We Have Crossed the Edge of Militarised Diplomacy and Reached the Brink in the Ukraine War

The confrontation between NATO and Russia is increasing in intensity, and fast approaching a turning point that could change the entire equation and render it much more dangerous. The escalation is following a military trajectory, underscored by the meetings convened this week by top generals from NATO and Ukraine, amid terrifying remarks coming from Russian leaders about ‘nuclear options’ should developments dictate it. Today, close to the one-year anniversary of the start of the Russian war on Ukraine, there are no signs of hope for a political solution on the horizon. Rather, there appears to be a countdown to the transformation of the proxy war raging between Russia and the US-led NATO alliance into a direct war, with all that this may entail. Each side is seeking to back the other into the corner of defeat in their respective military strategies. Worse, though, and more dangerous still, is that both sides have backed themselves into a corner, making it impossible for either side to back down if the other side doesn’t do it first.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, said it in a horrifying bluntness: “The defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war”. Commenting on NATO support for the Ukrainian armed forces, he added: “Nuclear powers have never lost major conflicts on which their fate depends”. The Kremlin confirmed that Medvedev’s remarks were consistent with Moscow’s nuclear doctrine.

Western leaders have previously mocked such remarks by Medvedev, who is also a former president of Russia. They could mock even more the remarks of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who is participating alongside Russia in the war in Ukraine, who said: “Russia will never allow itself to lose in any confrontation, and it can press the button, and peace be upon you,” referring to using nuclear weapons.

Indeed, Western leaders seem confident – in varying degrees – that the Russian President Vladimir Putin would not dare use nuclear weapons in the war, believing this would hasten his end and bring about the defeat of the entire Russian army. They are confident that Putin will back down. But the problem continues to lie in how to read this man. Putin doesn’t know how to back down and will never accept defeat. In other words, what if Western leaders are mistaken?

Why is the current round of escalation more dangerous than before? First, there is the collective Western pledge to seek unprecedented aid for Ukraine, including tanks, missiles, and military hardware that could enable Ukraine to launch attacks on Russian territory. Moscow has said it views these weapons deliveries as provocative, saying they would escalate the conflict past a new threshold, especially long-range weapons that could strike deep inside Russia.

Washington has also now added Crimea into the military equation with Russia, knowing fully well that this would rile up the Kremlin, which believes the annexation of Crimea to be its crowning achievement. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed his country is seeking to restore Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Addressing the West, he said: “Our objective is to liberate all of our territories… Give us your weapons and we will bring our land back”. Washington agrees and believes Crimea would change the dynamics of the war and has urged new weapons shipments to Ukraine to this end.

Britain, through its defense secretary and military intelligence has not only pledged to send armoured vehicle and thousands of missiles and ammunition to Ukraine, but also revealed efforts by NATO states to train Ukrainian soldiers. Britain also revealed that Russia is deploying new T-14 Armata battle tanks but, perhaps as part of psychological warfare, said that this decision was associated with risks for Russia in terms of production delays and the size and heavy weight of these tanks.

Russia was likely aiming to launch a major offensive in Ukraine by mid-February, while Ukraine was likely planning its own offensive for the second half of March. NATO’s strategic push for huge logistical support for Ukraine now marks an existential challenge for Russia, especially in relation to empowering Ukraine to retake Crimea. Moreover, by mid-March, Ukrainian soldiers will have completed their training in Western countries like the United States, Britain, Germany, Poland, and elsewhere. They will return with new equipment and strategies that impose a new situation for the Russian army. In addition, the Ukrainian parliament has this month passed legislation allowing foreign citizens to fight alongside the Ukrainian army against Russia.

Russian circles are speaking about taking preventive measures as the war enters a new phase that Moscow sees as a fateful turning point. The NATO summit of chiefs of staffs has brought a combination of panicked alarm and renewed belligerence in the Russian political and military ranks. Both political and military establishments in Russia are aware of Russia’s weaknesses and understand that NATO and its US leadership have decided that a Western defeat in Ukraine is unacceptable.

Because Russia will face a qualitatively new situation, serious consideration of ‘preventive strikes’ – meaning the nuclear option – has started. And the talk here is no longer restricted to tactical nuclear strikes exclusively in Ukraine. Rather, both the geography and scale of Russian nuclear options have expanded. According to a source familiar with the matter, the recent Russian remarks about the Poseidon super torpedo are no coincidence here.

Some say these nuclear-capable torpedoes can generate tsunamis once they hit NATO countries like the United States and Britain, even sink countries like the latter to the bottom of the sea. Putin had first revealed these torpedoes in 2018, claiming they were a new type of strategic nuclear weapons that no defense system in the world could intercept. They have also been described as doomsday weapons. Last week, Moscow announced production of a first batch of these weapons to be deployed on board the submarine the Belgorod. But is this a bluff to exaggerate Russia’s capabilities, or is it really a step in the direction of executing a nuclear preventive strategy?

Interestingly, the United States and the rest of NATO members are no longer spooked by the prospect of direct conflict with Russia, including its nuclear risks. Western leaders appear to be betting on Putin’s fear of the consequences that could be devastating for him and for Russia. What’s terrifying here, however, is that such scenarios are a true pandora’s box; where if turns out to be a nuclear box, the surprise will be the end of all surprises.

All this escalation could also be just a new peak in the war, to be followed by ceasefire negotiations and political settlements. Today, this scenario appears unlikely, as the space for negotiations narrow and the space for warfare expands. Diplomacy has been dangerously militarised perhaps to the point of no return. That is, unless military leaders are developing new scenarios, measures, and vocabulary for a new kind of brinkmanship.

Western leaders do not underestimate the capabilities of Russia and its allies, led by Belarus, Chechnya, and Iran. They are also factoring in the regional actions of Russia and its allies, not just Russia’s ‘preventive’ nuclear measures.

For this reason, US diplomatic movements in the Middle East this week included efforts to hedge against Iranian adventures and Israeli initiatives and sought to ensure the situation remains calm in countries like Iraq.

According to a statement by the White House, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan discussed with the leaders of Israel “Ukraine, as well as the burgeoning defense partnership between Russia and Iran and its implications for security in the Middle East region,” with Sullivan stressing the United States would never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

For his part, US Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Brett McGurk led a large US delegation to Iraq, holding the first meeting of its kind with the new Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who despite being backed by Iran recently stated his country needed continued US troops presence in Iraq. Bear in mind that the Coordination Framework, the ruling coalition in Iraq behind him, has a different position that echoes Iran’s call for US troops to leave Iraq, underscoring the importance of Sudani’s diverging position. The US delegation did not hesitate to call for stopping Iraqi funds from being diverted to Iran, which Washington today is seeking to isolate economically, politically, as well as on the nuclear level.

All surprises are possible in the Ukrainian Pandora’s Box. This war has changed the features of the world and portends further non-traditional ‘pre-emptive’ and ‘preventive’ strategies, which until recently were not in anyone’s calculations.