The missiles that have rained down on Ukrainian cities far from the frontline since Monday morning, striking playgrounds and other civilian targets, are retaliation for the blast at the Kerch bridge between Russia and Crimea. But it is Vladimir Putin’s rage at the broader success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive that has shifted the war from a grinding military stalemate into a more dangerous phase. The Russian president has realised that he is losing on the ground; that major democracies will not easily be bullied out of supporting Kyiv; and consequently that he can no longer count on Ukraine’s eventual capitulation. His response – annexation and mobilisation – has only increased the pressure on him, creating higher expectations among hawkish domestic elites of how far he will go, and alienating broader political support. The first deaths of mobilised soldiers were reported this week.
While Russia cannot sustain this rate of attack – 80 missiles on Monday alone – the civilian deaths and damage to water and power facilities will continue. Though the assault has so far stiffened resistance, rather than sapping morale, the approach of winter and the deterioration of infrastructure will take their toll on civilians. Ukraine will have to choose between deploying air defence systems to protect cities, or employing them in its counteroffensive.
Will Mr Putin now go further? This war’s reverberations are already felt far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The IMF warned on Tuesday that there is a growing risk of global recession next year due in part to the fallout. As Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, observed in a striking speech, this is a world “where everything is being weaponised”. More frighteningly, Mr Putin has also returned to the nuclear blackmail that he first attempted in spring; now his desperation makes the threat more serious. Joe Biden last week warned that the world was the closest it had come to nuclear catastrophe since the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago, and could face Armageddon if Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon. A tactical weapon would be far more devastating than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which made the world vow never again.
So far, there are no signs of Russia preparing such weapons for use. The assault on Kyiv, Lviv and Zaporizhzhia is a reminder that he has other brutal means of attempting to impose his will; nuclear weapons are a last resort. There is no guarantee that a launch order would be carried out. The US warning of “catastrophic” consequences surely weighs on the minds of Russian hardliners, and China and India have doubtless made their disapproval clear. Nonetheless, it now appears a more serious possibility than it seemed even this spring.
Is there an alternative to further escalation? Russia would like to freeze this conflict: the Kremlin suggests that it is open to peace talks with Ukraine through mediators – but leading voices simultaneously proclaim maximalist objectives including regime change. Ukrainians and other observers conclude that any ceasefire would be used by Moscow as an opportunity to regroup and rearm, strengthening its forces for the next phase of the war.
Solidarity with Kyiv in the face of this threat is essential. But care, as well as conviction, is needed. The G7 was right to state clearly on Tuesday that it stands firmly with Ukraine and will provide it with financial, humanitarian, military, diplomatic and legal support “for as long as it takes”. Leaders must maintain the closest watch on Russia’s plans. That includes alertness to the many ways in which Moscow may attempt to exact revenge against those backing Kyiv. But it is, of course, Ukraine’s people who are at greatest risk. Nuclear or conventional, the threat to them has never been greater in this conflict.
