Opinion | Russian escalation won't come in the form of nukes but in a more subtle yet dangerous way
By Tom Fowdy
Throughout the Ukrainian war, Vladimir Putin and Russia's leadership have repeatedly made threats that Western escalation is equivalent to a "direct war" on Moscow and thus merits a nuclear response. As the US approved long-range strikes on Russian territory several days ago, Putin subsequently responded by expanding the country's nuclear doctrine to define it as "aggression from any non-nuclear state – but with the participation of a nuclear country" as "a joint attack on Russia."
At this stage, it is likewise true that Russia's constant posturing over nuclear warfare isn't taken seriously, and why would it be? This has allowed the United States to continually move the goalposts and seemingly escalate the conflict at will, primarily on the assumption that Russia will not dare make such a move given its potentially world-ending consequences. As it goes, Russia after all is utilizing its hand against Ukraine, so how is it possible he could seriously escalate against the West anyway and transform it into a full-blown NATO conflict? Such saber-rattling is therefore deemed not credible.
But does that mean Russia is not capable of responding to this? Yes, I have learned over the course of this war that the Kremlin's rhetoric can border on nonsensical and they have made threats so many times it has become "the boy who cried wolf," yet it is highly complement to assume there are no consequences, or that there are no other choices between "do nothing" and "nuclear war" as Russia seems to lead us to believe. First, let us be clear that even without the consideration of the West, the Biden administration is well aware that the decision they have made is escalatory within Ukraine itself and as I previously discussed in an earlier piece, is designed to undermine the incoming Trump administration's ability to end the conflict, as well as countries in Europe such as Germany.
Why? Because even without ridiculous nuclear war hypotheticals, Russia can intensify its efforts to destroy Ukrainian critical infrastructure and cities with mass cruise missile bombing campaigns, as it did on Monday, as well as the increasingly sophisticated usage of aerial glide bombs. More strikes within Russia do not weaken political support for the war, as naively hoped, but rather put peace at a higher price by attempting to humiliate the Kremlin and only affirming the need that Ukraine cannot be negotiated with. This premise works for all sides too, as is America (and Britain's design) who are happy for the war to continue for their own strategic gain.
Second, it is foolish to assume that Russia has no options to respond to the West apart from nuclear war. Russia's leadership is not suicidal, but they have less reason or incentive to be restrained in other ways. The things they can do include increasing acts of sabotage against Western armaments industries, as has already been done, cyber attacks against critical infrastructure or communications, assassinations on foreign soil against Ukrainian figures, and more disturbingly, more cooperation with the world's most hardline anti-western states such as North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc by giving them access to technology and capabilities which they previously had no access to. This has a destabilizing and corrosive effect on the world order.
As just one example already, as late as 2017 Russia continued to follow the Western will and diplomatic consideration, at least at face value, on North Korea, but changes in the global geopolitical environment and the war itself brought an end to this. Moscow has subsequently become the biggest supporter of North Korea and has already given them the technology to improve their own missile capabilities. UN sanctions are thus ignored, and the DPRK has become the biggest supplier of Russia's war in Ukraine, lifting it out of the economic and diplomatic isolation it experienced for decades under American unipolarity, and allowing it to break into becoming a nuclear power against 20 years of policy devoted to preventing just that.
While the media like to mock Russia by pretending this is all about "nuking us or not", the reality is that the Ukraine conflict is the largest war since World War II and has been since the beginning a destabilizing force on the entire world as whole, unleashing consequences far beyond its borders that have also become an enabler for other conflicts, primarily because it breaks down international security, cooperation and the ability to forge global consensus towards common challenges. Thus, to escalate this is literally to add fuel to the fire. Those who claim that it is appeasement to want to bring this war to a close have been both delusional and dishonest, having spent two years or so having you believe Russia can be simply defeated, which hasn't happened. Thus the longer this goes on, the worse and more radical the consequences for the entire world will inevitably be.
The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Deep strikes into Russia, a case study of transatlantic sabotage
Opinion | Facing the reality of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State
Comment