The Tribune

At the time of our recent coverage in these columns of the stand-off between Britain and Russia over the much-publicised poisoning attack last month, diplomatic tensions seemed likely to escalate. In the ensuing days the crisis has predictably deepened, with continuing harsh rhetoric, mass expulsion of diplomats and threats from both sides of further retaliatory measures.

Former Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his adult daughter were discovered comatose on a park bench in the city of Salisbury in southern England on March 4. The detailed circumstances are unknown but it has been determined that a nerve agent called Novichok was used to attack them. Although he remains unconscious in hospital, she has apparently responded to treatment well enough to talk to investigators, and the British government is considering Russia’s request for consular access.

Britain has held Russia responsible for the attack and expelled 23 of its diplomats. There has been a robust international response in support of the UK stance in face of what has been widely seen as an unprovoked act of aggression, with over 100 Russian diplomats thrown out of some 20 countries - in Europe as well as Canada, Australia and the USA which has expelled 60 and has also closed Russia’s consulate in Seattle.

In response, Russia has vehemently denied involvement, calling these actions provocative and based on unsubstantiated claims. It has retaliated by ordering out 23 British diplomats and closing the British Council in Moscow while also taking reciprocal action against all the countries supporting Britain, including closure of the American consulate in St Petersburg. Thus, so far, these actions have been symmetrical and have constituted the biggest mass expulsion of diplomats since the Cold War.

The UK has stated that, in the absence of any explanation by Moscow, there is no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state was culpable and this amounts to a flagrant breach of international law including the Chemical Weapons Convention. For its part, Russia has continued to maintain there is no evidence to justify such accusations and that this is simply a diversion from the UK’s unsuccessful Brexit talks.

Since Britain has pointed the finger firmly at Russia, the assumption must be the evidence of its involvement adduced by the nation’s security services, which are known for their integrity and accuracy (except in the case of the Iraq war in 2003), is conclusive; not least because of Britain’s diplomatic success in persuading so many other countries to follow its lead with coordinated action in an unprecedented show of solidarity. It is noteworthy that a US spokesman has called the Salisbury incident a brazen and reckless act - and this, together with separate US criticism of Russian expansionism (Crimea, Ukraine and the Baltic states) and claims of Russian complicity in the violence in Syria, will surely impede Mr Trump’s hopes of building a constructive relationship with the Kremlin.

The international coalition against Russia demonstrates a recognition of the seriousness of its threat to global security. In an attempt to subvert, undermine and influence countries around the world, its unlawful actions include cyberattacks, interference in elections, disinformation and now the use of a nerve agent in attacking its own citizens overseas.

Mr Putin may have underestimated the new level of resolution shown by Britain and its supporters and been taken aback by the strength of global feeling to the extent that a clear message has been sent to him of the costs and consequences of his actions.