As of 2024, how can Russia escalate the war in Ukraine?

Question

According to this answer for the question Why do Western countries not send more powerful weapons to Ukraine?, Western countries are reluctant also out of fear of conflict escalation:

It is not in the interest of most Western countries to have the war escalate to other countries, especially not other EU or NATO countries.

Considering that Russia's progress in Ukraine is well below its initial objectives and has registered quite heavy losses so far, I do not understand how it can "escalate" this war. I imagine that, if Russia could have poured more / better weapons and manpower into the war, they would have done this so far.

Thus, my question is, considering the context of the first half of 2024 when Russia is still struggling to gain land in Ukraine, how can it realistically escalate the war?

Answer 1

Upon re-reading this question I now get what it is about and why existing answers are unsatisfactory.

Russian Federation could absolutely draft more people into its armed forces if that would be justified. Currently, this seems to be limited by two factors: Firstly, Russia pays good wages to contracted and mobilized personnel, out of its limited coffers. Secondly, many people don't see why they have to participate in what looks like a stalled operation that does not actively endanger core Russia.

However, if NATO would step up this war by participating directly on Ukraine side, or worse, if NATO-Ukraine combined forces would breech into pre-war Russian territory, it is not unimaginable that Russian Federation could do more rounds of mobilization. In this case it could also adjust the amount of cash it pays to servicemen if it becomes tight on money. Such as, they will get 1/4 in cash and the rest in some funny money burn before cashing in vouchers.

Russian Federation did a single round of mobilization lasting 40 days, where it could mobilize 300 thousands personnel. It is not unimaginable that a million more could be mobilized if the situation is perceived as critical; which is not the case currently but may happen if NATO rolls into the field.

And, as they say, "God is on the side of larger companies".

Answer 2

If either side had the means to increase the intensity of the fighting and were willing to accept the consequences of doing so, they would have done it.

In my opinion, the question makes sense more as an inquiry into deterrence options.

If discussing deterrence, it would probably be best to set aside talk about nuclear weapons. Here's why I think that is.

Already in the early 1950's, a doctrine of massive retaliation (ie nuclear) was articulated by Dulles. He was not referring merely to an attack on US or NATO, that was already understood. The issue of the day was conflict along the edges, at that time in Asia. The massive retaliation doctrine was a more powerful alternative to the doctrine of mere containment, where the French in Vietnam and US in Korea had already run up against limitations of power projection. Dulles' bluff was, arguably, called as the French were defeated in Vietnam. The key conclusion then drawn about the Dulles paradigm, was that

If the Communists should challenge our sincerity, and they would have good reasons for daring to do so, we would either have to put up or shut up

The quote coming from Kaufmann 1954, as quoted in Farooqui per link below. Thereafter policymakers shifted away from such a hyperbolic escalatory conception of deterrence, toward one in which there was a graduated spectrum of options. The above is taken from a somewhat critical history by Farooqui 2019, a sometime grad student of Adam Tooze's.

As it applies to this Question, the part about having to "either put up or shut up" applies equally to other first-class players, I.e. USSR becoming Russia and also China. The threat can be made, and it has been (eg Cuba missile crisis) - but ultimately it is too obvious that nobody wants to end the world.

As far as nuclear weapons go, the lack of credibility of such threats applies even more today, as red lines were crossed repeatedly over the years. It's just not a useful line of conversation, as there are many lesser options which are also quite destructive.

Despite that, I hope it is clear that all involved are far more vulnerable to conventional weapons than they care to admit, including even the US.

In the case of the US, Russia is not even the primary rival. It is China. From a geostrategic point of view, US has to stay in this contest just to maintain "credibility" with respect to China - not to a friendly audience such as found here, but rather to the governments of Asia and Africa. This is also a vulnerability that can be exploited by Russia, as the US faces crises in other theaters (e.g. the Red Sea, or bases in Iraq). It is a line of attack would be much more strategically economical for Russia, than deliberately starting WWIII.

Answer 3

First of all - the referred question and answer are from Jun 2022. Since that time many red lines in support for Ukraine got crossed and capabilities of Russian military got better evaluation. Still there is some room for escalation. Besides using nukes mentioned by Sayaman and intensifying mobilization mentioned by Alamar, it is possible that China will engage more in supporting Russia (help evading sanctions, selling technology etc).

Western countries do not expect Ukrainian military victory (how would it look like? Ukrainian forces marching on Moscow to force surrender are out of question. If each army stops on some negotiated border, what will stop Russia from rebuilding its forces and trying once again?). The hopes are in crippling Russian economics with sanctions and war efforts it commits. So a balance is kept to not let Ukraine fail but not to induce anyone to engage in supporting Russia nor induce Russia into more intense actions.

Answer 4

To quote from the comment by o.m.:

Russia could attack NATO countries (horizontal escalation) or use nuclear weapons in Ukraine (vertical escalation). Neither may be a realistic path to anything but WWIII, but Russia has miscalculated before and "escalate to deescalate" is studied by strategic think tanks who worry about such things.

All the credit for the above quote should go to o.m., and I simply provide a few references below.

Additionally, Russia can damage Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which it currently occupies and which it claimed on numerous occasions to have been under attack by the Ukrainian military. The resulting radioactive contamination under appropriate weather conditions can spread into NATO countries. The geopolitical implications of such “accident” are left to the reader.

References:

From Dmitry Medvedev (Deputy Chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the third President of Russia, 2008-2012), on X/Twitter:

Various nazi bastards who wish death on Russia – like rinkēvičs, the president of a non-existent latvia – must remember the fate of the fascists, the 1943 Kharkov trial included. Retribution is inevitable. Memento mori!

Dmitry Medvedev, @MedvedevRussiaE on X/Twitter, 2:15 PM · Mar 15, 2024

---

On the phone conversation between the Bundeswehr officers about planned attacks against our country

Our historic adversaries, the Germans, have once again turned into our archenemies. Just take a look at how thoroughly and in what detail the krauts are discussing long-range missile strikes on Russia’s territory, and are picking out targets and the most workable ways to harm our Motherland and our people. And they are doing so without leaving out the deceptive rhetoric about Germany’s non-involvement in the conflict.
Just a little while back, could anyone have imagined this?
And how to react to this in a diplomatic way?
I don’t know…

But I do know this one thing. The Second World War-era call has once again become relevant: DEATH TO THE FASCISTS!

Dmitry Medvedev, @MedvedevRussiaE on X/Twitter, 10:00 AM · Mar 1, 2024

---

If – God forbid! – such a war breaks out, it won’t go according to the Special Military Operation scenario. It won’t be fought in trenches using artillery, armoured vehicles, drones and EW.

NATO is a huge military bloc, the total population of the Alliance member states is about 1 billion people, and their combined military budget can get as high as $1,5 trillion.

So, because our military capabilities are thus incomparable, we will simply be left with no choice. The response will be asymmetrical. To defend our country’s territorial integrity, ballistic and cruise missiles carrying special warheads will be put to use. It is based on our military doctrine documents and is well known to all. And this is exactly that very Apocalypse. The end to everything.

This is why Western politicians must be telling the bitter truth to their voters, and stop taking them for brainless morons; to explain to them, what will really happen, and not to play the false mantra of getting ready for war against Russia over and over again.

*Dmitry Medvedev, @MedvedevRussiaE on X/Twitter, 2/7/24

---

From Russian Media Monitor on YouTube, by Julia Davis:

• Vladimir Solovyov threatens France: https://youtu.be/6ljVtlaAhfE?si=ED-Jl0NVmUInzcC5
• Pundit stuns the host by admitting Russia's expansionist goals go beyond Ukraine: https://youtu.be/GKDxGX2llqk?si=6OjtaE_p2PfqmuLk
• Vladimir Solovyov wants to nuke Western cities: https://youtu.be/FjHWsGAlcMI?si=aRpo4KA0gAYO3oK2

---

Russia said Ukraine struck the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station controlled by Russian forces three times on Sunday and demanded the West respond, though Kyiv said it had nothing to do with the attacks.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has experts at the site, said it was the first time the nuclear plant, Europe's largest, was directly targeted since November 2022 and said the attack had endangered nuclear safety.

Russia says Ukraine struck nuclear plant, Kyiv denies it was behind the attack

Answer 5

A scientific approach as proposed by Sergey Karaganov, a prominent Russian political scientist with a significant influence in the fields of foreign policy and defense, is to attack Europe with nuclear weapons (Meduza).

As much as I understand, the rationale behind this idea is to prevent the world scale nuclear war.

The plan is based on expectation that if not directly attacked, USA will not respond with the nuclear strike. Karaganov seems not explaining how to mitigate the threat of European nuclear weapons, maybe he assumes there are not many and Russia can just take that hit.

In 2022, Karaganov was awarded the title of Honorary Professor. He and his team are working on many state-funded projects of the comparable focus.

Answer 6

I imagine that, if Russia could have poured more / better weapons and manpower into the war, they should have done this so far.

There is a problem with the word "could" here. Like all autocratic states, Russia has to keep a certain amount of force in reserve to defend the elite against the population, should they become overly restive. If something were to happen that greatly increased support for the regime, Russia might risk putting some of their internal-defence forces into Ukraine.

A mass killing of Russian civilians by a long-range weapon might well fulfil that criterion. This is probably one of the reasons by the USA warned Russia of indications of the attack by ISIS-K, to make it clear that the US was not involved. That's likely also why Russia tried to paint it as a US- or Ukraine- sponsored attack, although we don't know how well that worked within Russia.

There are two other ways in which Russia could escalate: attacking other countries, or using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Both would be very risky for Russia, but avoiding them happening is well worthwhile for the West.

Answer 7

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but they did ratify a mutual defence treaty with North Korea and about 10,000 North Koreans are now in Russia, deployed in Kursk. Reading the answers above, nobody seems to have anticipated this.

Relatedly, there are some 40,000 North Korean workers in Russia, and they want up to 500,000 to make up for the labor shortage.

Also Russia increased their military budget for the next year yet again "by 25% to its highest on record" (since the dissolution of the USSR, I assume.)

Answer 8

Considering that Russia's progress in Ukraine is well below its initial objectives and has registered quite heavy losses so far, I do not understand how it can "escalate" this war. I imagine that, if Russia could have poured more / better weapons and manpower into the war, they would have done this so far.

I don't think that assumption is necessarily founded.

Obviously Russia can in theory mobilise more soldiers, has weapons of greater power in reserve, and has many more targets for destruction which it has not yet attempted to strike.

Russia's progress fighting Western forces in Ukraine is not going too badly by most of the world's standard. It's Western forces themselves which are not making the progress that could have been expected in destroying the Russian forces and purging Putin.

The real balancing acts Russia has to perform are two.

Firstly, it has to have the political justification for mobilising more soldiers from its population, and moving too quickly to try maximum mobilisation to the fronts in the absence of an immediate mortal threat could produce ungovernable resistance.

Secondly, Russia has to carefully balance the available manpower between frontline soldiering on the one hand, and economic production and reorganisation on the other.

The reserve army of labour that Western liberals keep on hand to discipline workers into greater exploitation, has already been purged in Russia. The Russian population is now fully employed in an economy gearing up for all-out war against the West - and Russian workers are jubilant at the fact due to the end of designed-in unemployment and due to soaring wages.

And if Russia is to confront the West with full force, it will require a Soviet-style command economy with maximum efficiency and with capitalist deadweight and foreign control eliminated. And that is exactly what it is currently doing - there is indeed a total mobilisation of the population into reinforcing the economy it requires to wage war.

So for these reasons I think the premise of the question needs review.

Answer 9

Russia can do basically anything imaginable:

1. destroying all electricity generation: Russia has coordinates of every power plant in Ukraine, just launch missiles and its over. Russia believes Ukraine is governed from abroad, this makes chaos enough to stop that. Russia absolutely does not need to create incident on Zaporizhzhya power plant, as Khmelnitsky and Rivne power plants are in their reach.

2. Russia can bomb every bridge in Ukraine. Kyiv have 5 bridges, 3 road bridges, 1 railroad bridge and 1 combined road and railroad bridge. After doing so illusion of Ukraine winning stops immediately.

3. Russia can bomb Zelensky, Verhovna rada, any government building including military commissariats which are in charge of mobilisation, Ukraines Security Service buildings, news agencies, internet hubs, National Bank of Ukraine, anything. Russia does not do this just because Zelensky and parliament are not in charge. After Ukraine bombed Luhansk administation building on 2 june 2014 Ukraine knows two can play that game.

4. Russia can bomb Holodomor memorials, bandera streets and avenues, maidan casualties memorials, just to deliver a message.