Message of defiance against Russia from UK allies may yet dissolve into inaction

The British Government has declared it has the full backing of its international allies in the confrontation with Russia. There will, we are told, be a united front in the robust retaliation which will follow against Vladimir Putin.

We will have to wait to see whether this is indeed the case. Previous expressions of international solidarity following the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, in which the Kremlin was again held culpable, eventually came to nothing much at all.

The initial reaction from the West was hardly universally encouraging. On Wednesday Benjamin Griveaux, spokesman for Emmanuel Macron, was almost withering when asked about Russian culpability. “We don’t do fantasy politics. Once the elements are proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made,” he said just hours after Theresa May had accused Moscow of carrying out an assassination attempt, and announced the expulsion of 23 Russians under diplomatic accreditation.

After another telephone call from Ms May on Thursday morning, the Elysee Palace issued a statement saying: “Everything leads us to believe that the responsibility [for the attack] is attributable to Russia.” Mr Macron will, it said, announce measures in the coming days. One obvious and effective step would be to cancel his visit to Russia due to take place in two months’ time. That would certainly be a statement of disapproval to President Putin. One should not, however, hold one’s breath on that happening; we are more likely than not to see Mr Macron shaking hands with Mr Putin in Moscow.

In Italy, Matteo Salvini, who may become the next prime minister following the recent election, responded to the allegations of Moscow’s involvement by suggesting we “see and hear a lot of fake news” and that “in 2018 you don’t go around poisoning people”.

The French President may take further steps against the Kremlin’s propaganda outlets, like Russia Today and Sputnik. There is, however, an element of self-interest there, since during the presidential election last year his campaign was relentlessly targeted by fake news sites and hackers while Moscow backed Marine Le Pen and her Front National.

The US stridently supported the UK at the UN Security Council meeting on Wednesday, with ambassador Nikki Haley talking of exposing “Russia’s crime”. She added: “If we don’t take immediate measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used – they could be used here in New York or in any cities of any country that sits on this council.”

Ms Haley, however, has become well known since her arrival at the UN as someone who competes in floridness of language with the man who appointed her to the post, Donald Trump. Her diatribes have seldom been followed up by firm action, be it in Syria, Ukraine or North Korea.

Meanwhile, Mr Trump – who has furiously tweeted about Muslim terrorist attacks, real and imaginary in the West – was remarkably silent on the Salisbury poisoning. He almost had to be dragged to make a statement, finally coming out with: “It sounds like they believe it was Russia... I would certainly take that finding as fact.” He wanted to stress, however: “If we get the facts straight we will condemn Russia – or whoever it might be.”

Later, asked if he thought the Russians were behind the attack, he was a bit more forthright: “It sort of looks like it. I’ve spoken to the Prime Minister and we are in discussions. A very sad situation, it certainly looks like the Russians are behind it. Something that should never happen, we are taking it very seriously, as I think are many others.”

Mr Trump would not be drawn on Vladimir Putin’s possible connection to the attack. The US President, who has criticised people around the world at the drop of a hat, is yet to say a single bad word, since he got to the White House, about Mr Putin. This has inevitably fuelled speculation on just how bad is the stuff the Kremlin may have on the US President.

The US Treasury has just announced new sanctions against Russian individuals and organisations, including the FSB and GRU intelligence agencies and the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg. But these are for Russian interference in the US presidential election. Mr Trump has repeatedly tried to downplay this interference. He remains under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller over his links to the Kremlin.

On Thursday there was a joint statement by the leaders of Britain, the US, France and Germany condemning the attack. The statement described it as “an assault on UK sovereignty”, and went on: “It threatens the security of us all. The United Kingdom thoroughly briefed its allies and it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack.”

After Ms May’s Commons statement on Wednesday, Iain Duncan Smith raised the issue of the Nord Stream 2 – a project involving Berlin and Moscow in which a pipeline will take Russian gas to Germany.

Germany maintains that the €10bn project will buttress Europe’s energy security by ensuring steady gas supplies at a time when the continent’s energy resources are dwindling. But Poland and some eastern Europe states are deeply concerned that it will give Moscow great and dangerous strategic leverage over Europe.

The pipeline, said Mr Duncan Smith, will provide Moscow “unparalleled ability to bully Ukraine and eastern European countries” while making Russia very rich. Can the Prime Minister ask the German government to withdraw from the project as part of the concerted action, he asked.

All Ms May could offer in response was that Nord Stream 2 has been discussed with European allies in the past. We shall, again, have to wait to see just how far solidarity of the allies reaches in Britain’s new Cold War with the Kremlin.