Repeated Russian threats to escalate the war in Ukraine and constantly tweak its military plans reflect the extent of Moscow’s failed state in recent months, according to the report analyses to the American Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper notes that Russia has repeatedly threatened to escalate the war, many of which have since been scaled back or ignored, raising questions about the “red lines” announced by its president Vladimir Putin.
Russia’s frequent ultimatums and changes, coupled with its ever-evolving war goals, reinforce the belief among Western government officials that Putin is forced to improvise a war that has spiraled out of his control.
“There is a certain degree of desperation in Putin’s behavior now, because he knows things are not going well on the battlefield,” said Michael Clarke, of King’s College London’s War Studies Department.
The newspaper believes that neither Russia nor NATO members want to directly engage militarily, but other Russian red lines have often been “deceptive” and some of Russia’s aggressive rhetoric has backfired.
Western officials and analysts say the nuclear threats were primarily aimed at spreading panic among the Western public about the war, and thus persuading their governments to stop supporting Ukraine and push for peace on Russia’s terms, but so far this has not affected Western support for Ukraine.
But nuclear threats have further isolated Russia diplomatically, culminating in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first public rebuke of the Kremlin’s conduct during the war after he warned against the use of nuclear weapons there.
Putin appears to be stepping away from this rhetoric, stating in a televised interview that Russia has no plans to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, which has been echoed by Russian diplomats around the world.
Western analysts say the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield will do little to advance its battle and risks drawing the United States and its allies further into the war.
The report said Putin’s warning in late September that attacks on annexed Ukrainian territory would be considered aggression against Russia “sounded like an increasingly hollow threat”.
While Russia’s escalating attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine followed the partial destruction of a bridge linking Crimea to mainland Russia, Ukraine’s seizure of allegedly annexed Kherson earlier this month underlined the gap between the Kremlin’s threats and its actions.
Among other tactical gaffes was the threat to withdraw from the wheat deal that has helped improve global food security.
The report said Ukrainian success on the battlefield forced Moscow to change its war goals, and after it began with a goal of “discrediting” the Ukrainian leadership, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last week that Russia is not seeking regime change in Kiev.
Russia’s declared war objectives have gone through several stages, says Clarke, of King’s College, and it is now difficult to imagine that Russia is still pursuing military victory.
Western diplomats and officials say Putin’s behavior indicates Russia’s “confusion and failure” to predict it would be embroiled in a protracted conflict.
Others argue that the Kremlin’s constant threats may serve Russia in at least one short-term way: “by constantly distracting from its poor battlefield performance, economic woes and growing diplomatic isolation.”
