Escalation in Ukraine — The Gordian Knot
By: Virtus Risk Consulting
Tags: Military, Russia, Ukraine, United States, International Relations

For the new administration in the White House the escalation in Eastern Ukraine is a test and an opportunity to demonstrate its strength and resolve.

The recent escalation is a result of diverging political goals between Ukraine and Russia. As a result a negotiated solution has become less likely in the short term.

The Russian military build-up should be interpreted as demonstrative in accordance with the doctrine of strategic deterrence [strategicheskoe sderzhivanie]. The Russian mobilization of military force aims to prevent an escalation by deterring Ukraine from attempting to solve the situation by military means.

Russian objective is to maintain the status quo in Eastern Ukraine in order to maintain leverage over Ukrainian foreign and security policy.

There exists very unlikely possibilities for a significant military escalation.

The new Biden administration got off on a wrong foot in March 2021 with the other great powers in the world — China and Russia. The first high-level meeting between the officials of the United States and China in Alaska started with a breach of the diplomatic protocol, when the highest foreign policy representative of China went off on a 17 minute tirade significantly exceeding the allotted time for the opening remarks. The key message from the Chinese representative was that the United States can not speak to China ‘from a position of strength’.

Around the same time the Russian ambassador in Washington was called back to Moscow for consultations after president Biden described president Putin as ‘a killer’. The Russian president responded by remarking ‘it takes one to know one’ and challenging president Biden to a live streamed online debate to talk about the countries relations and the state of the world. Behind the proposition was an implication that president Biden could not hold his own in a debate with Putin. Biden’s staff quickly shut down the proposition referring to the president’s busy schedule.

These episodes had a common denominator, which was the explicit or implied lack of respect for the United States and its new administration. One dimension of great power relations is a game of perceptions of power — and the whole world is watching. These two episodes did not signal the strength and resolve of the new Biden administration. It is possible that the United States is looking for a chance to show strength and strengthen its resolve against its main adversaries.

Now on to Ukraine. The escalation in Ukraine has developed over the winter with Ukraine modernizing its Armed forces and Russia escalating its rhetoric regarding the Donbas region. Ukranian defence company formed a joint venture with Turkey to receive 48 Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones which proved to be very effective in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. On the other side of the front on 28th and 29th of January 2021 a conference titled “Russian Donbas” was held Donetsk in which calls for the ‘People’s republics’ integration to Russia were heard. Simultaneously a document was published titled ‘Donbas doctrine’ which calls for strengthening the breakaway republics as Russian national states and their cultural, political and economic integration with Russia.

The most recent escalation in East Ukraine is most likely a result of the Ukrainian president signing an official decree on March 24th 2021 titled “On the Strategy of de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”. The decree refers to official Ukrainian foreign policy goals of membership in the European Union and NATO and sets as a official goal the ending of occupation in the Crimea peninsula, which was now written explicitly into law. The Crimean federal republic and the city of Sevastopol by Russian law are determined as Russian territory, but the occupation widely considered illegal and the annexation has not gained international recognition.

The Russian military build-up in the recent weeks on the Ukrainian border and the Crimean peninsula should be interpreted in the context of Russian official military doctrine as strategic deterrence [strategicheskoe sderzhivanie]. According to Kristin Ven Bruusgaard the Russian strategic deterrence “…is not entirely defensive: it contains offensive and defensive, nuclear, non-nuclear and non-military deterrent tools. These are to be used in times of peace and war — making the concept resemble, to Western eyes, a combined strategy of containment, deterrence and coercion — using all means available to deter or dominate conflict.”. According to the Russian military doctrine the Russian military policy is aimed at containing and preventing military conflicts, improving military capabilities, increasing readiness in order to ensure the security of the Russian federation and its allies. The Russian military build-up should be interpreted as strategic signalling to deter Ukraine from using military means to resolve the conflict on Ukrainian territory. The Russian objective is to distance itself from the conflict and treat it as an internal matter between Kiev and the ‘People’s republics’. Russian strategic signalling attempts to force Ukraine to accept that they can not resolve the conflict by military force and it will be forced to negotiate with the ‘People’s republics’ and give them concessions to resolve the conflict.

It is unlikely that the conflict would expand into a large scale military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. A large scale military operation by Russian forces is very unlikely, because it would not serve Russian foreign policy and military objectives regarding Ukraine, it would possibly collapse Russia’s international standing and would make Russia a target of increasing economic sanctions. A military escalation between Russia and NATO could not be ruled out in this scenario. A large scale military offensive also opens a possibility for significant losses for the Russian Armed Forces. Possible military defeat or significant losses in Ukraine would damage Russia’s international prestige and reputation. Occupying parts of Ukrainian territory would require significant military resources from Russia and would mean giving up the control over escalation dynamic. An expanded occupation could become a prolonged drain on Russian resources and damage the domestic support for the Russian administration.

Russian objective is to maintain the status quo in Eastern Ukraine and support the separatist regions as a bleeding wound preventing Ukrainian integration with the Western institutions. A country that has an ongoing conflict on its territory will not be accepted as a member of NATO. It is very likely that Russia will not openly intervene militarily in the conflict unless the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics suffer significant military losses or Ukraine gains initial success in an offensive military operation.

However unlikely it is, there exists a possibility that Russia might calculate, that it could be worth the risk to attempt to force the Ukrainian government to resolve the conflict on Russian terms. This could prevent the Ukrainian integration with the Western institutions and leave Ukraine crippled politically and militarily. Russia could achieve this outcome through a large scale military offensive, which would encircle the Ukrainian formations on the front and force their retreat to the west — or their destruction. This would result in a significant blow to the credibility of NATO and the United States, which have supported Ukraine through diplomatic means.

Most likely Ukraine will not attempt to re-take the Donbas region by military means without international support. Ukrainian attempt at reconquest of the Donbas region is not likely to succeed and would probably inflict heavy losses on the Ukrainian armed forces. Russia controls the escalation dynamic and can covertly increase its material and direct military support for the armed formations in the Donbas. Significant military losses as a result from a Ukrainian failed offensive would probably force Ukraine to resolve the conflict on unfavorable terms and damage its aspirations for Western integration.

Ukraine is making a bid to receive increased western support for its aspirations of ending the occupation of parts of its territory and an accelerated path into NATO membership. A statement from the United States promised ‘unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea‘. The European Union and the United Kingdom have pledged their support for Ukraine in the case of a Russian offensive. Should Ukraine receive no explicit international support for offensive operations against the separatist regions, a military escalation is very unlikely.

To evaluate the chance of Ukraine receiving significant military support from the United States, we should recall an interview of president Obama from 2016, in which he stated that:

“Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there… The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.”

However, outcomes in escalating situations are always uncertain. The United States might calculate, that explicit military support of Ukraine in an offensive against the separatist regions would demonstrate resolve and deter the adversaries of the United States. Inflicting a significant blow on Russia’s international prestige by causing military losses on the armed formations in the Donbas and forcing Russia to intervene in the conflict overtly or recede from Ukraine, could seem like an attractive proposition. This scenario is very unlikely, but if it comes to fruition — all bets are off.