Author: Wulou
Introduction: From August 24th, the Russian-Ukrainian war has lasted for half a year and there is no sign of ending. The Russian army is still consolidating existing results in eastern Ukraine and southern Ukraine, and the alarm on Zaporo thermonuclear power plant has not been lifted. And the Russian military base in Crimea also began to be attacked by sporadic attacks from Ukraine. More and more voices are beginning to worry about the possibility of escalation in this war. On August 22, the " Russian newspaper " quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov as saying that NATO countries participated in the Ukrainian conflict and ignored the "red line" drawn by Russia. Their destructive behavior is extremely dangerous and will lead to escalation of the situation, triggering military conflicts between nuclear powers and bringing serious consequences. This situation must be prevented.
This is exactly the concern of a well-known international scholar and professor at the University of Chicago John J. Mearsheimer (John J. Mearsheimer). On August 17, he wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, analyzing the potential risks of the escalation of this war, including the possibility of nuclear conflict, from the different interest demands and goals of Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the West. Here is the main content of the article:
Western policy makers seem to have reached a consensus on the Russian-Ukrainian war: the conflict will reach a long deadlock, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that will benefit the United States and NATO allies and Ukraine. While officials recognize that both Washington and Moscow may gain advantage or avoid failure through escalation, they also assume that catastrophic escalation can be avoided. Few people imagine that the US military would be directly involved in the war, or that Russia would dare to use the nuclear weapon . Washington and its allies were too careless. Although catastrophic escalation is avoidable, the ability of warring parties to control such risks is far from certain. This risk is much greater than the traditional viewpoint.
Both Moscow and Washington have greatly increased their expectations since the beginning of the war, and now both sides are firmly committed to winning the war and achieving arduous political goals. If the United States is desperate to win, or to prevent Ukraine from losing, it may join the battle. And if Russia desperately wants to win, or on the verge of failure, it may use nuclear weapons. This is especially likely to happen if the U.S. military is involved in combat.
In addition, considering that both parties are determined to achieve their respective goals, the possibility of achieving substantial compromise is very small. The current uncompromising trend of thought prevails in Washington and Moscow, giving both sides more reasons to hope to win on the battlefield, thus deciding the conditions for final peace. In fact, there is no possible diplomatic solution, which will only give both sides more motivation to escalate, and further, there may be a real catastrophic situation: the number of deaths and destruction exceeding World War II .
High targets set by the three parties
The United States and its allies initially supported Ukraine in order to prevent Russia from winning and thus help reach a ceasefire agreement in favor of Ukraine. But when the Ukrainian army began to fight back against the Russian army, especially around Kiev, the Biden administration instead promised to help Ukraine win the war against Russia. More importantly, the United States tied its reputation to the consequences of the conflict. If Russia wins in Ukraine, the United States' world status will be hit hard.
Russian ambitions are also expanding. For Russian leaders, Ukraine's accession to NATO will pose a direct threat to Russia. This threat can only be eliminated through war by turning Ukraine into an neutral country or a failed country. There is growing evidence that Putin is now planning to annex all or most of the territory in eastern Ukraine and southern Ukraine, turning the remaining territory of Ukraine into a dysfunctional and incomplete country. What's worse for Russia is that Finnish and Swedish are joining NATO. Moscow "cannot afford to lose" in Ukraine and will exhaust all available means to avoid failure.
Ukraine's goals are the same as that of the Biden administration. Ukrainians are determined to take back lost territory from Russia, including Crimea, and a weaker Russia will certainly have a smaller threat to Ukraine. Moreover, the Ukrainians believe they will win.
Essentially, Kiev, Washington and Moscow are all firmly committed to winning by hitting their opponents, which leaves little room for compromise. For example, neither Ukraine nor the United States can accept a neutral Ukraine. Now, Ukraine and the West are becoming increasingly close. It is unlikely that Russia will return all or most of the territory it seized from Ukraine. These conflicts of interest prompted many observers to believe that it is difficult to reach a solution through negotiation in the short term, predicting that this bloody deadlock will continue.
They are right. But observers underestimate the possibility of the protracted war triggering a catastrophic escalation. There are three basic escalation paths in war itself: the first is one or both parties deliberately upgrade to win; the second is one or both parties to deliberately upgrade to avoid failure; the third is the battle escalation inadvertently, rather than doing it intentionally. Each path has the potential to involve the United States in war or prompt Russia to use nuclear weapons, or it may be both.
The possibility of the United States joining the war
Once the Biden administration believes that Russia will be defeated in Ukraine, it will send more (and more powerful) weapons to Kiev. Over time, the lethality and number of Ukrainian weapons will increase. The United States is now considering sending its own F-15 and F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine . The United States and its allies are also training Ukrainian troops to provide them with important intelligence that can be used to destroy Russia's key targets. As reported by the New York Times , the West has "a secret network of commandos and spies" in Ukraine. Although the United States has not participated in the war directly, it has been deeply involved.
US military can intervene in the battle in various ways. If the war drags on for a year or longer, there is neither a diplomatic solution nor a way to win Ukraine, and at the same time, Washington is eager to end the war - perhaps because the United States wants to focus on encircling China, or because the economic cost of supporting Ukraine is causing political problems within the United States and European countries. In this case, U.S. policymakers will have good reason to take more risky measures, such as declaring no-fly zone over Ukraine, or sending small-scale ground forces to help Ukraine defeat Russia.
If the Ukrainian army begins to defeat and the Russian army seems to be in a major victory, the US military will be more likely to intervene. In this case, given the Biden administration's firm commitment to prevent Russia from winning, the United States will turn the situation around by directly participating in the fight. It is not difficult to imagine that U.S. officials believe that if Russia wins, the US national credibility will be threatened and convince themselves that limited use of force can save Ukraine without causing Putin to use nuclear weapons. Or, the desperate Ukraine could launch a massive attack on Russian towns, hoping that this escalation would trigger a massive Russian strikeback, ultimately forcing the United States to participate in the fight.
The last situation that led to the intervention of the US military was an accident, which led to the escalation of the situation : Washington was caught in the war by an unforeseen event, unwillingly. For example, US military aircraft accidentally collided over in the Baltic Sea. It may also be that Lithuanian prevents sanctioned goods from Russia to Kaliningrad from passing through its territory. Or, when the Russian army destroyed the training base in Ukraine, it killed a large number of Americans, such as aid personnel, intelligence personnel or military advisers, which immediately caused an uproar in the country, causing the Biden administration to decide to retaliate and attack Russian targets. This will lead to tit-for-tat between the United States and Russia.
Finally, the battle in southern Ukraine may destroy the largest nuclear power plant in Europe controlled by Russia, the Zaporizhzhhya nuclear power plant (Zaporizhzhhya), causing it to emit nuclear radiation to the entire region, causing Russia to respond accordingly. If Russia attacks Europe's nuclear reactor , the United States will definitely participate in the war.
Of course, Moscow may also incite the escalation of the situation. One possibility that cannot be ignored is that Russia may desperately prevent Western military aid from entering Ukraine, attacking the countries that these aid mainly pass through: Polish or Romania . Russia also has the potential to launch large-scale cyber attacks on one or more European countries that aid Ukraine, causing serious damage to Ukraine's critical infrastructure. Such an attack could prompt the U.S. to launch a retaliatory cyber attack on Russia. If successful, Moscow may respond with a military response; if it fails, Washington may think that the only way to punish Russia is to attack it directly. These are just a small part of the possible triggers that led to the direct participation of the United States in the war, through which local wars today may turn into larger and more dangerous wars.
Russia resorts to Nuclear weapons
Despite the huge damage caused to Ukraine, Moscow has been reluctant to win the war by escalating the situation so far. Putin did not expand the size of the army through large-scale recruitment. He also did not strike the Ukrainian power grid, which was relatively easy to do and would wreak havoc on Ukraine. In fact, many Russians accused Putin of not escalating the war more decisively. Putin accepted the criticism, saying he would escalate the situation if necessary.
What is the final form of the escalation of the situation in Russia and Ukraine? Putin may consider using nuclear weapons in three situations.
The first situation is that the United States and its NATO allies join the battle. This development will not only significantly change the military balance in the Russian-Ukrainian war, greatly increase the possibility of Russia's failure, but also means that Russia will fight a great power war at its doorstep, and the war will easily spread to its territory.
The second situation is that Ukraine successfully reversed the situation on the battlefield without the direct intervention of the United States. If the Ukrainian army is going to defeat the Russian army and recover lost territory, there is no doubt that Moscow will regard this result as a life-and-death threat and need to be used to respond to it. Unlike the first case, Moscow's nuclear weapons use background is not to go to war with the United States, but to Ukraine. Since Kiev has no nuclear weapons and Washington is not interested in launching the nuclear war , Russia has little to worry about nuclear retaliation when doing this. Without a clear threat of nuclear retaliation, Putin would be more likely to consider using nuclear weapons.
In the third situation, the war fell into a protracted deadlock and could not solve the problem through diplomatic means. Moscow paid an extremely high price for this. Putin is eager to end the conflict in favorable terms and may escalate the use of nuclear weapons to win. Like in the second case, Putin escalates the war to avoid failure, and the possibility of the United States' nuclear retaliation is very small.
In both cases, Russia may use tactical nuclear weapon against a small number of military targets, at least in the initial stages. If necessary, Russia will target Ukrainian towns in subsequent attacks. Gaining a military advantage would be one of the goals of the strategy, but the more important goal is to make a game-changing blow - creating fear in the West, allowing the United States and its allies to act quickly to end the conflict, and in a way that is favorable to Moscow.
Diplomatic and political solutions are missing
In fact, the traditional perspective greatly underestimates the various risks of the escalation of the situation in Ukraine. First of all, war often has its own logic, which makes it difficult for people to predict its direction. If anyone is sure of the direction of the war, he must be wrong.The escalation situation during the war is equally unpredictable or controlled, which should be a warning to those who believe that the situation in Ukraine can be controlled. Finally, given the astonishing cost of nuclear war in a great power, even if the possibility of a nuclear war is small, everyone should think carefully about the possible direction of this conflict.
This dangerous situation provides a strong impetus for seeking a diplomatic end to the war. Unfortunately, however, there is no sign of a political settlement at this time, as both sides are firmly committed to their respective war goals, which makes compromises nearly impossible. The Biden administration should have worked with Russia to resolve the Ukrainian crisis before the war broke out in February this year, but it is too late to reach an agreement. Russia, Ukraine and Western countries are all in a bad situation with no obvious way out. One can only hope that leaders of both sides can "control" the war in a way that avoids the escalation of disasters. However, for tens of millions of lives in danger, this is a kind of unhelpful comfort.
This article is compiled from the magazine "Foreign Affairs" and the original title is: "Play With Fire in Ukraine: The Underappreciated Risks of Catastrophic Escalation" (August, 2022)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-