Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Ukraine-Russia / The claim that Russia doesn’t possess any solid red lines—or won’t enforce them—isn’t supported by evidence
Ukraine‑Russia, Balance of power, Deterrence, Europe and Eurasia, Great power competition, Russia, Ukraine

September 26, 2024

The claim that Russia doesn’t possess any solid red lines—or won’t enforce them—isn’t supported by evidence

By Daniel DePetris

From the moment the war in Ukraine began, the Biden administration has attempted to accomplish what would seem to be two contradictory objectives: support Kyiv’s defenses against Russia’s unjustified invasion and minimize the prospects of a direct NATO-Russia conflict that could conceivably rise to the nuclear level.

Washington has accomplished the feat—so far. Although the Russians continue their advance in the Donbas, at a high cost to their own personnel—UK Defense Minister John Healey claimed this month that around 1,100 Russian troops were being killed every day—the Ukrainians haven’t folded and are using Western-supplied equipment, from tanks and F-16 aircraft to the Army Tactical Missile System, to strike Russian positions in occupied Ukraine and within Russia’s own borders. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling, which he started at the very beginning of the conflict, has been just that: saber-rattling. While so many perceived Russian red lines have been crossed the last two and half years, some Western foreign policy commentators, as well as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, have concluded that Washington and its allies can do pretty much anything without having to worry about escalation.

Yet, as President Biden deliberates on allowing Ukraine to use Western missiles to strike military targets deep in Russian territory, US officials must weigh the first-, second-, and third-order consequences of any decisions they make. Assuming that escalation risks don’t exist is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Read at The Nation

Author

Photo of Daniel DePetris

Daniel
DePetris

Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Eurasia

In the mediaUkraine‑Russia, China

Pentagon official at center of weapons pause on Ukraine wants U.S. to focus on China

Featuring Dan Caldwell

July 13, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

‘Walking Away’ from Ukraine will be a logistical challenge

By Geoff LaMear

July 11, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

More Ukraine aid risks angering MAGA

By Jennifer Kavanagh

July 10, 2025

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

What’s behind Trump’s Ukraine weapons U-Turn?

By Daniel DePetris

July 9, 2025

op-edUkraine, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine‑Russia

The case for cutting off weapons to Ukraine

By Dan Caldwell

July 6, 2025

In the mediaUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

As Pentagon pauses some weapons for Ukraine, experts weigh in on U.S. priorities

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

July 3, 2025

Events on Ukraine-Russia

See All Events
virtualUkraine‑Russia, Air power, Diplomacy, Drones, Europe and Eurasia, Land power, Military analysis, Russia, Ukraine

Past Virtual Event: Ukraine’s critical choice: Pursue peace or fight on

April 16, 2025
virtualUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Past Virtual Event: Trump and Ukraine: Prolonging or ending the war

December 13, 2024
virtualNATO, Alliances, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

Past Virtual Event: A ‘bridge’ to NATO or false hope for Ukraine?

July 12, 2024

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved