Ignore Putin’s Bluffs and Focus On the Real ‘Red Line’ in Russia’s War Against Ukraine

We often hear about red lines in Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine. The concept first appeared  in March 2022, when any external military support was deemed a red line.

A few months later, the deployment of HIMARS rockets was seen as crossing Russia’s boundaries. By November, Dmitry Medvedev started warning the West that sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine’s air defence would be a serious red line, while the provision of tanks and F-16 jets has later been described as dangerously escalatory.

This time, it’s serious! Or at least, that’s what the Kremlin wants you to believe.

The renewed discussion about Russia’s red lines arises from Ukraine receiving the green light from the US, the UK, and France to use tactical ballistic missiles (Army Tactical  Missile System, or ATACMS) to target military objectives inside Russia. 

This decision has provoked a wide range of politicians, commentators, and others— referred to as vatniks (a term for those who, knowingly or not, spread Russian propaganda narratives)—to sound the alarm.

From the far-right, vatniks like US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faithfully echo Kremlin propaganda.

In Denmark, the Danish People’s Party now calls for peace with Vladimir Putin. Even  popular podcaster Joe Rogan, whose political activism gained prominence with his  support for Donald Trump, has joined in, spreading horror scenarios about the ATACMS decision from his Texas studio.

Rogan’s rants are laced with conspiracy theories, including one suggesting that Volodymyr Zelensky is secretly a drug user.  

On the left, British vatniks like Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn, who consistently  advocate for Ukraine’s surrender, have also labeled the ATACMS decision reckless. 

Meanwhile, Jill Stein, Putin’s favourite American politician, has seized the opportunity to condemn the decision, reviving a classic vatnik narrative: NATO, not Russia, is  responsible for the war.  

But what exactly are they so afraid will happen on the other side of Russia’s red line?

---

Exploiting Double Standards  

Russia has skilfully exploited the discrepancy between expectations placed on Ukraine  to adhere to imaginary limits and the complete absence of expectations for its own  behaviour.

This feeds into two classic Russian narratives: First, Russia is portrayed as having no boundaries to its resilience, willing to endure endless suffering. This narrative ties into the concept of narodnost, which emphasises a unique capacity for sacrifice. 

Second, Russia claims it cannot be expected to abide by international norms. This is used to justify bombing schools, housing complexes, and hospitals as if it were unavoidable.  

These narratives are part of a Kremlin-led disinformation campaign designed to weaken support for Ukraine and mask Russia’s inability to sustain its current path indefinitely.  

---

A Military on the Brink  

Despite bombastic claims of invincibility, Russia’s military is stretched thin. Soviet-era tanks and artillery—some over 65 years old—have been dusted off for the front lines. The state budget is strained to its limits, with defence spending projected to consume 41% of  Russia’s annual budget by 2025.  

Russia’s navy is similarly weakened. Turkey’s enforcement of the 1936 Montreux  Convention has effectively blocked Russian warships from entering the Black Sea.  Meanwhile, Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is in a pitiful state.

The ship has been under continuous repair since 2018, and 1,500 of its crew members were recently reassigned to the Ukrainian front lines.

Manpower shortages are so severe that Russia has turned to North Korean soldiers for  reinforcements. Yet, this escalation has drawn little discussion about “red lines”.

If another mobilisation is attempted, it would likely reflect desperation rather than  strength. The last mobilisation saw at least 500,000 Russians flee the country, and further  recruitment would exacerbate Russia’s already strained economy. 

As a consequence of Russia’s military impotence, and its inability to formulate a  conventional military response to the crossing of its red lines, vatniks have latched onto  nuclear fear-mongering.

The recent launch of a hypersonic ballistic missile (Oreshnik), a first in world history, further serves to portray Russia as an erratic actor that might be tempted to go nuclear unless appeased.  

---

Economic Collapse on the Horizon  

Speculation has arisen that Russia might respond by restricting exports of strategic  resources like aluminium or uranium. However, its economy is likely too fragile for such  measures.

The National Welfare Fund—a key reserve for countering sanctions—is dwindling. Meanwhile, inflation is soaring, with essentials like potatoes and butter seeing dramatic price increases.

The Russian Ruble is once again crashing hard, propelled by the sanctioning of the Gazprom Bank. The Russian real estate market is collapsing, while malfunctioning heat pipes and crumbling infrastructure once again looms at the onset of  winter. 

In the long term, Russia also faces a demographic crisis. Birth rates are so low that  promoting a “child-free lifestyle” has been banned, and Putin has called for women to  have six or seven children. This reflects a deep crisis without obvious solutions.  

Sanctions, while not an immediate fix, are causing irreversible damage to Russia’s future. This will complicate any post-Putin reconstruction efforts and may deter Western nations from helping rebuild.

They also severely limit the Kremlin’s ability to respond with  economic countermeasures to ‘red lines’ being crossed.  

---

The Real Red Line  

The repeated references to Russian red lines are part of a calculated fear-mongering  campaign to portray Russia as unpredictable. Yielding to these tactics would not only empower Putin but also embolden other reactionary regimes. 

The real red line must remain clear: targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure are  unacceptable. Ukraine must not transform into a mirror image of Russia, which violates  international conventions daily. Attacking civilian targets in Russia would undermine Western support for Ukraine and strengthen Kremlin narratives. 

Instead, Ukraine should focus on legitimate military objectives, such as airbases launching attacks on civilian targets. Recognising and enforcing this distinction ensures that Ukraine’s defence remains just and deserving of international backing.  

The only red line that truly matters is the one that is drawn between civilian and military targets—a principle that upholds the moral and strategic legitimacy of Ukraine’s continued fight for freedom and independence.