Russia sends threat to strike 23 locations in UK - horror WW3 map shows Putin's targets

Russia says it is already at war with the West because of Western support for Ukraine, according to recent statements from prominent Russian figures. Senator Dmitry Rogozin, a former deputy prime minister and ex-head of Russia’s space agency, warned that the United Kingdom could become "deadly dangerous" for Russians after reposting a map highlighting British defence-related sites as potential targets.

Rogozin’s comments were in direct response to remarks by former British defence secretary Ben Wallace, who suggested that Ukraine should be enabled to make Crimea "uninhabitable and unviable from a Russian point of view" by limiting its access and resources. Wallace said Ukraine does not need to invade Crimea but should seek to "strangle" the peninsula economically and logistically. Rogozin seized on this language, accusing Western leaders of exposing their true intentions and urging Russian oligarchs not to send their children to study in Britain because it was "deadly dangerous."

State television host Vladimir Solovyov amplified the threats, using inflammatory language directed at Wallace and other British figures. Solovyov described Wallace as a political has-been and openly celebrated the idea of retaliation, even invoking Poseidon, the Kremlin’s conceptual underwater system purported to carry nuclear capability, when warning of possible strikes on the UK. His comments included harsh personal insults and suggestions that Britain could face severe consequences for its support of Ukraine.

The map Rogozin shared reportedly draws on a UK policy paper that lists defence industrial sites across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Analysts note that publicly available documents can be repurposed in hostile rhetoric, creating alarm about how words may translate into real-world risk.

Russian media narratives also proposed more dramatic acts of revenge. One commentator suggested targeting the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, a World War II ship lying in the Thames estuary that still contains a large quantity of unexploded ordnance. The suggestion, framed as retribution for alleged Western involvement in operations against Russian economic assets, prompted warnings from experts about the catastrophic consequences if the wreck were disturbed.

These exchanges highlight the volatile tone of current rhetoric between Russian officials and Western public figures. Experts caution that aggressive language increases the risk of escalation and amplifies public fear. Government and security services in the countries targeted typically take such statements seriously, monitoring potential threats while working to de-escalate through diplomatic channels and intelligence cooperation.

Observers argue that public calls for extreme measures, even if unlikely to be carried out, often serve political purposes at home and abroad. For Kremlin-aligned voices, framing the West as an existential enemy reinforces domestic narratives of unity and resistance. For Western politicians, forceful rhetoric signals resolve to allies and voters. The result is a heightened atmosphere of mutual suspicion at a moment when constructive diplomacy would be more effective in reducing tensions and preventing miscalculation.

Civil society groups and independent journalists have urged restraint, calling for transparent dialogue, verification of claims, and reliance on international institutions to address grievances rather than reciprocal threats that risk inadvertent conflict and harm to civilians and infrastructure recovery.