Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Iran
    • Western Hemisphere
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Analysis
    • Research
    • Q&A
  • 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 mediaNuclear weapons, Russia

Russia warns of response to any U.S. weapons deployment in Greenland

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

February 5, 2026

In the mediaRussia, Nuclear weapons

Expiry of nuclear weapons pact between U.S. and Russia risks new arms race

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

February 3, 2026

op-edRussia, Europe and Eurasia, Nuclear weapons

Salvaging a New START

By Jennifer Kavanagh

January 30, 2026

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

Conceding Donetsk won’t end the war in Ukraine

By Jennifer Kavanagh

January 28, 2026

op-edGrand strategy, Alliances, China, Greenland, Russia, Western Hemisphere

Russian and Chinese threats to Greenland and the new Arctic sea routes are low

By Lyle Goldstein

January 23, 2026

In the mediaRussia, China

How threats of a polar war are coloring virtually every aspect of Trump’s foreign policy

Featuring Lyle Goldstein

January 19, 2026

Events on Ukraine-Russia

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

Ukraine’s critical choice: Pursue peace or fight on

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

Trump and Ukraine: Prolonging or ending the war

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

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.

  • Research
  • Experts
  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2026 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved