-Analysis-
KYIV — Over the past month, many Western countries, which for more than two years refused, hesitated and struggled with their own red lines, dared to make a logical and fair decision: They allowed Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory with Western weapons. And in doing so, they broke down a very important psychological barrier which previously seemed insurmountable due to the fear of escalation.
[shortcode-Subscribe-to-Ukraine-daily-box]
From now on, American and European missiles and ammunition have a great opportunity to cross the officially recognized Russian border and fulfill their main function. Of course, Russia does not like the fact that its military facilities in the border zone are under direct attack from Western weapons.
But the “terrible escalation” threatened by Moscow has not happened. No nuclear warheads flew to London, Berlin, Paris or Washington. No one attacked the airfields of NATO countries. On the contrary, Ukraine’s strikes on Russia’s Belgorod region had a positive de-escalating effect.
The big question
The lifting of the ban on strikes against Russia enabled the Armed Forces of Ukraine to stop Russia’s offensive in the Kharkiv region and seriously disrupt its plans.
The Belgorod region got to know the weapons of NATO countries, and they were not pleased with the acquaintance. Until recently, they were quietly accumulating forces and assets near the Ukrainian border, firing at Ukrainian towns and villages, killing civilians and destroying infrastructure. And they were not too worried about retaliation.
The big question is: If Ukraine could have launched preemptive strikes, would there have been a new Russian offensive in the Kharkiv region? Such a military operation cannot be prepared without accumulating reserves, creating command centers, forming strike teams and equipping troops with air defense systems.
If Ukrainian forces had targeted them in the previous months, preventing the deployment of groups numbering tens of thousands of people, perhaps there would be no fighting for Vovchansk today. And the Russian invaders would not have captured several Ukrainian villages in the north of the region. It is always better when the gray zone is the enemy’s border, and not your own.
The usual game
On May 29, when it became clear that Ukraine would be able to use Western weapons to strike Russia, President Vladimir Putin tried his usual game. He repeated the scary stories about the inevitable escalation that awaits American and European politicians.
“Continued escalation could lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave, given our parity in strategic arms? It’s hard to say. Do they want a global conflict?” he said cynically at the time.
The West has already crossed so many of the Kremlin’s red lines in supporting Ukraine.
Putin added that the possible deployment of French troops to Ukraine would be a step toward a global conflict. But he backed down the following week. At first he claimed, as usual, that the supply of weapons to Ukraine was a direct participation in the war against Russia. And he threatened to supply powerful weapons to the West’s enemies in other parts of the world.
But at the same time, he tried to play the peacemaker. And he falsely insisted that Russia has no imperial ambitions and definitely does not plan to attack NATO, because it is “complete nonsense.”
Redrawing redlines
The fact that the Russian dictator’s military ardour has somewhat faded is evidenced by his subsequent statements. On June 7, Putin assured that strikes by Western weapons on Russian territory still do not cross the imaginary red line, so there is no reason for Russia to use nuclear weapons.
That is a change from earlier statements by Russian officials. They threatened an inevitable violent response if Ukraine was allowed to attack Russian territory with Western weapons. Perhaps now we should expect new red lines from the Kremlin. The old ones have been redrawn so many times that they have lost their relevance.
The West has already crossed so many of the Kremlin’s red lines in supporting Ukraine that a full-fledged Third World War should be underway by now. Russia has constantly threatened consequences for supplying Ukraine with certain types of weapons; for strikes on Crimea; for the transfer of airplanes, tanks, and missiles; for the Patriot system; or the presence of foreign instructors.
Bluffing is Putin’s favorite way of conducting foreign policy.
Russia’s full-scale invasion itself began with the threat of escalation: In a speech on February 24, 2022, Putin warned third countries against interfering in the conflict, saying that “Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead to such consequences that you have never encountered in your history.”
We are used to the fact that the West always makes its decisions to help Ukraine with a considerable delay. As a rule, this happens after another aggravation of the situation. Of course, U.S President Joe Biden or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz can say that they do not want escalation. But should we believe these excuses of experienced politicians? There is no escalation by Russia when Ukraine receives more weapons and gets rid of unnecessary restrictions on their use.
Bluffing and blackmail
Western politicians are disingenuous when they attribute their indecision to fear of getting involved in a war. Moscow has always escalated most strongly due to weak reactions from the United States and Europe, and not due to demonstrations of their readiness to firmly oppose the Kremlin’s imperialist plans.
Bluffing is Putin’s favorite way of conducting foreign policy. The lord of Kremlin has consistently bluffed when threatening inevitable fatal consequences for supporting Ukraine or for its accession to NATO. But it is well known that politicians who threaten a lot in public often do not do so because of their strength and confidence. They do it because they are weak and want to get their way through blackmail and threats.
Why should the West continue to play this game and accept its rules?
So the question is: Why should the West continue to play this game and accept its rules? The threats of escalation are pathetic and demonstrate that Putin is not as confident and formidable as some in Europe or America still think he is. He just likes to deal with the weak.
What will happen if NATO countries decide to deploy their troops in Ukraine? The situation will repeat itself. First, Russia will shout at the whole world and verbally brandish a nuclear warhead. Then Putin will say a few words about the treacherous West and that Russia can cause it big problems. But in general he is not looking for war. And in the end, he will say that it is very bad that foreign troops are in Ukraine, but it is still not crossing redlines.
