John Healey refuses to commit to extra defence spending, will he now resign? - Patrick Mercer

The Kremlin sees Britain as a noisy yet weak foe and with this in mind, Maria Zakharova, Mr Putin’s mouthpiece on foreign affairs, didn’t hold back: “We are urging all residents of the United Kingdom to think about the unavoidable catastrophic consequences of the hostile moves of their authorities…we have repeatedly warned that any British military installations and equipment in Ukraine and beyond its borders could be targeted…we propose the British leadership…analyse the situation and immediately in the most resolute and unequivocal manner abandon the hostile, aggressive line.”

The Kremlin weighs its words carefully and it’s fascinating to see how we, the people, are being encouraged to question our leaders. Also, note how there’s no explicit threat to British soil yet our kit, troops and bases abroad could be attacked. Despite the starkness of this verbal counter-attack the nuances lead to doubt and sap public morale: it’s all straight out of the Soviet era irregular warfare playbook.

You can also bet your last rouble that our Chancellor’s dodging and diving will be turned to Russia’s advantage. Whilst the Prime Minister made it very clear that the UK was providing weapons to kill Russians, John Healey will not commit to extra defence spending. But wasn’t Keir Starmer’s reluctance to fork out for guns rather than butter the very reason that Mr Healey resigned in such a ‘principled’ way?

Now he’s Chancellor, of course, he should allocate that money in his next Budget, but now it seems he won’t. It leaves you wondering if Mr Healey will resign on ‘principle’ over his own Budget?

We may shrug over such things, but Mr Trump certainly will not. In a drive by the White House to pressurise its allies into spending more on defence, America has threatened not to support the UK's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

There aren’t many shrugs in Moscow either - but there’s plenty of hand rubbing. Public contradictions between the untested Mr Burnham and his supposedly street wise Chancellor whilst the Americans stir the pot are a gift to the KGB.

Not bad in the first weeks in office, I’d say. Mr Burnham’s seriously angered two superpowers, caused his own people to be threatened with attacks and done not a blind thing to improve Britain’s defences.

Then, with the latest UK/Russia row as a backdrop, something very odd has been going on between Washington and Moscow. A few days ago David Ratcliffe, head of the CIA, flew directly to Russia in a US military aircraft and spent several hours in secret talks there.

The most recent precedent was when the last boss of America’s spies flew to Moscow in late 2021 in an attempt to dissuade Russia from launching an invasion of Ukraine. Obviously, then, four star spooks are sparingly used when and only when the situation is grave.

Now, there are more rumours and theories about Mr Ratcliffe’s real mission than you can shake a stick at. The only formal statement from Moscow was that it was ‘semi routine’, but that’s nonsense. Mr Ratcliffe flew in in a vast, US Air Force aircraft containing a small convoy of armoured saloons which meant that the opportunity for Russia to bug or sabotage his transport was almost nil.

Similarly, Kiev had been told to suspend any attacks which might endanger the visit. Some British sources even claim that it was all to do with the Russian threats to the UK, but would Mr Trump bother with such niceties?

No, I suspect a deal was being made. Spooks don’t threaten - that’s a statesman’s job - spies gather information. Perhaps that’s why a story has been carefully sown over the past couple of weeks that Mr Putin is going to try his luck with a limited operation against a NATO member.

This probably wouldn’t be conventional, but could be an overwhelming cyber attack which blacks out a whole country. It could even be deniable, just so long as the NATO members’ promise to come to the aid of another which is under attack - Article 5 - is tested and found to be worthless.

Now, Lithuania’s been mentioned as a target: small but bellicose and bordering the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad whose remoteness has long worried Moscow. Then suppose that Mr Trump declined to ride to Vilnius’s rescue, shattering NATO’s credibility in the process?

Or perhaps Mr Putin’s got plans for another crack at Kiev and regime change? There are certainly signs of airfields, ammunition dumps and the like being prepared in nearby Belarus. We don’t yet know, but one constant in every piece of scuttlebutt is that the White House would be mightily pleased if Russia could be persuaded to give less aid to Iran.

Clearly, the CIA boss’s urgent visit to Moscow was anything but ‘routine’ and there’s more mischief brewing. Now, Mr Burnham’s said that he wants less ‘point scoring’ in politics. Currently Mr Burnham has broad consensus over Ukraine, but will that survive whatever horror’s coming next and, judging by what Moscow calls “an aggressive, hostile line”, his own enthusiasm for Britain to be right in the thick of it?

Patrick Mercer is a former Conservative MP for Newark and Army Colonel.