Azernews.Az

Elnur Enveroglu

Read more

As the Russia-Ukraine war drags into its third year with no end in sight, recent developments suggest that the conflict is rapidly metastasising into a global strategic crisis. The combination of sharpened nuclear rhetoric, fresh missile deployments, shifting alliances, and failed diplomacy presents a volatile cocktail—one that risks spiralling far beyond the Donbas.

During a recent campaign event in Ohio, US President Donald Trump made a startling reference to “two nuclear submarines you don’t even know about, positioned exactly where they should be.” Although he offered no further details, many analysts interpreted this statement as a thinly veiled warning to Russia amid fears of nuclear escalation.

The ambiguity of Trump’s remarks, laced with his characteristic bravado, raises multiple concerns. Firstly, it suggests an embrace of strategic opacity, an attempt to project deterrence without concrete action. Secondly, it represents a pivot towards nuclear sabre-rattling in a conflict where the nuclear question has loomed large but remained largely rhetorical. And thirdly, it complicates diplomatic outreach by replacing strategic clarity with provocative innuendo.

In a parallel development, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the start of serial production of the new Orechkin missile system, described by the Russian Ministry of Defence as a hypersonic, nuclear-capable, multi-vector strike platform. The timing of this revelation is crucial: it follows Russia’s official withdrawal from its unilateral moratorium on intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) and appears to be Moscow’s answer to NATO’s enhanced missile deployments in Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific.

Putin’s statement was not simply about a new weapon; it was a doctrinal shift. He argued that Russia “can no longer afford restraint in the face of NATO encirclement,” pointing specifically to the deployment of US missile systems in Poland, Romania, and increasingly provocative placements near Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Guam. The mention of Taiwan in particular underscores Moscow’s growing perception of a US-led dual containment strategy against both Russia and China.

This evolution has culminated in what Russian officials term a “forward flexible response”—a doctrine combining tactical nuclear readiness, hybrid warfare, and economic retaliation. Moscow’s decision to nullify the INF moratorium effectively re-opens the door to placing nuclear weapons closer to Europe and Asia’s fault lines.

Russian defence analysts have floated the idea of deploying intermediate-range weapons in Belarus, Kaliningrad, and even as far as Arctic naval zones, while cultivating naval partnerships with countries like Iran and Venezuela for Atlantic-facing missile reach. The nuclear theatre is being redefined—and not by Washington.

India: wary partner or subtle balancer?

Amidst this tectonic shift, India has emerged as a surprising and problematic actor for the United States. Despite growing Indo-US defence ties, India has continued to deepen its energy and strategic partnership with Russia. Since 2022, India’s imports of Russian crude oil have soared, largely at discounted rates, enabling Moscow to stabilise its sanctions-hit economy.

Trump has reportedly voiced deep frustration with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to cut ties with Russia, threatening economic reprisals and sanctions. Yet Delhi remains unmoved, positioning itself as a non-aligned balancer rather than a committed Western partner.

Indian officials insist that their engagement with Russia is both economic and strategic - grounded in decades-long military cooperation and a shared interest in a multipolar world. If Trump escalates pressure, Delhi may look to deepen its currency-swap mechanisms with Russia and expand its own Eurasian infrastructure footprint via the INSTC (International North-South Transport Corridor).

In case of war, who stands with Russia?

Were NATO to initiate or be drawn into a direct military conflict with Russia, the question of Moscow’s allies would become paramount. Beyond the predictable support from Belarus, Moscow could count on at least nominal alignment from Iran, North Korea, and potentially Venezuela. More critically, China, though unlikely to offer direct military backing, would exploit the opportunity to challenge US hegemony elsewhere, particularly in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

Turkiye, though a NATO member, may hedge its bets depending on the nature of the conflict, especially if provoked by Kurdish militias or drawn into a Mediterranean standoff. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) could also become an informal coalition space, offering Moscow diplomatic and logistical support.

Diplomacy in the Balance: Steve Witkoff’s Moscow Visit

In a move that has raised eyebrows on both sides of the Atlantic, Trump ally and real estate magnate Steve Witkoff visited Moscow this week again for what sources describe as a “backchannel stabilisation effort.” While Witkoff has no formal diplomatic role, his proximity to Trump suggests he may be testing the waters for a direct leader-to-leader summit.

Russian outlets have speculated that Witkoff’s visit could pave the way for a Trump-Putin meeting later this month, possibly in Istanbul or Belgrade. Kremlin officials are reportedly open to discussions that include a temporary ceasefire, prisoner exchange, and humanitarian corridors, but only if NATO halts further military aid to Kyiv.

The US State Department, meanwhile, has distanced itself from the visit, reinforcing the confusion surrounding Washington’s strategic posture.

Despite his theatrical rhetoric and aggressive diplomacy, Trump’s efforts to end the war have borne little fruit. His plan for an immediate ceasefire—conditional on Ukraine freezing territorial claims—has been rejected by Kyiv and greeted with scepticism by European allies.

Zelensky’s government, emboldened by continued Western aid and under pressure to retake lost territories, views any Trump-mediated deal as a betrayal of Ukraine’s sovereignty. European leaders, particularly in Paris, Berlin, and Warsaw, remain wary of Trump’s transactional approach, which they fear could sacrifice Ukrainian interests for a geopolitical bargain with Moscow.

Unless Trump can shift battlefield dynamics or convince key European capitals to impose peace terms on Kyiv, his peace initiative may fizzle.

If diplomacy fails: Trump’s next move

Should the diplomatic track collapse, Trump’s next steps are likely to be coercive. Options include:

- Economic pressure on Ukraine via the suspension of aid;

- Backchannel negotiations with Russia via neutral intermediaries;

- Further military escalations to corner Putin into a settlement.

However, the danger here is that coercion, especially involving nuclear posturing, could provoke a response rather than submission. The Orechkin missile deployment, Putin’s rhetoric, and NATO’s increasing presence in Asia all suggest a powder keg in need of just one spark.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has evolved from a regional war into a global fault line. With nuclear doctrines now central to both Russian and American posturing, and with allies like India playing their own game, the prospect of containment is fading. Instead, the world is witnessing the breakdown of nuclear taboos and the revival of Cold War mentalities.

Trump’s overtures for peace, while significant, appear undermined by his own belligerent rhetoric and a deeply fragmented international order. If neither side backs down, and if diplomacy remains hostage to ego and electoral calculus, the world may soon be forced to confront a grim question: what happens when nuclear deterrence becomes nuclear temptation?