The international order changed forever when Russia invaded Ukraine last month.
What started as a Kremlin ploy to unilaterally grant sovereignty to the breakaway states of Luhansk and Donetsk rapidly evolved into a wholesale effort to overthrow the regime and crush Ukrainian democracy. While Western countries are unified as never before, Ukraine is being pummelled, and the risks of NATO’s direct confrontation with Russia are intensifying.
To their credit, the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, and Japan jointly enacted swift and unprecedented sanctions on major Russian financial institutions and the political and business elite, essentially isolating Russia from the global economy in ways previously unthinkable.
The combination of banning flights and freight, freezing overseas assets, and starving banks and technology companies of international credit, is pushing the Russian economy into a free fall. Notwithstanding solemn promises of support for Ukraine from the UN General Assembly and Western states, NATO is determined to avoid sending forces into the country, or enforcing a no-fly zone, for fear of provoking a global war. The problem, however, is that a third world war might have already begun.
All indications point to a further escalation in the coming weeks. In spite of remarkable resistance from Ukrainian soldiers and citizens, Russia is intensifying its indiscriminate bombardments of Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities. Civilian casualties are mounting, and thousands of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killed.
While the future is impossible to predict, the emerging picture is dark: The international community is facing the most transformational development in Europe since the Second World War. We’ve identified five possible scenarios that could unfold in the days, weeks, and months ahead.
The first, and least plausible, is that Russia unilaterally declares victory, agrees to a ceasefire, and retains its control of eastern Ukrainian territories currently occupied by its military and pro-Russian separatists.
Assuming he survives politically, Russian President Vladimir Putin is very unlikely to choose this course, having already launched a full-scale assault on Kyiv, and being desperate not to appear weak domestically.
In the second scenario, Russia continues to double down on its military assault, calling up further reserves and resorting to ever-more brutal tactics, eventually toppling the government in Kyiv and installing a puppet regime in its place.
Putin has repeatedly denied Ukraine’s right to exist, casting his military campaign as a war of necessity rather than of choice. Russia’s stated strategy is to “escalate to de-escalate.” Fierce Ukrainian guerrilla warfare, regular American and European resupplies, crippling sanctions, and mounting popular opposition in Russia itself will hobble its efforts, including any attempt to occupy the country. Regardless, the current Ukrainian leadership would likely set up a government in exile in Western Europe.
Western decoupling from Russia could accelerate its economic subservience to China, and also likely precipitate retaliation against the West, contributing to new escalation patterns.
The third scenario involves a widening military conflict involving states other than Ukraine and Russia.
Fearing Russian expansionism and seeking Western protection, countries like Georgia and Moldova are already fast-tracking EU membership, while Finland and Sweden are exploring an even tighter alliance with NATO.
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland — all NATO members — have also invoked the organization’s Article 4, which reads: “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”
A declaration of Article 5 — which commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all — would automatically trigger a wider war with Russia.
Should Putin perceive an existential threat, he might take a series of retaliatory actions, including against NATO members, with regional and international ramifications. Given the many ambiguities of escalation models of cyberwarfare, including the protection of critical and civilian infrastructure, such exchanges could lead to kinetic ones that are tactical or nuclear.
A fourth scenario could involve the Russian offensive grinding to a halt after being severely weakened by Ukrainian resistance, and suffering a collapse of morale and logistics to sustain its effort. Notwithstanding its formidable ground, air, and sea capabilities, the Russian military has already sustained significant losses, to the surprise of most defence analysts.
Putin made a strategic error by expecting the U.S. and NATO to back down. He planned for a short war and rapid Ukrainian capitulation. Russia’s military defeat, and its attendant humiliation, could cause Russians to lose confidence in their leaders and to demand they change. A Russian defeat would spell the end of Putin. If it isn’t managed, this could generate chaos and confusion.
The most terrifying scenario of all is a radical escalation and nuclear exchange.
Any one of the aforementioned scenarios could lead to a rapid cyber-nuclear escalation in Ukraine or another country. Russian diplomats have warned in recent months that the Kremlin could respond with “military-technical” means, and deploy nuclear weapons “in Europe” if NATO didn’t end its eastward expansion.
Putin has ordered Russia’s nuclear forces into “special combat readiness,” although the U.S. and NATO have resisted the temptation to respond in kind. The rules for managing military cyber-escalation aren’t fully formed and are still ambiguous. Nor are the principles, rules, and decision-making processes for deploying and using tactical nuclear weapons necessarily shared among nuclear powers. As tensions rocket upward, Western analysts are urgently assessing the integrity of Russia’s command and control over its nuclear arsenal.
Notwithstanding a flurry of diplomatic overtures and ceasefire proposals, military de-escalation is extremely challenging in the current environment. Communication channels are breaking down, and Russia is ramping up censorship, with severe penalties for reporting on the war.
Putin has staked his personal credibility, and that of his party, on the outcome of the military offensive in Ukraine and a reversal of NATO’s eastward expansion. Anything short of that will be seen as a defeat, thereby narrowing the range of options for a negotiated settlement.
Much depends on what happens in the coming days and weeks, especially whether Russia reaches its political and military objectives, if nuclear reactors are protected, or whether mounting sanctions and unrest change Russian calculations.
More than ever, EU and NATO allies, together with UN member states, must robustly resist Russia’s aggression, while rapidly identifying all diplomatic options that allow everyone to de-escalate without appearing to lose.
Robert Muggah and Rafal Rohozinski are both principals at SecDev Group, a Canadian digital-risk and -resilience consultancy. Muggah is also the co-founder of the Igarape Institute.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
