Why is Russia's Hybrid War Against Europe Intensifying?

By Lady Olga Maitland

Britain faces a fresh threat from Moscow, with Russia's Foreign Ministry warning it could strike UK military assets. Chief spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Russia is prepared to attack targets beyond Ukraine's borders in response to Kyiv's use of British-made Storm Shadow long-range missiles.

She said: 'The response to Ukrainian strikes using British missiles on Russian territory may become attacks on any military sites and equipment of Britain in Ukraine and beyond its borders.'

Zakharova accused Britain of taking an increasingly aggressive stance towards Russia, calling the provision of missile technology to Ukraine a 'reckless escalation….the West is playing with fire.'

This was not a one-off; the message has been repeated several times, alongside Russian threats to strike British factories producing drones and missiles for Ukraine.

It would be foolish to dismiss this as rhetoric. Putin could test NATO's resolve at any moment while the US is distracted and Britain's defences remain thin. Defence analysts increasingly warn that something is brewing, potentially around Kaliningrad, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, which could become a flashpoint.

Yet at home, Britain remains unprepared. The first sign could be large-scale sabotage of critical infrastructure, with air defences dangerously thin. The Government's plan to unveil a 'home civil defence' strategy in October risks failing to gain public traction unless ministers explain why it's needed - and on this, they have been silent. One official told me: 'We do not want to frighten the public.' I would argue this risks panic when the lights go out - and that may well happen. The hybrid war is real, and it is here.

The clearest example of Moscow's intimidation followed Britain's decision to share information and assistance related to long-range missile production. UK companies, including BAE Systems, Babcock, Thales UK and MBDA UK, have supported Ukraine since 2022, working with France to produce Storm Shadow cruise missiles. What has caused real alarm in Moscow is Britain's transfer of classified technology enabling Ukraine to build the missiles itself, giving Kyiv the capacity to strike far deeper behind Russian lines than earlier Western-supplied weapons allowed. This changes the battlefield.

Russia's response has been vitriolic. Moscow has warned Britain will face 'consequences' and accused it of deliberately escalating the war. On 18 August, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov repeated the warning, effectively saying: 'Go further and you become a legitimate participant in the conflict.'

On 25 August, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov attacked Finnish President Alexander Stubb and UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham as members of the 'party of war,' accusing them of misleading statements suggesting Russia could be defeated.

The underlying message, as I read it, is not necessarily to signal an imminent attack, but to make Western governments hesitate before taking the next step. The Kremlin's aim is to portray British leadership as reckless warmongers. I am glad that Andy Burnham has stood his ground, saying whilst in Kyiv last week: ‘Who started the fire? That’s the question, isn’t it….Russia began this illegal invasion and they could stop it at any time.’

Escalating Hybrid Warfare

Political bullying will intensify, with threats, ambiguity, personal attacks and escalation warnings alongside growing hybrid cyber warfare. The potential damage is significant: attacks on electricity supply, power stations, transmission networks and control centres. Disinformation and sabotage against Britain and other NATO states are now near-daily occurrences.

I would not dismiss Russian rhetoric as mere bluster. It is better understood as one strand of a broader coercive strategy designed to make Western societies and governments fear the consequences of resisting Moscow. The Russian embassy in London added: 'The deeper Britain's involvement, the higher price it will pay.'

A Surprise Visit to Moscow

Meanwhile, events in Moscow took an unexpected turn this week with the surprise arrival of Russia hawk and CIA Director John Ratcliffe in Moscow.

My sources tell me the Kremlin had grown frustrated with President Trump's envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, regarding them as ineffective; Lavrov reportedly had no time for them at all. Intelligence channels, rather than diplomats, are seen as better placed to hold the private, face-to-face talks that form the basis of genuine discussion.

Ratcliffe met his counterpart, Sergei Naryshkin, Director of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), with whom he had already been in contact. It was Naryshkin who had signalled openness to the meeting. Ratcliffe remained in Moscow for eight hours before departing.

Two Schools of Thought In The Kremlin

Moscow remains split. Hardliners, led by Putin, view this as a winnable war of military attrition against Ukraine and political attrition against its Western backers. But an alternative camp, more attuned to finance and investment, is also emerging. My source tells me: 'Something important is happening, for sure.'

This was an unusually high-level intelligence-channel contact and the kind that typically occurs when diplomatic relations are badly strained. Peskov described the meeting as positive, though it remains uncertain whether it will improve the broader US–Russia relationship.

London's Vacant Embassy

A further question is who will now head the Russian embassy in London, following Ambassador Andrey Kelin's departure for Moscow. Kelin, in post since 2019, was not highly rated; my sources describe meetings with him as an empty exercise - he reportedly just sat and chuckled, without engaging seriously with the Government or policymakers. I understand the search is on for a more charismatic successor, along the lines of former ambassador Alexander Yakovenko.