Russia has scored a humiliating own goal

Putin’s attempt to expose divisions in the West has backfired spectacularly, leaving the Kremlin isolated

For all Vladimir Putin’s bluster about retaliating against the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats the world has ever seen, the Russian leader is soon to discover just how limited his options have become.

In my opinion, Mr Putin is more of an opportunist than a strategist in terms of his engagement with the world. Rather than having a coherent, well-considered plan for rebuilding Russia’s strength after decades of decline, he spends his time looking for ways to make a nuisance of himself.

Disruption, not constructive engagement, is the name of Mr Putin’s game. This is evident in the way he has behaved in recent years, from stirring up trouble in eastern Ukraine to meddling in the American elections.

No doubt he and his Kremlin cronies calculated that by using a deadly nerve agent to assassinate a former Russian intelligence officer on British soil, they would be able to test the strength of the Western alliance at a time when Britain and the rest of Europe were supposedly obsessed with the Brexit negotiations.

The first chemical weapons attack in Europe since the Second World War certainly has all the hallmarks of a Putin-style operation – test the enemy’s responses while denying any involvement.

If, by authorising the Salisbury attack – and the jury is still out on the true extent of Russian state complicity – Mr Putin was hoping to expose divisions in the West’s security infrastructure, then he must now be sorely disappointed.

Both Theresa May and Boris Johnson deserve enormous credit for orchestrating the biggest display of European solidarity of the modern era, with countries as far apart as Canada, Hungary and Australia joining the worldwide condemnation of Russia’s grossly irresponsible involvement.

Mr Putin, by contrast, finds himself isolated and friendless. It is a measure of how bad things are for Moscow that it cannot even count on the tepid support of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, behaved more like a guest presenter for the Kremlin’s RT television station than the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

Which begs the question, what can Mr Putin do now by way of retaliation for the most humiliating, and selfinflicted, episode in the modern history of Russian diplomacy?

Yesterday the Kremlin’s PR machine was full of its usual bombast, promising to “respond harshly” to the expulsions of 115 Russian diplomats globally. Many of them are covert operatives for the country’s security service – hence Mrs May’s boast to the Commons on Monday that the co-ordinated global action had “dismantled” Russia’s overseas spying operation.

The Russians can, of course, respond with tit-for-tat expulsions, which will no doubt begin in the next few days. Mr Putin could also, I suppose, ask his friends in rogue states such as Iran and Syria for support, although I doubt either country has any credible diplomatic assets that are worth bringing to the table. North Korea, whose nuclear weapons programme is said to have benefited from Russian technical help, is another possibility, although Kim Jong-un, the country’s dictator, seems more preoccupied with trying to avoid a military confrontation with the United States at the moment.

There has been speculation that Russia might escalate its aggressive stance towards the West by embarking on yet another act of military adventurism by, for example, threatening one of the Baltic states, such as Estonia. Another option would be to launch revenge cyber attacks in the hope of disabling critical infrastructure, or launching another wave of fake news aimed at undermining the credibility of Western governments.

The trouble for Mr Putin, though, is that the rest of the world has not only wised up to his tactics; it has already made provision to defend itself against further acts of Russian recklessness.

Russia’s aggression towards Georgia and Ukraine has resulted in Nato beefing up its defences in the eastern Europe and the Baltics. As for the Kremlin’s more clandestine operations, these activities are now so much in the public domain that most people have heard, for example, about the St Petersburg troll factory, with its army of internet bots pumping out an endless diet of fake news.

In the back of Mr Putin’s mind, meanwhile, will be the concern that, if he overreacts, his actions could jeopardise the football World Cup, which his country is due to host this summer.

The Russian statesman likes nothing better than to take centre stage at major global events – it is his way of showing Russia’s oppressed masses that he enjoys equal status with the world’s other major leaders.

It would, therefore, be an embarrassment of monumental proportions for President Putin if the rest of the world decided to boycott the tournament, a sanction that will undoubtedly receive serious consideration if Russia is found guilty of any more acts of vile skulduggery. Mr Putin, it might appear, is stymied.