As the Russo-Ukrainian War hits it 1,000 day mark, hopes for a settlement deal have grown more tenuous amidst increasing violence. NCF Research Officer Silvia Luthi presents the latest developments down below:
Russia’s Large-Scale Aerial Attack
On Sunday 17th November, Russia struck various regions in Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv, with over 200 missiles and drones – resulting in at least seven casualties and substantial damage to the nation’s key energy infrastructure. This compelled Ukrenergo, the state’s largest energy supplier, to introduce power restrictions starting on Monday 18th. Russia’s ministry of defence declared its offensive to be on “essential energy infrastructure supporting the Ukrainian military-industrial complex”. Ukrainian President Zelensky, however, openly condemned the attack via Telegram, stating “Russian terrorists once again want to scare us with cold and lack of light”.
An attack of this proportion has not occurred since August earlier this year, and took place only two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s first telephone call in two years. During this call, Russia expressed its ongoing willingness to resume peace talks on the proviso that its territorial and security concerns be addressed, and the ‘original causes of the conflict’ eliminated. Zelensky strongly opposed this interaction, claiming Chancellor’s move to be a ‘Pandora’s box’. The sequence of such events sets a cautionary tone on the Kremlin’s conduct going forth, as the inauguration of the US’ 47th President Donald J. Trump draws near.
Suspicions Rise amidst Underwater Cable Damage
Simultaneous to the aforementioned events on Sunday 17th November, a 730-mile fibre-optic telecommunication cable between Lithuania and Sweden was reported to have been severed. The Swedish company Arelion, to which the cable pertains, stated that although the exact causes of damage were still unknown, the extent of it was comprehensive, and not just partial. In response, both Sweden and Lithuania’s military forces have upped their maritime surveillance, with the former leading preliminary criminal investigations into the matter.
Compellingly, less than 24 hours after this event, on Monday 18th November, another underwater cable linking Finland and Germany was also announced to be cut. This time Cinia, Finnish owner of said cable, reported the causes of such infraction were still undetermined and repairs could take up to 15 days. On this day, the Foreign Ministers of Finland and Germany published a joint statement expressing their deep concern over the incident. Though they did not directly point their fingers at anyone, they used their speech as a reminder that, “Our European security is not only under threat from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, but also from hybrid warfare by malicious actors”.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius took a more direct approach when stating “No one believes that these cables were cut accidentally…We also have to assume, without knowing it yet, that it is sabotage”. However, European Union Policy Chief Josep Borrell assumed a more charitable stance on the situation, declaring it to be “irresponsible from my side to attribute this, let’s say incident or accident or whatever you want to call it, to anyone”. These recent occurrences are reminiscent of the numerous telecommunication cable cuts that took place in the Baltic Sea last year. Investigators suggested that evidence pointed towards the Chinese ship Newnew Polar Bear, as the main perpetrator of the damage, but did not confirm whether or not this was intentional.
Biden Authorizes the Use of Long-Range Missiles
Since the start of its military incursion on February 24th, 2022, Russia has gained control of an estimated fifth part of Ukrainian territory, including the entirety of Crimea, and most of the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions (see figure down below). This amounts to over 110,000 square kilometres, a figure that stands out when measured against the 650 square km of Russian Kursk land that Ukraine has (so far) gained control of. These figures highlight the power asymmetry, namely, the Kremlin’s military superiority, both in terms of size and resources. Hence why third-party support remains essential to Ukraine’s fight, most significantly from the US, which has consistently been its largest provider of arms following the war’s onset.
Map of Russia’s Offensive Campaign Status
Source: Institute for the Study of War
On Sunday, 17th November, following the deployment of an estimated 10,000 North Korean soldiers to the Kursk region, current US President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine’s use of US long-range missiles. This decision signifies a shift in Biden’s approach – given his previous aversion to Zelensky’s requests for such missiles, specifically named Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) – and importantly, took place only two weeks after Trump’s re-election. The upcoming US president has already been critical of the amount of US military aid invested to support Ukraine, and alluded to reducing this if he took office.
Russia’s President Putin had forewarned the West against taking such a course of action earlier in September, where he declared that, “If this decision is taken, it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries”. The consequences of such decision, however, remained ambiguous – Reuters reports Russia would consider taking ‘appropriate decisions’. As of now, Putin has yet to officially respond to the situation. However, his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, declared the move to be ‘a signal that they want to escalate’ during the Group of 20 (G20) conference in Brazil, earlier this week on Monday 18th November. Lavrov preserved the same sense of ambiguity when declaring that they will be “taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western War against Russia. And we will react accordingly”. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, a loyal ally of Russia and opponent of Ukraine, criticized Biden’s decision as ‘incredibly dangerous’ and signalled that granting Ukraine NATO membership would “bring the real threat of World War III very close”.
Meanwhile, Biden, who was also present at the conference, expressed his continued support for Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity. Everyone around this table in my view should, as well”. Importantly, no less than six of these ATACMS missiles reportedly struck an ammunition warehouse in the Russian Bryansk border region already this Tuesday, 19th of November.
Putin Approves Updated Nuclear Deterrence Policy
Soon after Biden’s authorization of ATACMS missiles, Putin ratified a revised nuclear deterrence doctrine on Tuesday, November 19th, which broadens the conditions under which a nuclear attack is warranted. Notably, under this revised policy, “aggression by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear country” will be regarded as a “joint attack” on Russia.
The timing of this approval has raised speculation about the intent with which it was made. The Kyiv Independent suggests this is yet another attempt made by Putin to drive off Western involvement and support for Ukraine. In a similar vein, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot claims this decision to be “rhetoric” and follows with “We are not intimidated”. Several other international entities have expressed their disapproval but also claim to be surprised at such advancement, as reported by Reuters. Of particular note is the European Union Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell’s statement, “It is not the first time that they threatened with nuclear escalation, which is completely irresponsible”.
Contrastingly, and under the auspices of their friendly relations with Russia, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, backed the Kremlin leader’s decision, emphasising Russia’s rights and needs “to have the power and the measures to protect itself”. The US Embassy in Kyiv did not however take Putin’s decision lightly, and announced their closure just a day later, Wednesday November 20th, in light of a potential air attack. All employees were directed to take shelter in event of such an occurrence.
As such, Russia’s next move might be up for question, but what remains clear, is that the continuation of such tit for tat exchanges complicates the conflict’s path towards its potential settlement.
