Three weeks ago, Ukraine’s military launched a surprise operation to push Ukraine’s war back into the country’s territory. Three weeks later, Ukrainians still hold hundreds of miles of Russia’s western Kursk region.
The incursion had several goals: to force Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine to protect its own towns and cities; occupying areas that may be used as bargaining chips in peace talks; And to send a political message to the Russian people and their leaders that they are not safe from the consequences of the war started by Russian President Vladimir Putin almost two and a half years ago.
But there was also a less obvious motive: Kiev’s leaders probably hoped to send a message to their friends in the United States and Europe that their approach to war was overly cautious — that it feared “escalation,” a “red line.” And Russian nuclear use — a threat that Putin himself has repeatedly voiced — has been overblown.
The president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has clearly admitted this Speech of 19 August“We are now witnessing a significant ideological shift, namely, the completely naive, illusory idea of a so-called ‘red line’ ref to somewhere near Sudja” — now a town near the border. Under the control of Ukrainian forces.
He also confirmed that Ukraine had not informed its Western partners about the operation ahead of time, expecting them to be told “it is impossible and it will cross the strictest of all Russian red lines.” According to Press reportThe Ukrainians predicted — correctly, as it turned out — that the West wouldn’t mind too much once they were presented with the appropriate fullness.
“They were trying to push a boundary with their Western partners and what we saw was that these partners quietly accepted the new boundary,” said Liana Fix, a fellow at the Council on Europe and Foreign Relations. In particular, they hope the United States will lift a ban on using American-supplied long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia, a move Washington has so far avoided.
In apparent retaliation for the Kursk attack, Moscow launched Monday Largest missile and drone barrage Since the beginning of the war on Ukraine. But that was still far short of the nuclear escalation that Putin has often threatened.
In his speech, Zelensky argued that, in effect, he had called Putin’s bluff and that it was time for Ukraine’s allies to be more aggressive in giving Ukraine the kind of support it needs to win the war.
Is the Russian threat still working?
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s Western backers, including the United States, There were two priorities: Preventing a Russian victory and avoiding “escalation” – meaning avoiding direct war between Russia and NATO militaries or, in the worst-case scenario, the use of nuclear weapons. Sometimes, the second priority takes precedence over the first.
The Russian government has certainly done everything in its power to add nuclear uncertainty to the calculations of Western leaders. Since the first day of the attack, Putin has repeatedly referred to his country’s nuclear arsenal — the world’s largest — and to warn Countries that go Russia’s way “You have never faced such a fate in your history.”
During the war, Putin and other Russian officials repeatedly noted “red lineWestern governments should not cross this if they do not want to face a catastrophic backlash. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was particularly active in threatening foreign powers with “nuclear apocalypse”. Social media accounts.
It’s not all rhetoric: the Russian government has taken action Remove some of his nuclear weapons Belarus and Conduct realistic drills to use strategic nuclear weapons – apparently in an effort to remind Ukraine’s allies of Russia’s capabilities.
“Outside of North Korea, the Russians are the country that has used the nuclear threat most forcefully,” said Nicole Grezewski, a fellow in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Threats work – but only to a certain extent and only for a time. Fears of escalation have led Western countries to refuse to take steps such as imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine or sending NATO troops into the country.
Growing fears have made them reluctant to supply certain weapons systems to Ukraine, although system-by-system, that reluctance has faded over time. There was a time when there were also shoulder-mounted Stinger missiles Seen as very provocative. Now, Ukrainians are using US-supplied long-range missiles and received them recently First batch of F-16 fighter jets.
These powers have often been granted only after months of contentious political debate that is a never-ending source of frustration for Ukrainians.
“I’ve been hearing about nuclear escalation since day one,” Oleksandra Ustinova, a Ukrainian parliament member who chairs the Arms Supply Monitoring Committee, told Vox last June. “First it was, ‘If Ukraine gets MIGs from Poland, it will use nukes.’ Then it was Hummers, then Patriots, then tanks.”
He added: “It feels like we’re running behind a train. Every time we ask for something, we get it months or a year later when it doesn’t make as much of a difference as before.”
None of the steps Western countries have taken so far has resulted in Russia using nuclear weapons or directly attacking a NATO country, taken by many Ukrainians and their international supporters as proof that these threats were never real.
Are there any “red lines”?
If anything could be considered a “red line” crossing, one would think it would be the first military invasion of Russian territory since World War II.
of Russia Official nuclear doctrine Allows the use of nuclear weapons in situations where “the very existence of the state is threatened”. Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region did Occupies hundreds of square milesMoscow may not be a direct threat to the regime, but it certainly threatens the regime’s ability to defend its territory and sovereignty – the fundamental function of any state.
Moreover, Ukrainians seem to be using US-supplied weapons on Russian territoryapparently A violation of US policy. (The Biden administration agreed in May to allow Ukrainians to use American weapons A limited attack on Russia, (but only to protect against the invasion of Ukraine.)
And yet, there has been remarkably little saber-rattling from Putin and the Kremlin since the Kursk operation began. President whom he “A major provocation” and took some seemingly unrelated trips in what appears to be an attempt to project normalcy.
The picture is a bit more mixed in Russian media: Vladimir Solovyov, host of flagship pro-Kremlin talk show sunday evening, used a monologue Both urged the Russians to “calm down” about the intrusion and called for nuclear strikes on European capitals.
Whatever Soloviev says, it does not appear that Russia plans to respond to the Kursk events by using nuclear weapons, attacking NATO countries, or moving beyond — as we saw with Monday’s massive barrage — further destroying Ukraine with conventional weapons. .
But that doesn’t mean Ukraine’s fans are ready to take off the gloves.
time a Friday press callVox asked US national security spokesman John Kirby whether Zelensky was right that it was time to get over the growing fear.
“We’ve seen the risk of escalation since the beginning of this conflict, and that’s not going to change,” Kirby responded. “We will always be concerned about the possibility that Ukraine’s aggression could lead to tensions on the European continent.” He added that “it is too early to know what is happening in Kursk…[what] Possible effects that may have in terms of growth. But it is something we are concerned about.”
The thinking within the administration appears to be that, as Pentagon deputy spokeswoman Sabrina Singh recently put it, “just because Russia hasn’t responded to something doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t in the future.” And given that we’re talking about nuclear weapons, it’s a risk that should be taken seriously.
“Even if it’s just a 10 percent chance or a 5 percent chance that they actually mean it, or that they’re actually planning to act on it, that’s enough,” Carnegie’s Grazewski said.
What is Putin’s breaking point?
“This whole business of red lines is actually quite confusing and unhelpful,” argues Pavel Podvig, senior researcher on Russia’s nuclear arsenal at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Studies in Geneva.
In his view, there are few useful military applications for nuclear weapons inside Ukraine, and given the catastrophic risks involved, Putin would not consider any kind of nuclear use unless the very existence of the Russian state was threatened. “Even technically losing a region like Kursk wouldn’t qualify,” Podvig said.
Putin certainly indicated, however, that his threshold for escalation was much lower. For example, last May, he warned against allowing Western countries to use their weapons to strike Russian territory. Saying they should “Remember our parity in strategic arms.” (“Strategic” is a euphemism for nuclear in this case.) These threats are becoming harder to take seriously.
Kiev’s current campaign is to lift the US ban on using US-supplied long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia, which would allow them to intensify their Kursk offensive and hit more Russian military targets than they are currently capable of. With domestically produced weapons.
“Ukraine is separated from preventing the advance of the Russian army on the front by only one decision we are waiting for from our partners: a decision on long-range capabilities,” Zelensky said in his speech. In a post on Twitter after Monday’s attack, Ukraine’s defense minister said showed attack Why “Ukraine needs to lift sanctions on long-range capabilities and attacks on enemy military installations.”
If this debate follows the trajectory of previous ones, Washington will finally come around to giving the Ukrainians what they want. But while a risky incursion into Kursk could give Ukraine some more ammunition in the dispute, Western leaders are unwilling to simply let their guard down and give Ukraine everything it wants.
As the Council on Foreign Relations fixes, the Western “red line” on aid to Ukraine has clearly shifted. The problem is “we don’t know how the red lines are moving in Putin’s mind.”
