"As always, escalation leads to counter-escalation. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has warned that “If necessary, we are ready to take the full range of measures… "
Throughout this article you repeatedly make the same error, an error that Russian leadership is also apparently making, to wit, mistaking words for action. Lavrov's warning is NOT an escalation, nor are any of Putin's threats, nor is test firing a missile. Ukraine has repeatedly crossed red lines, as you mention several times, and Russia has just as repeatedly done nothing whatsoever to make them pay for that. As a result, no one has any respect at all for Russian threats. The only questions left are whether Putin will ever seek to reinstitute some deterrence and what he might do to do that if he ever does try it.
"The initial escalation came in the form of force numbers. Ukraine rapidly mobilized forces in the spring of 2022 that quickly saw the initial Russian force of around 200,000 personnel outnumbered and overwhelmed."
Gentlemen, thank you. This is a thoughtful and important warning about escalation, but I was less persuaded by the proposed “obvious alternative”. The article identifies Ukraine’s strategic orientation and possible NATO integration as central to Moscow’s security concerns, however, the conclusion appears to reduce the settlement largely to Donbas, EU accession and Putin’s ability to present the outcome as a success. Would that resolve the underlying conflict, or just create an armed pause with the remaining Ukraine still heavily militarised and committed to reversing the territorial outcome?
There also seems to be some tension between the earlier conclusion that neither side has gained a decisive advantage and the later statement that the battlefield has turned “irreversibly” in Russia’s favour. If the latter is correct, it is not obvious why Moscow would now accept a settlement that left its principal strategic concern unresolved.
"As the battlefield tide has unspectacularly but irreversibly turned in Russia’s favor"! Really, driving the Russian navy and commercial fleet from the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov is part of the irreversible Russian tide? Repeatedly damaging the relatively few and semi-defenseless refineries in Russia and creating nation wide fuel shortages, and killing or seriously wounding 1,300 Russian soldiers per day is just another example of Russian progress? And tit for tat Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian infrastructure is impulsive, irresponsible escalation that could start a NATO - Russian war?
It is remarkable that a well educated, seemingly intelligent "analyst" could be so intimidated by Russian threats of nuclear and other forms of escalation that they completely misreport the situation, which is this; Russian wanted to occupy eastern and central Ukraine and eliminate the Zelensky government and Finlandize Ukraine. They have abjectly failed to do so and the 2026 trends on the battlefield indicate there is no nearterm prospect of significant Russian wins. The Putin invasion of Ukraine has become an incredibly expensive failure that will continue to impoverish Russia as long as it continues. At the start of this phase of the Russo-Ukraine war, the Russians were seen as a highly capable and dangerous military power that would quickly overcome its weak neighbors. Now Ukraine is the most powerful military in the European West and Russia vaunted military has been stalemated. If the US fully supported Ukraine, it would eliminate Russian resistance inside its national borders before the end of the year.
Dan, your examples demonstrate that Ukraine can impose serious costs on Russia, which is not in dispute. They do not establish that Ukraine can defeat Russia under the present conditions. Indeed, the final sentence appears to concede the opposite: decisive victory would depend on a substantially greater and undefined level of US involvement. If that means direct or near-direct American participation, it confirms rather than disproves the warning about escalation into a NATO–Russia war. If it means additional weapons alone, the mechanism by which these would eliminate Russian resistance before year-end still needs to be explained.
Thanks for your comments, Nick. To clarify, my final sentence was intended to convey that restoration of Ukraine's national borders to Ukrainian control could be expedited by US supply of key weapons systems (Patriot missiles and F16 fighters being key among them). Ukraine is already holding its own with little support from the US.
Thanks for clarifying, Dan. I understand your point clearer now. Our remaining difference may simply be over whether additional weapons systems would be sufficient to restore Ukraine’s borders, but I appreciate the distinction you are making between military supply and direct US involvement.
The second sentence: "On the Ukrainian side, each escalation ..." So to defend oneself is escalation? Great Britain and the USSR "escalated" by countering German attacks. The U.S. "escalated" by responding to Pearl Harbor.
If Russia withdraws, all "escalations" will end. That fact should make it clear where all the escalations come from--from the aggressor.
For years I questioned the strategies and tactics of states like China, Russia and Iran, as well as non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah. But the strategies have proven themselves over the long-term. Now the US is being pushed out of West Asia, Israel is destroying itself, China is eclipsing the US as a regional hegemon, NATO has become a paper tiger, and Ukraine is a rump state. I should have cast my net more widely and given more credence to US, NATO and Israeli blunders. There is a large amount of nihilism behind their blunders.
It's pretty clear the west simply doesn't care about what happens in Ukraine. Maybe it never did. The thing with prolonged russian attacks on Ukraine is that they have almost become 'normalised'. The media only reports the human suffering aspect and not the strategic one. They do the reverse concerning attacks on Russia.
It was always Zelensky's wish to drag the west further into the conflict. It was made easy by Europe's willingness. The US finds this all to its advantage.
I agree that the Baltics look like the new conflict zone. At some point Putin needs to take a stand and take action. My guess is that he will wait until the remaining ukrainian strongholds in the Donbas are taken. Then consolidate the territory and armed forces and push against western misdile/ drone areas.
"As always, escalation leads to counter-escalation. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has warned that “If necessary, we are ready to take the full range of measures… "
Throughout this article you repeatedly make the same error, an error that Russian leadership is also apparently making, to wit, mistaking words for action. Lavrov's warning is NOT an escalation, nor are any of Putin's threats, nor is test firing a missile. Ukraine has repeatedly crossed red lines, as you mention several times, and Russia has just as repeatedly done nothing whatsoever to make them pay for that. As a result, no one has any respect at all for Russian threats. The only questions left are whether Putin will ever seek to reinstitute some deterrence and what he might do to do that if he ever does try it.
More hilarious "realist" musings.
"The initial escalation came in the form of force numbers. Ukraine rapidly mobilized forces in the spring of 2022 that quickly saw the initial Russian force of around 200,000 personnel outnumbered and overwhelmed."
How dare Ukraine ESCALATE so malevolently!
Gentlemen, thank you. This is a thoughtful and important warning about escalation, but I was less persuaded by the proposed “obvious alternative”. The article identifies Ukraine’s strategic orientation and possible NATO integration as central to Moscow’s security concerns, however, the conclusion appears to reduce the settlement largely to Donbas, EU accession and Putin’s ability to present the outcome as a success. Would that resolve the underlying conflict, or just create an armed pause with the remaining Ukraine still heavily militarised and committed to reversing the territorial outcome?
There also seems to be some tension between the earlier conclusion that neither side has gained a decisive advantage and the later statement that the battlefield has turned “irreversibly” in Russia’s favour. If the latter is correct, it is not obvious why Moscow would now accept a settlement that left its principal strategic concern unresolved.
"As the battlefield tide has unspectacularly but irreversibly turned in Russia’s favor"! Really, driving the Russian navy and commercial fleet from the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov is part of the irreversible Russian tide? Repeatedly damaging the relatively few and semi-defenseless refineries in Russia and creating nation wide fuel shortages, and killing or seriously wounding 1,300 Russian soldiers per day is just another example of Russian progress? And tit for tat Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian infrastructure is impulsive, irresponsible escalation that could start a NATO - Russian war?
It is remarkable that a well educated, seemingly intelligent "analyst" could be so intimidated by Russian threats of nuclear and other forms of escalation that they completely misreport the situation, which is this; Russian wanted to occupy eastern and central Ukraine and eliminate the Zelensky government and Finlandize Ukraine. They have abjectly failed to do so and the 2026 trends on the battlefield indicate there is no nearterm prospect of significant Russian wins. The Putin invasion of Ukraine has become an incredibly expensive failure that will continue to impoverish Russia as long as it continues. At the start of this phase of the Russo-Ukraine war, the Russians were seen as a highly capable and dangerous military power that would quickly overcome its weak neighbors. Now Ukraine is the most powerful military in the European West and Russia vaunted military has been stalemated. If the US fully supported Ukraine, it would eliminate Russian resistance inside its national borders before the end of the year.
Dan, your examples demonstrate that Ukraine can impose serious costs on Russia, which is not in dispute. They do not establish that Ukraine can defeat Russia under the present conditions. Indeed, the final sentence appears to concede the opposite: decisive victory would depend on a substantially greater and undefined level of US involvement. If that means direct or near-direct American participation, it confirms rather than disproves the warning about escalation into a NATO–Russia war. If it means additional weapons alone, the mechanism by which these would eliminate Russian resistance before year-end still needs to be explained.
Thanks for your comments, Nick. To clarify, my final sentence was intended to convey that restoration of Ukraine's national borders to Ukrainian control could be expedited by US supply of key weapons systems (Patriot missiles and F16 fighters being key among them). Ukraine is already holding its own with little support from the US.
Thanks for clarifying, Dan. I understand your point clearer now. Our remaining difference may simply be over whether additional weapons systems would be sufficient to restore Ukraine’s borders, but I appreciate the distinction you are making between military supply and direct US involvement.
The second sentence: "On the Ukrainian side, each escalation ..." So to defend oneself is escalation? Great Britain and the USSR "escalated" by countering German attacks. The U.S. "escalated" by responding to Pearl Harbor.
If Russia withdraws, all "escalations" will end. That fact should make it clear where all the escalations come from--from the aggressor.
For years I questioned the strategies and tactics of states like China, Russia and Iran, as well as non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah. But the strategies have proven themselves over the long-term. Now the US is being pushed out of West Asia, Israel is destroying itself, China is eclipsing the US as a regional hegemon, NATO has become a paper tiger, and Ukraine is a rump state. I should have cast my net more widely and given more credence to US, NATO and Israeli blunders. There is a large amount of nihilism behind their blunders.
It's pretty clear the west simply doesn't care about what happens in Ukraine. Maybe it never did. The thing with prolonged russian attacks on Ukraine is that they have almost become 'normalised'. The media only reports the human suffering aspect and not the strategic one. They do the reverse concerning attacks on Russia.
It was always Zelensky's wish to drag the west further into the conflict. It was made easy by Europe's willingness. The US finds this all to its advantage.
I agree that the Baltics look like the new conflict zone. At some point Putin needs to take a stand and take action. My guess is that he will wait until the remaining ukrainian strongholds in the Donbas are taken. Then consolidate the territory and armed forces and push against western misdile/ drone areas.
Now this IS an excellent article.