Military forces & helicopters between smoke and dust in destroyed city after attack. By Meysam Azarneshin/stock.adobe.com
On Tuesday morning, Ukraine marked the 1000th day of its war with Russia by using its newly authorized and American-made ATACMS missiles to attack inside the Russian border for the first time. Ukraine has sought the White House’s permission to do just that for several months—Biden’s stance has long been that doing so would risk escalating the war—but it was not until a few days ago that it was formally given. Prior to that point, the missiles could only be used to attack targets within Ukraine’s territory. While Russia claims that the six missiles were rebuffed with little damage, the Kremlin used the attack as an opportunity to publicly release an updated nuclear weapons doctrine that lowers the threshold for when Russia can use its nukes in combat.
The new standard means that Russia at least claims to be willing to respond to any attack on its sovereignty by using nuclear weapons against both non-nuclear nations—Ukraine in this instance—and the nuclear powers supporting them like NATO and, more specifically, the US.
As Isaac Saul points out, Russia has yet to actually make good on such threats despite similar warnings in response to NATO giving Ukraine M1A1 tanks, HIMAR rocket launchers, the Patriot Air Defense system, cluster munitions, F-16 fighter jets, and other munitions that have played a pivotal role in combatting Russia’s advances. And the most likely outcome is that such threats will continue to be just that.
However, the circumstances surrounding the war have changed a good bit since those earlier instances. Moreover, even if Russia never gets to the point of using nuclear weapons, there are other means by which they can escalate the conflict and inflict damage on the nations supporting Ukraine.
What each side wants
The most significant shift since those earlier threats is the impending return of President-elect Donald Trump to office in January. Trump ran on a platform of ending the war in Ukraine, and most believe that a key part of his plan would include freezing the battle lines wherever they are at the time of negotiations.
I’ve written previously about why such an outcome was likely Russia’s endgame from the moment their initial attacks failed to capture the whole of Ukraine, and there’s little to suggest that’s changed across the ensuing months. However, for that plan to work, they have to maintain control of the fertile lands currently in their possession.
The recently loosened restrictions on how Ukraine can use ATACMS missiles do not fundamentally change the conflict on the front lines, but they could complicate Russia’s attempts to use North Korean troops to retake some of the territory in the Kursk region that they lost to Ukraine earlier this year. And, given that the White House has promised to deliver an additional $7.1 billion in military aid before Biden leaves office in January, making the US and its NATO allies think twice about how that aid is used could be of great benefit to Putin.
Ultimately, anything that makes the war look more winnable for Ukraine—or even just less of a stalemate—could complicate Trump’s efforts to significantly alter America’s approach to the conflict. And while nuclear escalation from Russia would certainly do that as well, which is part of why it is unlikely they would make good on such threats, the Kremlin has other ways of exacting retribution on Ukraine’s western allies.
How will Russia respond?
Recent intelligence reports indicate that Russia has already begun to step up its attacks on NATO nations by covert and deniable—yet clearly attributable—means. The nation’s increase in cyber warfare, arson, and infowar attacks is likely the first step. However, spy ships recently found patrolling the Irish Sea and the waters around other Nordic countries have given rise to the belief that Russia is also looking for ways to attack “critical undersea infrastructure, including pipelines and internet cables linking the UK, Ireland, Europe, and the US.”
That Russia has hardly kept such efforts veiled would seem to indicate that they want NATO nations to be aware of the possibility that such attacks could come. While it would be foolish for Putin to provoke a broader war in Europe when it’s taken him nearly three years to push for a stalemate against them as proxies, he also understands that Ukraine cannot count on their support indefinitely.
In addition to Trump’s public intent for America’s involvement come January, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz broke with NATO protocol by discussing the war with Putin over the phone on Sunday. Moreover, French President Emmanuel Macron has also seemed to pull back from his stance on the importance of defeating Russia.
In short, it looks as though the war is likely on its way to some semblance of closure unless circumstances change in such a way that removes peace as a practical option. And the most likely way for that to happen would be an escalation or expansion of the war.
To that end, it seems telling that Russia is making threats while Ukraine is actively expanding the confines of the conflict. Doing so is likely Ukraine’s only path to anything resembling what they would deem an acceptable end to the war.
Unfortunately, what we deem acceptable and what is actually realistic are not necessarily the same. And therein lies a lesson that applies beyond the bounds of war.
“We were made for another world”
The failure of our expectations to become reality is often one of our greatest sources of stress. And while most of us understand in principle that life isn’t fair, it often doesn’t make the reminders of that fact any easier to bear.
Now, Jesus did warn us that life would be like this (John 15:18–25, 16:33). And, at least when it comes to the big picture topics like salvation, we should be happy that God doesn’t make sure we get what we deserve (Romans 6:23).
But, even when acknowledging all of that, there’s still something about the lack of justice we see in the world that feels wrong. And that’s alright, it should. As CS Lewis described,
“If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”
This side of heaven, true justice and fairness will seldom be more than a desire this world cannot satisfy. We don’t have to like it, and we should still work toward those ends wherever possible, but we also shouldn’t be surprised when reality continues to fall short of our expectations.
However, when we allow those moments of disappointment to renew our hope and appreciation for what awaits us in heaven, it opens up new avenues for God to redeem those struggles to draw both ourselves and those who see that hope in us closer to him.
So the next time you come face to face with the cruel realities of this life, ask God to use them as a reminder of what awaits us in heaven and as motivation to bring as many people as we can with us before we get there.
Search
