The “escalate to de-escalate” playbook, first employed by the Soviet Union, is being revived in the Ukraine conflict. The strategy is straightforward but risky: push tensions to the brink, forcing the other side to back down in favor of negotiation. Today, both Ukraine and Russia appear to be embracing this tactic, escalating military actions to gain leverage before potential peace talks.
U.S. Sends a Strong Signal: Long-Range Missiles in Play
This week, the U.S. authorized Ukraine to use American-made ATACMS long-range missiles, capable of striking up to 300 kilometers inside Russian territory. Kyiv wasted no time, reportedly launching six missiles at a military facility in Bryansk, deep inside Russia. While Russia claims to have intercepted most of them, the move signals a sharp escalation in Ukraine’s strategy.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky all but confirmed the attack, boasting about Ukraine’s growing arsenal of long-range weapons:
“We now have ATACMS, Neptunes, and more. And we will use them—all of them.”
Russia’s Response: Lowering the Nuclear Threshold
Russia has responded with a chilling revision to its nuclear doctrine. Previously, Moscow pledged to use nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack. The updated policy now permits the use of nukes in response to significant conventional attacks—a move slammed by Western leaders as “irresponsible” and “escalatory.”
Western analysts warn that Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons could be deployed on the battlefield if Ukraine pushes too far into Russian territory. However, this also depends on how far the U.S. and Ukraine are willing to escalate.
Biden’s Last Gambit: Landmines and Lame Duck Moves
With his presidency winding down, Joe Biden appears determined to give Ukraine every possible advantage. This week, the U.S. agreed to provide landmines, a controversial weapon designed to slow Russian advances in eastern Ukraine. While effective in delaying enemy troops, landmines carry the risk of significant civilian casualties.
Biden’s actions are drawing criticism from Trump’s allies, who accuse him of risking World War III. With Trump likely to favor a negotiated settlement, Biden’s push to escalate the conflict underscores his urgency to leave Ukraine in a strong position before his term ends.
Putin’s Terms for Peace
While Russia may be open to a ceasefire, President Vladimir Putin’s conditions are unyielding:
- No NATO membership for Ukraine
- Recognition of Russian-held territories
- No freezing of current frontlines
These demands are unlikely to be acceptable to Ukraine, especially as Zelensky doubles down on offensive operations to secure gains before potential negotiations under Trump’s presidency.
The Global Stage: Waning Interest in Ukraine
The conflict is losing steam on the global stage, as evidenced by the G20 summit in Brazil. The joint declaration avoided condemning Russia and omitted the previous year’s sentiment that “this is not an era of war.” With nations turning inward and aid slowing, Ukraine faces increasing isolation.
Europe, meanwhile, continues to pledge unwavering support. But with NATO warning of hybrid threats like cyberattacks and sabotage, Russia may shift its tactics to target European infrastructure. Recent incidents in the Baltic Sea, where undersea internet cables were cut, are being viewed as a possible preview.
What Lies Ahead
As the war enters its next critical phase, two key developments warrant close attention:
- Europe’s Response: Will Europe sustain its support for Ukraine, especially if Russia employs hybrid warfare to undermine their resolve?
- Zelensky’s Strategy: Facing the prospect of Trump’s preference for negotiation, Zelensky may escalate further to demonstrate Ukraine’s strength or secure leverage for future talks.
With both sides aiming for an upper hand, the next few weeks promise heightened tensions, increased risks, and a precarious path to 2025. Whether this escalation leads to negotiation or catastrophe remains uncertain, but the stakes could not be higher.
