British drone factories could face a “semi-military” response from “unknown sources,” a Kremlin adviser has warned, in the latest escalation between Moscow and London over Britain’s military support for Ukraine.
This warning was given by Andrei Fedorov who formerly served as a Russian deputy foreign minister and a Kremlin advisor during the discussion regarding the UK’s decision to provide design plans of British parts that are used in French Scalp cruise missiles – the French version of Storm Shadow cruise missiles produced by the United Kingdom. This move aims to allow Ukraine to produce the long-range weapon within its borders. Rather than warning Britain that Russia will launch an attack against their installations, Fedorov hinted at the fact that it could come from unidentified sources.
“I cannot 100% exclude a semi-military reaction against enterprises and factories producing drones for Ukraine,”
Fedorov said, according to the BBC. He added that such facilities could be attacked
“not by Russia, but by unknown sources.”
The language is deliberately ambiguous. It presents Moscow with a way to threaten British defence-linked companies while retaining room to deny responsibility if an incident occurs. At the same time, it places pressure on the British government and private contractors by suggesting that involvement in Ukraine’s defence production could expose them to risks beyond the battlefield.
The blueprint decision behind the threat
This is directly related to the recent warning issued by the Russians, as a result of Britain’s decision to disclose information related to the Scalp and Storm Shadow missile programme. Storm Shadow refers to the name of the UK long-range cruise missiles produced by a joint venture between Britain and France. The Russian variant of the missile is called the Scalp-EG. While France is ready to deliver Ukraine the information concerning Scalp missiles, the production of such weapons inside Ukraine will require the information related to the technical aspects of production of these missiles in Britain. During his visit to Ukraine, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced that the blueprints of British parts will be delivered in order to help the Ukrainian experts to produce the long-range missiles.
This is the move towards building up their domestic capabilities rather than delivering finished arms to Ukraine. It is strategically different, as deliveries from abroad may be interrupted as a result of political situation changes, transportation problems, as well as lack of ammunition. However, domestic production may become the way to secure a stable supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine and minimize its dependence on supplies from other countries. For Russia, this move is interpreted as direct involvement of the UK in the current war. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov charged that London does not allow any steps towards peace, adding that the military intelligence of Russia collects the information on missile manufacturing plants. It means that this information could lead to destruction of these facilities in the future.
British-made drones used inside Russia
The warning comes amid reports that drones made in Britain have been used in strikes against targets located in the mainland part of Russia for the first time. The drones, produced by two different British firms, have attacked military and industrial objects, such as oil refineries and warehouses operated by Wildberries, one of the biggest online retailers in Russia. A military source told the BBC that UK-made drones were involved in the operations. According to the Sunday Times, the strikes have caused more than £35 billion worth of economic losses, yet the amount is a reported number and not an independent evaluation. These attacks mark a new stage of Ukraine’s struggle to strike Russian military production, energy infrastructure and logistics beyond the frontline.
The company Wildberries has become the target of attacks since July. Ukraine has announced that it was striking logistics points through which Ukrainian authorities were trying to supply military equipment to Russian troops. Yet Moscow sees these strikes as the proof of the involvement of the West in the use of its weapons and components to attack the territory of Russia. Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, once said that British-made and configured drones were involved in attacks on Russian territory, including an attack on the fuel depot in Rostov region. Kremlin sees this situation as the evidence that the West is no longer just supporting Ukraine but participating in the strikes on Russia.
The UK government has acknowledged its expanding drone assistance to Ukraine but says the support is defensive in the broader legal and political context of the war.
Britain’s expanding drone support
In April, the British Ministry of Defence announced a major package that included tens of thousands of drones for Ukraine. The package was described as the UK’s largest ever drone commitment.
The ministry said it would provide more than 150,000 drones during the year, including long-range strike systems, electronic-warfare equipment and low-cost cruise missiles. It also referred to Stone Cloak devices designed to obstruct or complicate Russian air-defence systems.
“We are committed to providing the equipment Ukraine needs to defend itself against Putin’s illegal invasion,”
a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said.
“This includes over 150,000 drones this year, cutting-edge Stone Cloak devices that hinder Russian air defences and innovative low-cost cruise missiles.”
The scale of the commitment illustrates how rapidly drones have moved from being supplementary battlefield tools to central weapons in the conflict. They are being used for reconnaissance, artillery direction, electronic warfare, air defence, logistics disruption and deep strikes against strategic targets. For Ukraine, drones offer a comparatively inexpensive method of attacking infrastructure that would otherwise require scarce cruise missiles or aircraft. For Russia, the growing range and volume of Ukrainian drone operations are creating an expensive air-defence problem across a vast territory.
The military logic of Ukraine’s campaign
The strikes against Russian targets by Ukraine not only seek to incur costs beyond the destruction of the individual target; they aim to disrupt the fuel supply and the production of weapons, as well as the military logistics in general, forcing Russia to defend sites within its own borders. With each new site requiring air defense for Russia, it adds one more problem for its military leadership to solve.
The strikes themselves have a psychological effect on Russia as well. Although much of the Russian aggression was confined to Ukraine’s territory, strikes against targets within Russia undermine Kremlin’s attempts to depict the conflict as having clear geographical boundaries; in other words, it shows that even those military and industrial installations which were away from the front line could be in danger. It should be noted that the strikes against Wildberries warehouses are complicated and require careful examination. While Kyiv accuses the sites of serving as a source of military hardware for the invaders, the company itself is mostly associated with retail operations on the Internet.
Moscow has responded with its own claims of large-scale Ukrainian drone attacks. The mayor of Moscow said that roughly 600 Ukrainian drones had been launched towards the capital overnight, with about one-third destroyed, while three people were injured. A Wildberries warehouse was also hit during the attacks.
The competing claims underline a central problem in wartime reporting: the number of drones launched, intercepted and destroyed is usually provided by the side conducting the defence, while damage assessments are often politically contested.
From public warnings to grey-zone conflict
The mention of “unknown sources” is especially important in Fedorov’s statement since it is an indicator of grey-zone warfare terminology. Grey-zone conflict stands somewhere in between political pressure and full-fledged armed conflict. This type of conflict may include cyber-attacks, arson, sabotage, disinformation campaigns, influence operations, intimidation, and attacks on critical infrastructure facilities. The aim of these actions is to undermine one’s opponent’s position without reaching the point where a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.
Thus, it may not necessarily lead to the destruction of a British drones factory. Even its temporary shutdown, ransomware attacks, theft of technical information or intimidation of employees could cause problems for its further functioning and increase the cost of insurance and security measures.
It will be also difficult to attribute who is responsible for this incident. The British side would have to determine whether it is criminal activity, state-sponsored, or a separate action of extremists and proxy organizations. Even in case when Western countries conclude that this attack was carried out with the help of Russian intelligence services, Moscow would deny any involvement in it. That is why British officials would interpret Fedorov’s statement as something other than rhetoric propaganda. Threats can be a part of deterrence campaign, but they can also prepare the grounds for some future grey-zone operations.
London refuses to change course
The British government has rejected Russia’s warnings and reaffirmed its commitment to Ukraine. Burnham has argued that Britain is supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself against Russia’s invasion, rather than initiating hostilities against Moscow. Responding to the Russian position, he asked:
“Who started the fire? That’s the question, isn’t it?”
This statement is consistent with the arguments presented by London – Russia started the war, and Ukrainian attacks against military and industrial targets are caused by the invasion. In light of that, the help provided by the British is aimed at enhancing the defense capability of Ukraine to resist future attacks. The government has stressed that its aid will last as long as it is needed. While paying a visit to Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th year of its independence, Burnham stated that the UK would support Kyiv and keep pressuring Russia.
“The UK stands with you today and for as long as necessary,”
Burnham said.
“Our bonds with Ukraine will outlive Russia’s illegal war, and it is important for Russia to know that we will not stop until a just and sustainable peace is reached.”
According to a joint statement released by Burnham, Emmanuel Macron – President of France, and Friedrich Merz – Chancellor of Germany, improving air defenses of Ukraine is of utmost importance right now. The leaders have condemned Moscow’s escalating attacks on Ukrainian cities, their infrastructures, and civilians, promising to cut off financial resources for the war through sanctions and action against the shadow fleet of Russia.
The NATO question
Any physical attack on a British defence manufacturer would carry implications beyond the immediate damage.
The UK is a part of NATO. Under article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an armed attack against any member can be seen as an attack against all members, but the alliance will assess each individual case before deciding on how to respond to it. Therefore, the attribution, scope and intention will be very significant. Not every cyberattack or sabotage will be interpreted as an attack that requires a collective military response.
NATO will have to determine who committed the act, whether it was directed by a state and if it constitutes an armed attack. However, any unclear case will result in diplomacy, further sanctions, intelligence activities and improved security of military installations. Russia knows the threshold. This could explain the choice of cautious language by Fedorov. An announcement about the possibility of actions from “unknown sources” is frightening but does not imply any open intention to launch an attack against Britain. There are risks involved for Russia too. A clear attribution of any secret activity can result in further sanctions, increased military support to Ukraine and collective response from NATO.
