Over two years into a large-scale war in Ukraine, the concept of „red lines” has become the key term in the rhetoric of Russian officials. These „red lines” represent warnings and limits that each party imposes to prevent the escalation of the conflict and to establish clear boundaries in support and military actions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly warns the West about the „red lines” that Russia will not accept in the Russo-Ukrainian war. However, as the war drags on, what one side can and cannot do in the conflict becomes increasingly unclear.
Discrepancies in the application of "red lines"
On one hand, for Russia, it is not a red line to attack civilian targets in Ukrainian residential areas, actions that have led to massive destruction and loss of human lives. These attacks have been frequent and devastating, targeting civilian infrastructure rather than strictly military targets, as per the "rules of war."
At the same time, Ukraine is prohibited from defending itself using Western weapons on Russian territory. This prohibition was imposed by NATO states to prevent the escalation of the conflict into a direct confrontation between Russia and the Western alliance. However, this asymmetry raises serious questions about the fairness and effectiveness of the imposed restrictions.
Ukraine wants its European partners to send, at the very least, instructors to the country to expedite the training and preparation of soldiers on modern NATO infrastructure, as this would facilitate logistics and communication.
It must be explained, however, that no European country is willing to send soldiers to the battlefield, as that would mean entering into a direct war with Russia, a scenario not currently feasible.
In the "red lines" war, the debate stemming from the statement of French President Emmanuel Macron, who does not deny that he would like to send ground troops, further increases Ukraine's possibilities in this war, adding another layer of escalation between Russia and the West. Although it would involve a limited number of French ground troops, an intervention by France, Poland, or the Baltic countries (all have mentioned this possibility) could still alleviate the pressure on Ukraine in the war.
Changing the paradigm
At the beginning of the Russian invasion in 2022, the red line was clearly drawn: the West was not to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. This type of military support was perceived as a direct challenge to Russia, which could quickly escalate into a confrontation between NATO and Russia. Therefore, initially, NATO states were very cautious in providing advanced military equipment.
As the conflict has evolved, perceptions of red lines have changed significantly.
Now, for example, discussions are much more advanced and focus on training pilots, as well as delivering F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, which represents a major step from the initial restrictions on lethal weapons. This change reflects how war strategies and Ukraine's tactical needs have prompted a reassessment of these limits.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has reiterated the call for allied states to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with the provided weapons, further angering the Russian president.
This statement came almost a week after a similar call, which sparked intense discussions within the Alliance. Stoltenberg argued that it is time to review certain restrictions to allow Ukrainians to defend themselves more effectively, especially in light of the new progress of Russian troops in the Kharkiv region.
Several NATO member states, including the UK, France, Poland, the Baltic countries, and the Nordic countries, have unanimously announced their support for Ukraine's right to self-defense. These countries believe that active support for Ukraine is essential to counter Russian aggression and support Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Between Threatening with "Serious Consequences" and Realities on the Frontline
In contrast, other states, such as the US and Germany, have shown reservations, fearing the risk of a direct conflict with Russia. However, ultimately, US President Joe Biden tacitly allowed Ukraine to use US-supplied weapons to target specific Russian locations, but only in the Kharkiv region.
This subtle shift in policy reflects a recognition of Ukraine's need to defend its territory and counter Russian advances, especially as the United States is the primary supplier of military aid to Ukraine.
The Kremlin, not advancing its offensive in Kharkiv to the end, quickly responded in a retaliatory manner to these developments, accusing NATO of "provoking" Ukraine to prolong the war, suggesting that if it were up to Russia, the Ukrainians should surrender.
Vladimir Putin has warned European NATO member countries of "serious consequences" if they allow Ukraine to use Western weaponry to attack Russian territory, pointing fingers at some NATO "smaller but densely populated" states.
These threats underscore the escalating tensions between Russia and the West, each party trying to protect its interests and clearly define red lines. However, it seems that these are dissipating, and the concept that previously aided Russia with its blackmail is starting to lose its effectiveness.
Nevertheless, despite hiccups in supply and restrictions imposed by Western allies on Kiev, the Ukrainian army continues to perform remarkably on the battlefield.
Russia's substantial losses highlight the intensity and effectiveness of Ukrainian offensives, despite logistical challenges and restrictions imposed by Western allies.
In conclusion, it is imperative to address in this article some of the most pressing questions on everyone's minds:
- How have the "red lines" changed since the beginning of this conflict?
At the onset of the conflict, "red lines" were limited to sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine. Currently, debates focus on providing long-range missile launch systems, indicating a profound shift in the dimension of the confrontation initiated by Moscow.
Ukraine's Western allies increasingly recognize the need to halt Russia's expansion at all costs. In one of the optimistic scenarios of the war, it is only a matter of time before Ukraine is granted all the necessary resources and support to repel Russian forces beyond its borders, thus respecting international law.
However, for this to happen, Ukrainians need to put in more effort to persuade and require more time, as well as better results on the front.
- What does the removal of restrictions on the use of Western weapons on Russian territory entail?
Relaxing restrictions on the types of weapons that Ukraine can use could risk an escalation of the conflict, potentially leading to a direct engagement between NATO and Russia.
Moreover, such a measure could trigger unforeseen reactions from the Kremlin, although Vladimir Putin, despite being unpredictable, faces limitations in his own resources and is not in a position to engage in direct conflict with NATO or even sustain a prolonged war against a single state like Ukraine.
If we truly want Ukraine to win the war, it needs to be supported and empowered further; however, this is a risk we should be willing to take.
- How is Russia reacting to NATO's increasing permissions and openness towards Ukraine?
Russia accuses NATO of inciting Ukraine to prolong the fight and threatens with "serious consequences" if Western weaponry is used for attacks on Russian territory. Vladimir Putin, in his characteristic style, even suggests the possibility of a nuclear conflict if the balance of power between Ukraine and Russia becomes equal.
This leads us to the next rhetorical question: how long will the West continue to be subject to Russian blackmail, how long will we allow ourselves to be intimidated by Putin's imaginary red lines?