must fail. If he started using nuclear weapons, we would be very seriously thinking about regime change in a way which we have not yet, because we just cannot allow someone who is moving beyond the bounds f even the extreme end of acceptable behaviour with nuclear weapons at this disposal

“This would not happen through military intervention- we’d be looking at assassination.

So far Britain’s stance has remained firm.

Last week the UK- led Joint Expeditionary Force – a coalition of 10 Nato countries – led exercises to bolster Latvia’s defences to which observers contributed for the first time .

President-elect has pledged to end the war in “Within 24 hours” of assuming office in January.

And some critics say that his eagerness to walk away with a deal has led to big the Russian narrative.

Addressing his 383,000 follows on the social media platform X last week , Trump’s youngest child Barron wrote: “My dad is the only man who will save the World from WWIII”.

But Europe has a role to play even without the US, said expert Keir Giles, author of “’s War on Everybody” said:

“We should absolutely not blink – de-escalation would be the most dangerous thing right now because it would show that this rhetoric works an the threats would mount.

“Putin’s nuclear threats are not serious. Nuclear weapons are being used as an information weapons and it is being incredibly effective in the US. This is not something we should take literally because there are zero circumstances under which ’s use of nuclear weapons makes their situation better and not worse. “

He added: “Britain and the West must stand firm. What is needed is a declaration of solidarity in European Nato, making it ​plain that with or without the US, a nuclear attack will still bring back that devastating response.​plain

The more is supported now, the less dangerous is to the rest of us in the future.”

His view was backed by influential MPs,

“Putin is using threats to try to frighten us into inaction. It has worked for too long,“ said former security minister Tom Tugendhat.

“’s counterstrike into Kursk has proven that the red lines he claims are fiction. We need the courage stand with them and give them the ability to fight back.

“The Government is right to allow them to use weapons to strike the areas from where is launching attacks.”

Former defence minister Tobias Ellwood said ““We must not blink – The consequences of Putin going nuclear are next to zero as it would alienate his two key allies China and India, and provoke an almighty military response from Nato powers, including the UK and the United States taking out every Russian asset in . “

“But Putin’s use of ballistic missiles today demands Britain quickly invests in its own homeland air defence. The world’s becoming ever more unpredictable and we should be ready.”

Shadow armed forces minister Mark Francois MP. said: “History tells us appeasing dictators doesn’t work. If we don’t stop Putin in , we’ll have to do it in the Baltic states and if we don’t do it there we’ll have to do it in Poland.

“The Ukrainians are now effectively fighting for our freedom too and they deserve our full support.”

Shadow national security minister Alicia Kearns MP said: “We cannot allow Putin’s aggression to go unchecked – in the face of his threats our government and our country must stand tall.”