Why the sudden uptick of Ukraine War 'saber-rattling' from Western leaders?
If you value articles like this, sign up for our daily email newsletter and support us with a donation.
Tensions between Russia and the West seem to have soared dramatically since the US election on Nov. 5.
The immediate aftermath of Trump's victory brought calls for peace from every single conflict zone in which the West is involved.
Chinese President Xi Jinping phoned to congratulate the President-Elect, and stressed the mutual benefits of US-China cooperation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin called for renewed dialogue, expressing optimism about rebuilding US-Russia relations and ending the Ukrainian conflict under Trump's leadership.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also expressed optimism that the war in Ukraine would conclude more swiftly under Trump's leadership, aiming for a resolution by 2025 through diplomatic means.
In the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority (the Palestinian government) expressed his readiness to work with President-Elect Trump to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the region. In Gaza, Hamas voiced the same.
These calls for peace from diverse political contexts showed the global hope that the Trump administration will bring about in fair and good-faith peace talks. Yet, for all the hope, in the immediate hours after Trump's election victory Western leaders seem intent on escalating the most serious of these conflicts.
Less than two weeks after Trump's historic win, President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to conduct limited strikes deep within Russian territory using US-made long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). In addition, in the weeks following the election, numerous Western leaders have reasserted their commitment to Ukraine, with the British and Germans going as far as promising forces and preparing for the battlefield if escalations continue to intensify.
This permission was a major shift in policy and one that Russia considered a "qualitatively new round of tensions," meaning an escalation of the conflict in layman's terms.
Russia responded to the strikes by hitting a Ukrainian military facility with a new, nuclear-capable, hypersonic ballistic missile. The attack was meant to be a warning to Kiev and the West that Russia is capable of firing nuclear weapons that are "highly difficult" to intercept.
The question on the minds of many Americans is, "why?". Why escalate a conflict at a moment when moves toward peace are finally on the way?
To make matters worse, while Biden's decision to allow strikes into Russia has escalated the level of conflict and increased tensions between the West and Russia, it also serves seemingly little purpose with no significant strategic gain for Ukraine or the West.
Following the strikes, a high-level French military official told reporters that the strikes "will not change" the balance of power on the battlefield. If so, then what is the purpose of the escalation?
While it is too early to know with full certainty what the true intent might be from any of the parties involved, we can start to form an educated guess by first recognizing the driving factors behind each party's goals in the conflict.
1. Western Powers' Motivations
Our nations have a series of objectives in Ukraine. On the one hand there is the political and ideological objective of the defense of sovereignty, democracy, and a show of war-fighting capability to other growing powers who are watching this war and the West's response very carefully.
In addition, there is the opportunity to test out new weapons systems, and learn very important strategic and tactical lessons regarding those new weapons systems and how they interact with traditional forms of battlefield combat.
For the past 20 years the United States has perfected its combat abilities against guerilla and insurgency-style combat, but the ability to wage war against a peer-level competitor (a nation that can match much of the military capability of the US) is something that hasn't been done since 1945. So the ability to see how that kind of a war might play out in the 21st century has been invaluable strategically, even if tragically costly to the men of Ukraine.
Then there is the geo-strategic objective in which the United States and NATO have to show that they have the political will and industrial, as well as military, ability to wage a long-running, highly costly war until victory. After humiliating withdrawals in Vietnam and Afghanistan due to political pressure domestically, the West needs to let the world know that when needed, it can and will fight a protracted and bloody war. Of course, that question has not been addressed adequately for many reasons; however, the intention of escalation might be an attempt by this administration to prove that willingness.
2. Russia's Motivations
The reason for the initial invasion of Ukraine is still a likely factor in Russia's continued strategy. Russia views Ukraine as a critical part of its sphere of influence (in much the same way as the United States would consider nations close to its own borders) and seeks to prevent it from aligning with Western powers like NATO and the European Union.
Russia's motivation in Ukraine is the subject of debate; but it is highly likely that Russia's ultimate goal, one for which they will push in both war and peace, is to ensure that Ukraine is never able to be a bridgehead between the West and Russia. What that means in reality is still to be seen. However, it is very likely that for any peace deal to be made, Russia will require the full demilitarization of Ukraine. Of course, this will be unacceptable to both Ukraine and the West.
By responding to the escalation with a display of force, Russia is showing their ability to escalate this conflict substantially. They're telling the Western world that they also have powerful weapons and are not afraid to use them.
In addition to the demoralizing effect they hope this will have on Ukraine, they are likely also hoping to test NATO's resolve and unity, gauging how far the alliance is willing to go in supporting Ukraine militarily and economically. The idea is, if Ukraine and NATO can be demoralized by the idea that there is no way to actually "win" this war, they will be more likely to be open to coming to terms with Russia.
3. Mutual Escalation as a Negotiation Tactic
Escalation can also be a bargaining tool. It is highly likely that each side is increasingly displaying its military capabilities and rhetoric as a negotiation tactic. Each side wants an end to this conflict; however, each side also wants an end that is favorable to them, while simultaneously retaining concerns over preparing for and attempting to avoid future conflicts.
As hinted in the last paragraph, Russia is likely hoping their show of force will be enough to achieve concessions from Ukraine or its Western allies, such as recognition of annexed territories or reduced NATO presence near its borders.
Ukraine and the Western powers, meanwhile, are hoping that a display of the kind of escalation Russia can expect if the war continues will help their case in upcoming negotiations and ensure Russia agrees to a favorable peace settlement. For Ukraine, that includes full territorial restoration and war reparations – both of which are highly unlikely.
While concerns over escalation in the Russo-Ukraine war are great "clickbait" for media, it is highly unlikely that the war actually continues to escalate. Neither side gains anything of significance outside of negotiating position from greater escalation; and even then, escalation has a limit after which any return for negotiations is diminished. Both sides are tired of this conflict and there are new concerns that will require the economic and military attention of the US in the near future.
So, while World War 3 is certainly something we should be very concerned with avoiding, there is some comfort to be taken from the fact that both economically and militarily such an eventuality is the last thing anyone involved in the next few months of delicate negotiations will want.
Arthur is a former editor and consultant. Born in India to missionary parents, he spent his early career working in development for NGOs in Asia, Central America, and Africa.
Arthur has an educational background in history and psychology, with certifications from the University of Oxford and Leiden in the economics, politics, and ethics of mass migration and comparative theories in terrorism and counterterrorism. He is currently launching CivWest, a company focused on building capital to fund restorative projects and create resilient systems across the Western world.
Please join us in praying and fighting for Souls and Liberty; as well as, consider making a donation to support our work.
