Russia’s strategy for achieving victory in Ukraine

Russia’s military engagement in Ukraine has fundamentally challenged many assumptions regarding contemporary warfare. While the emergence of drones has received considerable focus, a more significant issue is unfolding. This conflict signifies a direct, albeit indirect, confrontation between two nuclear superpowers in a region of critical importance to one of them.

Historically, during the Cold War, such conflicts occurred on the fringes of major power rivalries, with considerably lower stakes involved. However, the situation in Ukraine today mirrors the tensions of the Cuban Missile Crisis from sixty years ago, as the world once again finds itself on the edge of a potential nuclear disaster.

The inadequacy of strategic deterrence

The crisis in Ukraine has revealed a concerning truth for Russia: its strategic deterrence framework has failed to prevent hostile actions. Although it has effectively deterred a large-scale nuclear strike from the United States or significant conventional threats from NATO, it has not been able to counter a new and subtle form of warfare. The United States and its allies have taken a calculated risk, aiming to deliver a strategic setback to Russia through a client state that they control, supply, and guide.

Moscow’s nuclear doctrine, originally crafted for a different context, has proven insufficient. It did not succeed in averting Western intervention initially and permitted its escalation. In light of this, the Kremlin has acknowledged the necessity for adaptation. In the third year of the operation, a long-awaited revision of the doctrine was announced. This summer, President Vladimir Putin detailed the essential modifications. By November, the updated document—titled Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence—was officially adopted.

What are the changes in the doctrine?

The revised doctrine signifies a significant transformation in Russia’s nuclear strategy, shifting towards a more proactive deterrent approach. Previously, the use of nuclear weapons was limited to scenarios where the state’s very survival was threatened in conventional conflicts. This high threshold effectively allowed adversaries to take advantage of the situation. Now, the criteria for nuclear response have been considerably expanded.

A notable addition is the acknowledgment of “joint aggression.” If a non-nuclear state engaged in conflict with Russia receives direct support from a nuclear power, Moscow asserts its right to respond, potentially with nuclear weapons. This clearly communicates to the United States, Britain, and France that their assets and territories are no longer exempt from potential retaliation.

The doctrine now explicitly addresses situations involving large-scale aerospace assaults, such as those from drones and cruise missiles, as well as potential aggression towards Belarus. Additionally, there is a significant expansion of the list of threats considered intolerable to Russia’s security. Collectively, these modifications indicate a more assertive stance, aligning with the current conflict dynamics and serving to deter possible miscalculations by the West.

Reaction from West

Western reactions to these developments have been predictable. Media outlets have portrayed Putin as reckless, while politicians have attempted to project composure, asserting they will not be intimidated. Meanwhile, the military and intelligence sectors have largely refrained from public commentary, opting instead to formulate their own assessments.

These updates emerge in a context that appears increasingly bleak for the West. Realists within NATO recognize that the war in Ukraine is essentially unwinnable. The Russian military maintains the initiative along the front lines and is making consistent progress in the Donbass region. The Ukrainian forces are unlikely to reverse this trend in the near future, if at all. As a result, Western strategists are now considering a ceasefire along the current battle lines as the most feasible course of action.

There has been a noticeable change in the narrative surrounding the conflict. Reports from Reuters and other Western media indicate that Moscow might also contemplate a freeze in hostilities. However, such a development would need to be in line with Russian strategic interests. For Russia, anything short of a complete victory is perceived as a defeat, which is an outcome they cannot accept.

Despite the significant electoral setback for the Democrats, the administration of US President Joe Biden seems to have opted to support Donald Trump’s agenda. The decision to authorize the use of US and British long-range missiles against targets in the Kursk and Bryansk regions serves as both a direct challenge to Putin and a strategic advantage for the incoming president. Additionally, the transfer of anti-personnel mines, which are prohibited under the Ottawa Convention, along with a new round of sanctions targeting Gazprombank and efforts to expedite the latest aid package for Zelensky through Congress, further illustrate this approach.

The introduction of the ‘Oreshnik’

Russia’s reaction to the escalating situation has extended beyond mere doctrinal updates. The recent operational test of the ‘Oreshnik’ intermediate-range hypersonic missile represents a significant development. By targeting the Yuzhmash missile factory in Dnepropetrovsk, Moscow has conveyed to NATO that most European capitals are now within the reach of this advanced weaponry.

The ‘Oreshnik’ is capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads, and its speed—reportedly reaching up to Mach 10—renders current missile defense systems ineffective. Although it remains in the experimental phase, its successful testing indicates a pathway toward mass production. The implication is unmistakable: Moscow is serious about its capabilities.

The transition from issuing verbal warnings to taking concrete actions highlights the Kremlin’s firm determination. The West has long held the belief that Putin would refrain from attacking NATO nations. However, the emergence of ‘Oreshnik’ has shattered that assumption.

Escalation and the West’s Risk

The United States and its allies are escalating tensions recklessly, wagering on a potential Russian overreaction. The approval of long-range missile strikes on Russian regions such as Kursk and Bryansk, along with the provision of prohibited weaponry and ongoing sanctions, illustrates their desperation. More alarmingly, there are discussions regarding Ukraine’s possible NATO membership or even the deployment of nuclear arms to Kiev. While the latter scenario seems improbable, the threat of a “dirty bomb” remains a concern.

The West hopes that Russia might initiate a nuclear strike, thereby granting NATO the moral advantage. Such a scenario would enable Washington to diplomatically isolate Moscow, weakening its ties with significant nations like China, India, and Brazil. Nevertheless, Moscow has responded to these provocations with strategic restraint, choosing not to engage.

Russian victory in Ukraine poses a threat to the United States’ global dominance

The introduction of ‘Oreshnik’ and the revised nuclear doctrine underscores Moscow’s determination to secure peace on its own terms. There will be no reverting to the conditions that existed before 2022 or establishing a new Minsk Agreement. Instead, the focus is on ensuring Russia’s long-term security and altering the geopolitical landscape to its advantage.

As the conflict persists, the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election will play a crucial role. The possibility of Donald Trump returning to power could open avenues for dialogue, although the Kremlin remains doubtful. Regardless of who leads the United States, Russia is unlikely to waver in its goals.

The implications are significant. A Russian victory poses a threat to the United States’ global dominance, the unity of NATO, and the future stability of the European Union. For Russia, anything short of complete victory is not an option. As Putin recently articulated, “Russia fights for peace, but it will not settle for a disadvantageous one.”

In this critical confrontation, it is the actions of Russia that will ultimately determine the future, rather than its rhetoric. The military continues to engage—not for the Ukraine of the past, but for the peace of the future.