Mrs May roared like a lion and cannot afford to back down now

The PM issued an ultimatum to Putin and she must follow up with equally decisive action

Ultimatums are risky things. They invariably invite rejection, like the famous riposte of the besieged US general when given a surrender deadline at Bastogne in Dec 1944: “Nuts!” The issuer must be prepared to follow up the threat or look weak and indecisive. They are even more problematic when the target is not only bigger than you are but a swaggering bully who couldn’t care less if he is pilloried in the court of world opinion.

By issuing an ultimatum to Vladimir Putin in the terms that she did in the Commons on Monday, Theresa May has made the response to the Salisbury nerve agent attack as much about her as it is about him. If the Russian leader’s response is “Nuts!” what then?

Mrs May’s anger on the country’s behalf is commendable, noble even. She certainly did not mince her words on Monday and was widely praised for her strong language. But she has left herself precious little wriggle room should the Kremlin just laugh in her face. By today, the Russians are required either to own up to what by any standards would be an outrageously hostile act against Britain or to admit that deadly nerve agents they are not supposed to have are in the hands of maverick assassins. We know enough about President Putin by now to be certain he will do neither of these.

He wouldn’t kowtow in normal circumstances; but when he is facing re-election this weekend and part of his appeal to Russian voters is a macho inclination to face down the West at every opportunity, we can forget it. Indeed, Moscow is already trying to turn the tables by accusing Britain of forbidding consular access to one of its own citizens – Yulia Skripal, daughter of Sergei, the former double agent targeted in the attack.

Presumably all of this will have been factored into the Prime Minister’s response. The attendees at the National Security Council on Monday where this strategy was devised must have assumed a rejection by the Kremlin and planned accordingly.

But what do we have in the locker that is commensurate with the seriousness of what has been alleged? Mrs May’s words were far harsher than anything said about the Russian state at the time of Alexander Litvinenko’s assassination in 2006. The following year, when the involvement of two Russian EX-FSB officers was suspected, the Labour government expelled four diplomats from the embassy in London and imposed sanctions on named Putin-backing oligarchs. Uk-russian relations were frozen for a time before being gradually thawed out under the Coalition.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary in the Brown government, has defended his response to the Litvinenko affair as proportionate and one that allowed for some form of diplomatic contact to be maintained. At that time, Russia’s revanchist ambitions had not fully shown themselves. When they did with the invasion of Georgia in 2008, there was lots of tut-tutting by the West but little in the way of action. Taking his cue from that, Mr Putin annexed Crimea and interfered in Ukraine with impunity.

The most disastrous ultimatum of recent times was issued to President Assad of Syria to stop killing his own people with chemical weapons or face the consequences. Red lines were drawn, threats of military action were made and nothing happened, largely because the UK Parliament voted against retaliation. The disastrous ramifications of that decision continue to be felt in Syria, with chemical weapons still in use and Russia now deep in the conflict.

So assuming the Kremlin denies the charges levelled against it, what can be done? Some have called for a boycott of the World Cup in Russia this summer, but it would have to be more than just England refusing to participate to hurt Mr Putin. Moreover, this is not for the Government to dictate, as Margaret Thatcher found out in 1980. Then, the Americans issued an ultimatum to the Soviet Union to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or face an international boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow. But while dozens of countries, including West Germany, China and Canada, shunned the tournament, and the British government supported the boycott, a GB athletic team went because the final decision was left to sports bodies and individual contestants. Mindful of the danger of asking England not to go to Russia only to be ignored, the Government has already ruled this out.

There has been talk of a cyber attack on the Russians but they almost certainly have a bigger offensive programme than we have and would be more ruthless in its deployment in retaliation; so that is unlikely. A so-called Magnitsky Act looks certain but many of the targeted sanctions this legislation would allow are already in place. We could expel a lot more diplomats than we did last time, even close the embassy; but the Russians will just kick ours out, too.

What else? Further financial sanctions are available but the last lot did nothing to stay Russia’s hand. To ratchet up the pressure we will need allies, yet Brexit has complicated our foreign relations with Europe. The European Commission declared its “unwavering solidarity” with the UK, but how far will our friends go in demonstrating their support? It is worrying that Rex Tillerson, the US Secretary of State, was sacked yesterday when he was openly backing Britain, while Donald Trump initially seemed reluctant to get involved but after speaking to Theresa May last night seems to be on board for action against Russia. This should be a collective action under Article 5 of the Nato treaty since we are accusing the Kremlin of using a weapons-grade nerve agent in what Mrs May called “a direct act by the Russian state against our country”.

After roaring like a lion, Mrs May must beware bringing forth a mouse. Parallels with the Falklands have been drawn and, while this is not as serious as the invasion of British territory, there are similarities: a woman prime minister; a Left-wing Labour leader; an ultimatum issued to a hard-man leader; and the fickleness of allies. In the Commons debate after the 1982 invasion, Enoch Powell said the country would find out if Mrs Thatcher deserved the nickname the Iron Lady. We know the answer. But what metal is Mrs May made of?