When Israel wages a war or a large-scale military operation, and it becomes evident that the operational strategies do not advance the original objectives of the war, generally three alternatives emerge: (1) willingness to compromise and reach an understanding regarding a ceasefire; (2) adaptation of the goals of the war to the new situation that has arisen; or (3) escalation – a more intense and painful blow to the enemy, with the intention to subdue it.
After more than three weeks of fighting in Ukraine, it is clear that Putin's war plans have collapsed. Russia has failed to achieve its goals, and Moscow was caught off-guard by a series of unexpected developments and consequences. Among them: the combat strength of the Ukrainians, who have evinced unity and determination to fight for independence and freedom; the success of the Ukrainian army, aided by Western intelligence and weapons, in halting the advance of the Russian army and disrupting its plans; the tightening international isolation of Russia; the scope and intensity of international sanctions imposed on Russia by dozens of countries and hundreds of multinational corporations; the removal of Russia from the Council of Europe and the filing of lawsuits against it in the International Court of Justice as well as in the International Criminal Court (during sessions at the two institutions in The Hague); as well as the obvious inconvenience China feels from the continuation of the war – the same China that is Russia's partner in striving to change the world order.
And now, on the one hand, given the failure of the operational plan for a quick victory on the battlefield and control of Ukraine at tolerable costs in the international arena, Putin has no other promising alternative to end the war and correct what he sees as the historic injustice done to Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, today the United States and its NATO allies have adopted a tough stand while adhering to two goals: deterring future Russian aggression by exacting a heavy toll for its invasion of Ukraine, and avoiding direct military confrontation with Russia.
At this point, decisions about the future of the war seem to be almost entirely in the hands of the Russian president, and he is determined to avoid ending the war with a loss or with an image of loss. Given his tendency to take risks, it is not surprising that he opted for military escalation rather than flexibility in negotiations. Thus, the Russian army increased the intensity of fire and the systematic crushing of urban centers in Ukraine, in order to increase the pressure of refugees on Europe (already today their number exceeds three million; if that is not enough, then Russia’s plans will lead to the flight of ten million). Moreover, in order to signal to the West that it was determined to continue and even escalate the war theater, for the first time the Russian army launched hypersonic ballistic missiles, called Kinzhal, that fly toward a target 10 times faster than the speed of sound and cannot be intercepted. The missiles hit the Ukrainian army's munitions depot in the western town of Deliatyn last Friday.
The attack was a signal to the West that if it continues to arm the Ukrainian army, increase pressure on Russia, and not provide Putin with a respectable way out of the corner into which he backed himself, the war may extend beyond Ukraine's borders, as the Russian military has the capability to strike NATO forces, which lack a defensive response. Experience has shown that escalation has its own dynamic, which could now create a new and threatening phase – not only in the context of the war on Ukrainian soil, but in the broader context, which has so far remained confined to the political-economic sphere.
When Israel wages a war or a large-scale military operation, and it becomes evident that the operational strategies do not advance the original objectives of the war, generally three alternatives emerge: (1) willingness to compromise and reach an understanding regarding a ceasefire; (2) adaptation of the goals of the war to the new situation that has arisen; or (3) escalation – a more intense and painful blow to the enemy, with the intention to subdue it.
After more than three weeks of fighting in Ukraine, it is clear that Putin's war plans have collapsed. Russia has failed to achieve its goals, and Moscow was caught off-guard by a series of unexpected developments and consequences. Among them: the combat strength of the Ukrainians, who have evinced unity and determination to fight for independence and freedom; the success of the Ukrainian army, aided by Western intelligence and weapons, in halting the advance of the Russian army and disrupting its plans; the tightening international isolation of Russia; the scope and intensity of international sanctions imposed on Russia by dozens of countries and hundreds of multinational corporations; the removal of Russia from the Council of Europe and the filing of lawsuits against it in the International Court of Justice as well as in the International Criminal Court (during sessions at the two institutions in The Hague); as well as the obvious inconvenience China feels from the continuation of the war – the same China that is Russia's partner in striving to change the world order.
And now, on the one hand, given the failure of the operational plan for a quick victory on the battlefield and control of Ukraine at tolerable costs in the international arena, Putin has no other promising alternative to end the war and correct what he sees as the historic injustice done to Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, today the United States and its NATO allies have adopted a tough stand while adhering to two goals: deterring future Russian aggression by exacting a heavy toll for its invasion of Ukraine, and avoiding direct military confrontation with Russia.
At this point, decisions about the future of the war seem to be almost entirely in the hands of the Russian president, and he is determined to avoid ending the war with a loss or with an image of loss. Given his tendency to take risks, it is not surprising that he opted for military escalation rather than flexibility in negotiations. Thus, the Russian army increased the intensity of fire and the systematic crushing of urban centers in Ukraine, in order to increase the pressure of refugees on Europe (already today their number exceeds three million; if that is not enough, then Russia’s plans will lead to the flight of ten million). Moreover, in order to signal to the West that it was determined to continue and even escalate the war theater, for the first time the Russian army launched hypersonic ballistic missiles, called Kinzhal, that fly toward a target 10 times faster than the speed of sound and cannot be intercepted. The missiles hit the Ukrainian army's munitions depot in the western town of Deliatyn last Friday.
The attack was a signal to the West that if it continues to arm the Ukrainian army, increase pressure on Russia, and not provide Putin with a respectable way out of the corner into which he backed himself, the war may extend beyond Ukraine's borders, as the Russian military has the capability to strike NATO forces, which lack a defensive response. Experience has shown that escalation has its own dynamic, which could now create a new and threatening phase – not only in the context of the war on Ukrainian soil, but in the broader context, which has so far remained confined to the political-economic sphere.