On September 14, the leaders of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland plan to sign a joint declaration on the right to self-determination and the holding of referendums. The three regional governments, led by supporters of independence, are effectively synchronizing political pressure on Westminster.
At first glance, this is an issue of domestic British politics. However, the potential destabilization of the United Kingdom affects NATO’s European nuclear deterrence system and directly concerns Ukraine’s interests.
Moscow Does Not Need to Create Separatism
The current situation is extremely favorable to Russia.
Scottish nationalism, the Welsh independence movement, and the Irish question all have their own history and political base. The Kremlin does not need to create them from scratch. The task of Russian intelligence services may be different: to exploit existing divisions, amplify them in the digital space, radicalize the positions of the parties involved, and turn a constitutional debate into a crisis of British statehood.
There is no public evidence of direct Russian involvement in preparing the meeting in Cardiff. Nor is there any basis for claiming that Moscow controls British political parties advocating independence. However, it would be a mistake to rule out Russian influence operations surrounding the issue.
Britain has already faced this challenge. In its Russia Report, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament drew attention to credible open-source reporting regarding Russian influence surrounding the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Today, MI5 is documenting Russian espionage, sabotage activity, arson attacks, the use of intermediaries, and other forms of state threat.
Russian intelligence services do not necessarily need direct contact with politicians. It is far more effective to amplify authentic domestic British narratives and deepen confrontation between the regions and London.
Scotland: Britain’s Nuclear Hub
This is where separatism moves from the political sphere into the military-strategic domain.
Scotland is home to HMNB Clyde, the Faslane-Coulport complex and the main base of Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet.
The Royal Navy operates nine nuclear-powered submarines: five attack/multi-purpose submarines and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. All four SSBNs are based at HMNB Clyde.
Faslane provides the base for the nuclear submarines. Approximately 13 km away is Coulport, a specialized facility associated with the storage, maintenance and loading of nuclear warheads for Trident II D5 ballistic missiles. Security at the complex is provided, among others, by personnel from 43 Commando Royal Marines.
This is the foundation of Britain’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.
At the same time, the United Kingdom is replacing the four Vanguard-class submarines with new Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines, which are expected to begin entering service in the early 2030s.
The Scottish and Northern Irish parts of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise account for around 5,000 jobs, more than 800 supply-chain companies, and £438 million in annual procurement.
Therefore, potential Scottish independence would pose a strategic question for London: where should the ballistic missile submarines and associated nuclear infrastructure be based?
Relocating such a complex would require recreating submarine basing facilities, specialized storage, nuclear weapons maintenance systems, logistics, physical security and nuclear safety infrastructure. This would take years and require substantial budgetary resources.
The strategic chain is clear:
destabilization of Scotland → HMNB Clyde problem → complications for the operation of Trident → weakening of the British component of NATO’s European nuclear deterrence.
Why This Benefits Russia
The United Kingdom is a nuclear-armed state, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, one of NATO’s key military powers, and one of the principal European opponents of Russian aggression.
With the role of the United States in European security becoming less predictable, the importance of the British-French military and nuclear tandem is increasing.
For this reason, according to the assessment of the Information and Analytical Center “Andromeda,” the main objective of a potential Russian influence operation may not even be the breakup of the United Kingdom. For Moscow, a prolonged internal crisis that forces London to spend political, financial and counterintelligence resources on preserving its own state structure would be sufficient.
Wales and Northern Ireland are increasing political pressure on Westminster, but Scotland has the greatest military-strategic importance because it hosts Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet.
A 5–10-Year Scenario
A rapid breakup of the United Kingdom is unlikely. Westminster retains substantial legal, economic and political leverage.
A more dangerous scenario would be 5–10 years of constitutional confrontation: referendum campaigns, court proceedings, elections, protests, and confrontation between regional governments and London.
For the Kremlin, even the absence of an actual breakup could be an acceptable outcome. One of Europe’s most powerful states would be forced to focus not on Ukraine, the Baltic states and deterring Russia, but on its own internal stability.
What This Means for Ukraine
For Ukraine, this is no longer a distant British domestic issue.
The total volume of Britain’s commitments to support Ukraine has reached £25 billion, including £16 billion in military assistance. London has committed to providing military support at a level of at least £3 billion annually through 2030/31 and beyond, for as long as necessary.
In 2026, £3.75 billion in military support is planned, along with more than £600 million for air defense, around 150,000 drones and 350 air-defense missiles. Under Operation INTERFLEX, more than 63,000 Ukrainian service members have been trained in the United Kingdom.
Together with France, Britain remains one of the main centers of European military support for Ukraine and the development of future security guarantees.
The internal crisis in the United Kingdom creates three risks for Ukraine: diverting London’s political attention away from countering Russian aggression, competition for defense resources, and weakening European deterrence against Russia.
This becomes particularly dangerous amid the possibility of a change in the role of the United States in European security. In such circumstances, the importance of Britain’s military and nuclear capabilities for NATO’s eastern flank and Ukraine would only increase.
Russian intelligence services do not need to create British separatism or control its leaders. They only need to amplify existing divisions and force one of the West’s key powers to spend its resources on internal confrontation.
For Ukraine, the stability of the United Kingdom is a matter of national security. A weakened London would simultaneously mean weaker European deterrence against Russia, a weaker NATO, and a weaker position for one of Ukraine’s key military partners.
That is why Britain’s domestic front is increasingly becoming part of the broader confrontation between Russia and the West.
Mykola Zentsev, international security expert, Major General (Ret.), Head of the Expert Council of the Andromeda Information and Analytical Center.