CRITICAL POINT

By the end of 2024, the Russian-Ukrainian war has reached a critical juncture. As the scale of hostilities expands and new technological frontiers are breached, the risk of nuclear conflict has increased significantly. This situation represents the most serious manifestation of the ever-deepening confrontation between the West and Russia, with Ukraine caught in the middle, enduring nearly three years of destructive warfare.

Rockets in Action

The conditions on the frontline of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict have evolved with mixed results for both parties. However, recent trends indicate that the Russian army is advancing in both Donbas and the Kursk region of the Russian Federation, from where it is attempting to dislodge Ukrainian Armed Forces units. On November 17, Russia executed one of its most powerful strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure since the war began. In response, UN special rapporteurs and members of working groups once again urged "Russia to immediately halt attacks on Ukraine's power plants, substations, transmission and distribution lines, and other energy infrastructure to avert the risk of a nuclear catastrophe."

Simultaneously, according to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs, recent Russian rocket assaults have resulted in the deaths of numerous Ukrainian citizens, including children, and have inflicted considerable damage on civilian infrastructure, particularly in Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhye, Dnepr, and Ivano-Frankovsk regions. Meanwhile, an event that could significantly influence the ongoing hostilities was the authorisation by the United States along with key European powers—Great Britain and France—for Ukraine to conduct strikes against Russian territory utilizing long-range Western weaponry. Kiev did not hesitate to seize this opportunity and promptly launched strikes using American and British weapons—ATACMS operational-tactical missiles, HIMARS, and Storm Shadow systems—against military targets in the Bryansk and Kursk regions of Russia. In turn, Russia responded with a combined strike on a Ukrainian defense-industrial complex facility in Dnipro, deploying its latest medium-range Oreshnik ballistic missile.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made a notable statement on this occasion, asserting that with the deployment of Western-made long-range weapons on Russian soil, "the regional conflict in Ukraine has acquired elements of a global character." He further asserted that "it is impossible to utilize such weapons without the direct involvement of military specialists from the countries that manufacture them." Based on this premise, he declared that Russia reserves the right to target military facilities of those nations that permit their weapons to be used against Russian assets.

For his part, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky accused Russia of escalating the conflict by launching a ballistic missile strike on the Dnipro River. He cited North Korea's "involvement in a war against Ukraine with a contingent of at least 11,000 soldiers" as a previous instance of escalation. Zelensky asserted that Ukraine's use of long-range weapons is its "full right to do so in accordance with international law," emphasizing self-defense rights similar to those of any other sovereign nation. The progression of hostilities is characterized not only by reciprocal strikes but also by an increasingly significant risk of nuclear conflict—a danger that has loomed since the beginning of the war but has taken on an alarming urgency this year, especially within a comprehensive conceptual and strategic framework.

Nuclear Threat

The potential for Russia to deploy tactical nuclear weapons has been a topic of concern almost since it initiated its military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. While Moscow has not officially confirmed such intentions, it has warned Ukraine and its Western allies about this possibility. This caution stems from a frontline situation where the Ukrainian military—supplied with arms from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union—has begun achieving significant successes in combat operations that would cross all of Russia's red lines.

The prevailing sentiment within the Kremlin has consistently been supported by discussions regarding possible amendments to Russia's nuclear doctrine. In spring this year, President Putin linked this issue to activities undertaken by a "probable adversary" aimed at "lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon usage." Soon after, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced plans to "clarify certain parameters" of its nuclear doctrine. This announcement followed a June meeting among NATO defence ministers during which discussions took place regarding the Alliance's nuclear deterrence policy. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg indicated that it was necessary not only to prepare the organization’s nuclear capabilities but also to consider potentially supplying nuclear weapons to non-nuclear member states within the Alliance. He characterized the "modernization" of NATO countries' nuclear arsenals as a reaction to Russia's actions in this domain.

Among these actions were clearly marked exercises conducted by Russia in late May and early June aimed at practising operational-tactical nuclear weapon deployment. Concurrently, Moscow issued warnings that the prospect of nuclear war would intensify if the United States and its NATO allies completely lifted restrictions on Ukrainian strikes against Russian territory utilizing Western weaponry. Thus, this intricate "great chess game" with mutual accusations regarding nuclear threats reached an "hour X" stage precisely when authorization from the United States and leading European powers—Great Britain and France—for Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range Western weapons became a reality. The retaliatory strike employing Oreshnik, alongside Putin's statement timed accordingly, aims to convince both the West and global observers that inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia is unfeasible. The modifications made to Russia's nuclear doctrine also underscore this point emphatically. Previously, Russia's State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence outlined nuclear weapon usage as either a retaliatory strike or a nuclear response to a non-nuclear attack (if such aggression threatened state existence). However, in the revised text of this document, aggression involving even "conventional weapons" that poses a "critical threat to security" not only for Russia but also for Belarus as a Union State member is now cited as grounds for nuclear weapon deployment. A key point emphasizes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state with support from a nuclear state is regarded as a joint attack.

Conversely, Western forces—primarily the United States and Great Britain—also express readiness for any eventuality. NATO's military command is presently discussing scenarios where the Alliance may initiate precision pre-emptive strikes against Russian territory. Admiral Rob Bauer, head of NATO's Military Committee, announced an adjustment in the Alliance's defence strategy, advocating for precision strikes targeting systems utilized for attacks. "And we must strike first," Bauer concluded.

Consequently, the Russian-Ukrainian war brings the world perilously close to global catastrophe. As NATO and Russia confront each other, both sides are inevitably compelled to consider their nuclear capabilities. Thus, eliminating the threat of nuclear confrontation stands as an essential task facing major power centres and global society as a whole. The near future will reveal how effectively these entities can address this challenge and whether hopes for a shift in global security dynamics under incoming US President Donald Trump can be realized.

The Struggle of Opposites and Trump Promising Peace

A significant escalation in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war is unfolding ahead of Donald Trump's anticipated return to office as US President; Trump previously asserted his capability to resolve this conflict within 24 hours. This backdrop—alongside an evident trend toward prolonged warfare risking Ukraine's exhaustion and further Russian troop advances—has ignited discussions within international circles about a potential early commencement of peace negotiations between Moscow and Kiev.

Meanwhile, positions held by both primary parties remain starkly opposed. Russia conditions negotiations primarily on an unconditional withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions within their recognized administrative boundaries—not only from territories occupied by Russian forces but also those under Ukrainian sovereign control (specifically from cities such as Kherson and Zaporozhye). Furthermore, Moscow demands international recognition for Crimea, Sevastopol, and annexed territories in eastern Ukraine as part of the Russian Federation. Lastly, another categorical demand from Moscow includes Ukraine renouncing its intentions to join NATO and declaring its neutral status.

In contrast, Ukraine firmly rejects these demands as gross violations of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Although Kiev's stance has softened somewhat recently by acknowledging diplomatic settlement inevitability (President Zelensky formally abandoned Ukraine's refusal to negotiate with Russia amid ongoing aggression two years ago), it remains steadfast regarding acceptable conditions for concluding hostilities. These conditions encapsulate Zelensky's articulated "victory plan," comprising five main provisions: an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO; lifting restrictions imposed by Western allies on strikes against Russian territory utilizing long-range weapons; deploying a "comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package" against Russian threats within Ukraine; sharing Ukraine's natural resources with Western nations; and utilizing personnel from Ukrainian Armed Forces to replace segments of US contingents stationed in Europe post-conflict.

Kiev believes fulfilling these conditions will reinforce its position and compel Russia toward negotiations. Furthermore, according to Western media outlets—particularly Britain's Financial Times—the last two points within Zelensky's "victory plan" were included specifically with Donald Trump's electoral victory in mind. The former president—and now president-elect—advocates reducing US expenditures related to European security while maintaining American political and economic leadership.

As for Kiev's other demands—particularly permission for Ukraine to strike Russian territory using long-range Western weapons—this demand can already be considered fulfilled. Collectively, Ukraine's demands indicate its unwillingness either to abandon NATO membership aspirations or relinquish territorial claims. Consequently, amidst such opposing positions, it appears improbable that Moscow and Kyiv can reach agreement on fundamentally contentious issues.

Ukraine's key European allies also show little inclination to compromise at Ukraine's expense. The United Kingdom and France express unwavering support for Zelensky's "victory plan," determined to continue reinforcing Ukraine's military and financial capabilities while maintaining sanctions pressure on Russia. Germany demonstrates slightly less vigour in its support but insists on doing everything possible to avert new escalations; it continues providing substantial aid—second only to that offered by the United States. Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently made another attempt at diplomatic outreach toward achieving peaceful conflict resolution—similar to his previous efforts during earlier stages of warfare—by engaging Putin in their first telephone conversation in almost two years. However, according to reports from both German and Russian officials, Scholz urged Putin to negotiate with Ukraine for establishing "a just and lasting peace," while Putin reiterated his insistence on negotiating peace based on "new territorial realities."

In such circumstances, resuming negotiations may hinge on America's position once Trump returns to Washington. Notably, despite his professed desire for an expedited conclusion to hostilities in Ukraine, neither he nor his team has presented any concrete settlement plan thus far. Concurrently, Trump's nominees for key foreign policy roles operate under assumptions suggesting that warfare has reached an impasse necessitating its resolution. Senator Marco Rubio—Trump's nominee for Secretary of State—asserts such viewpoints while Tulsi Gabbard—selected for leading National Intelligence Agency—and Mike Waltz—presumptive future national security assistant—oppose continuing financial or military assistance to Kyiv; they criticize President Biden's administration for endorsing support "as long as it takes."

Clearly evident is that Biden's administration authorised Kiev's capability to strike deep into Russian territory just before transitioning White House leadership—a move designed not only to limit Trump's leverage regarding initiating peace processes but also infringe upon Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Nevertheless, while recognising American positioning's significance in shaping or potentially resolving this "Ukrainian crisis," it remains vital not to overlook that conflict between Moscow and Kyiv fundamentally embodies broader confrontation between Russia and Western powers led by the United States—a dynamic rooted in circumstances persisting for over three decades since Soviet Union dissolution. While Russia seeks to retain influence over previously controlled nations within its sphere, Western powers endeavour maintaining global hegemony by subjugating at least European segments of post-Soviet Eurasia.