Four civilians were reported killed in an explosion on a Crimean beach on Sunday. Russia says that Ukraine launched a U.S.-provided ATACMS ballistic missile at the beachgoers.
Russia is using the deaths to increase fears of a possible U.S.-Russian conflagration. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned on Monday that the “involvement of the United States, the direct involvement, as a result of which Russian civilians are killed, cannot be without consequences … time will tell what these will be.” The Kremlin’s implication is that Russia will take some kind of direct response against the United States, potentially risking a broader conflict between the two nuclear powers.
We should not be too quick to dance to this Kremlin waltz.
For a start, it’s possible but unlikely an ATACMS missile was responsible for the incident. U.S. rules on Ukraine’s use of these weapons are highly restricted to mitigate risks to civilians. Moreover, Ukraine is well aware that Russians flock to Crimea’s beaches on weekends. And Ukraine also knows that were the U.S. to find that it had callously fired an ATACMS at beachgoers, the U.S. would likely stop providing these weapons. That would represent a serious loss to Ukraine’s war efforts. Considering the shrapnel dispersion apparently shown in videos of the incident and the poor record of Russian air defense forces, it is more likely that this incident was caused by a Russian missile misfire/miss/self-destruct.
Regardless, Russia’s “cannot be without consequences” rhetoric toward the U.S. is not primarily designed for U.S. political and military leaders. Instead, that rhetoric is designed to decrease U.S. popular support for Ukraine and associated voting sentiments in the 2024 presidential election.
The key here is that Russia wants to reinforce and bolster the arguments of American conservatives who already believe U.S. policy towards the Ukraine war is misguided and carries excessive risks to U.S. interests. And while those views are of course legitimate, they ignore the fact that it is Russia, not the U.S., that has escalated its aggression as the war in Ukraine has continued.
That fact is evidenced by Russia’s continued and overtly imperialist effort to dissect the democratic sovereignty that has underpinned European peace and prosperity since 1945 (one heavily defined by wanton attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure including shopping centers and apartment buildings). As Russian offensives around Kharkiv illustrate, Putin seeks to seize Kyiv, not hold the territory he has already gained. The fact of Russia’s escalation responsibility is further evidenced by the Russian intelligence services’ sabotage campaign in Europe, which has included recent arson attacks in the United Kingdom and Germany (it was not until after these attacks that Western nations started allowing Ukraine limited use of their weapons inside Russia).
Again, Americans should not dance to the Kremlin’s waltz.
His rhetoric aside, Putin is highly unlikely to seek a direct confrontation with the West for two reasons. First, because Russia would very likely lose its Chinese partnership in the event of that confrontation (China cannot afford to lose access to the European marketplace). This Sino-Russian dissection would be nearly certain were Russia to employ nuclear weapons in even a limited fashion (something Xi Jinping has said is China’s red-line concern). Putin knows this. Second, because Russia would suffer a devastating military loss in either a conventional or a nuclear conflict with the U.S./NATO. His bluster aside, Putin, a smart man, knows this also.
That said, by tying this Crimea incident to its escalation rhetoric, the Kremlin lends greater moral credibility to that rhetoric. Put simply, if Americans believe that Ukraine is callously throwing American weapons at Russian beachgoers, it is likely that they will take the Kremlin’s escalation rhetoric more seriously and view it as more justified. It is thus also likely that more Americans will grow more opposed to continued U.S. support for Ukraine. The reality of whether an ATACMS was involved in any way in Sunday’s incident is thus irrelevant to the Kremlin. What matters is the opportunity to mislead and manipulate. The KGB old guard around Putin, and Putin personally, revel in these antics.
The Crimea escalation narrative fits alongside other elements of Putin’s make-the-West-fear-our-escalation agenda. These include Russia’s flimsy new defense partnership with North Korea, its submarine excursions to Cuba (a gift to the Office of Naval Intelligence), and its tactical nuclear weapons exercises. But with each of these lines of efforts, as with his sabotage campaign inside NATO member states, Putin is attempting to induce political pressure without risking significant second order effects that might precipitate major U.S./Western reprisals. Top line: Russia does not want escalation, it wants an escalation narrative.
In turn, the pushing of this escalation narrative doesn’t ultimately come from a place of resolve. On the contrary, it is a product of Putin’s growing fear. Putin is far more concerned with quickly concluding the war in Ukraine than he presents. While the Russian economy has retained impressive short-term insulation from Western sanctions, the sustained and heavy diversion of resources and manpower to the war effort is a major, systemic drain on the Russian economy.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Kremlin’s longer-term ability to weather this strain in a manner that avoids social tensions is questionable (hence Putin’s growing reliance on dynastic Kremlin appointments). As is Russia’s ability to weather the strain of being unable to access high-tech/specialized goods at scale and at reasonable prices. This is a big challenge for Russian industry, including for Russia’s critically important energy export sector.
Top line: Americans should take a breath, remember how the U.S. won the Cold War (resolve matched to superior power and political values), and avoid bowing before Putin’s escalation curve.