With Russia’s invasion continuing to fail, the Kremlin is likely to ramp up its efforts to destabilise the West in other ways

Con Coughlin

Executive Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor

A leading expert on global conflict, international security and the Middle East. Con worked as a foreign correspondent for 20 years in the Beirut, Jerusalem, New York and Washington bureaux. More recently he covered the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine. He is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the War Studies Department, King’s College, London.

Published 18 June 2026 7:00am BST

After more than four years of unremitting conflict in Ukraine, the mounting evidence that the tide of the war is finally turning in Kyiv’s favour should be a moment for the West to savour. Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” to make Ukraine a vassal state of the Kremlin is as much a threat to the long-term security of the Western alliance as it is to Ukraine’s own survival as an independent sovereign state.

This is why Western powers have provided Kyiv with significant military and financial support. This backing was reaffirmed this week by G7 leaders meeting at Evian-les-Bains.

Add to this the advantage the Ukrainian military has established on the battlefield, with Ukrainian long-range drones regularly targeting Moscow and St Petersburg, and it is clearly evident that Putin’s hopes of achieving victory are vanishingly small.

In such circumstances, any rational leader would be looking for an exit strategy. Not Putin. Rather than accepting that his Ukraine adventure will never deliver his objectives, the Russian despot seems determined to ignore calls for Russia to agree to a lasting ceasefire, one that would undoubtedly be to Moscow’s benefit.

Apart from the terrible losses Russian forces are suffering – battlefield casualties are estimated at around 30,000 each month – the conflict is having an increasingly punitive effect on the Russian economy, to the extent that prominent Russian politicians are now openly calling for an end to hostilities. The latest warning issued by Vyacheslav Markhayev, a former police general, claimed Russia was on the “brink of a social explosion”, and called on Putin to end his disastrous war “before the country is plunged into chaos”.

Yet Putin appears oblivious to the harm he is inflicting on both Russia and his own chances of surviving in office. Moreover, the more obvious it becomes that Russia has no chance of achieving victory in its quest to subjugate Ukraine, the more determined Putin becomes in his attempts to maintain his wider confrontation against the West.

Sir Keir Starmer may try to play down the significance of this week’s incident in the Channel, when a Russian warship fired warning shots at British holidaymakers sailing their yacht to France, but it highlights Putin’s growing willingness to indulge in reckless acts designed to intimidate his Western adversaries.

With the Royal Navy seemingly incapable of deterring the Russians from operating in its own back yard, the last thing Starmer needs when he is facing fierce criticism over his handling of defence spending is to be reminded of the limitations of our Armed Forces. The channel incident needs to be seen in the context of other highly provocative Russian acts, such as attempts to disrupt vital underwater networks, cyber attacks, covert disinformation campaigns, and directly targeting property in north London owned by the Prime Minister himself.

For Putin, the prospect of losing the war in Ukraine is not going to make him adopt a more cautious approach. On the contrary, it is likely to make him an even more dangerous adversary, one who is prepared to undertake ever greater risks.

Blaise Metreweli, the head of MI6, has warned that the Russian leader’s conduct is the result of an “aggressive, expansionist and revisionist mindset”.

“The frontline is everywhere,” she said. “The export of chaos is a feature, not a bug, in the Russian approach to international engagement.”

The danger Putin’s approach presents to the Western alliance is made more acute by his own increased isolation, where he spends most of his time moving from one heavily fortified bunker to another, only conferring with a limited circle of trusted advisers.

Western leaders need to be extra vigilant to ensure that Putin does not cause further instability by resorting to asymmetric warfare and provocative military acts. To keep the Russians in check, it is vital that the West implements a coherent strategy of deterrence, one that demonstrates beyond doubt to the Kremlin the price it will pay if it continues to indulge in reckless acts of provocation.

The UK’s highly effective response to the Salisbury attack in 2018, for example, when Russian intelligence attempted to murder a high profile dissident with Novichok nerve agent, is a good example of how it is possible to teach the Russians a lesson without risking further escalation. On that occasion the UK spearheaded an international response to expel scores of Russian intelligence agents, an operation that severely damaged Moscow’s espionage operations in Europe and beyond.

If Putin is to be deterred from indulging in further acts of intimidation, then Western leaders need to demonstrate the same level of resolve and commitment that has helped Ukraine to gain the upper hand in its war with Russia.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/18/putin-defeats-ukraine-double-edged-sword-britain-russia/