Poco tardó Moscú en darse cuenta de que la invasión no iba a ser el paseo militar que preveía. Three days after the first armored columns crossed the border, the Zelenski government reported severe ground losses for the Russian side, including eighty tanks, two thousand eight hundred soldiers, and a handful of aircraft. Images of Ukrainian troops proudly displaying the wreckage of a ruined Russian armored column near Kyiv circulated worldwide, underscored by anti-tank missiles supplied from the West. The visuals were hard to ignore and helped frame the early reality on the ground for observers everywhere.
Ello empujó al presidente ruso a intentar suscitar miedo de nuevo. In a theatrical gesture, Putin summoned the defense minister and the army chief of staff to his office, ordering the “deterrence forces” — a reference to nuclear forces — to be placed on maximum readiness. The early battles showed the world that the Afghanistan scenario of summer 2021, when a Western-backed government fell within days under Taliban pressure, would not repeat itself. Ukraine demonstrated a clear resolve to resist. European Union members like Germany and Spain, initially hesitant to supply armaments, began weighing military aid to Kyiv, coordinating with the United States and Britain on this front.
Desde entonces, las evocaciones a un Holocausto nuclear son recurrentes, aunque han ido perdiendo fuerza a medida que son repetidas. In April 2022, Putin spoke of the new Russian intercontinental missile named Sarmat, while in May 2022 the Russian ambassador in Washington, Anton Antonov, complained that NATO was not taking his warnings seriously.
Nada es descartable
In Putin’s Russia, nothing is ruled out, yet analysts agree that in the current phase the country has a stronger frontline position and shows little risk of ceding territory in the coming months. The prospect of a nuclear strike remains possible but unlikely; such a decision would likely be born from a situation of desperation or near collapse, according to experts consulted for this piece. One analyst cautions that the risk exists mainly in rhetoric, but the threshold for action could rise if Russia found itself increasingly isolated or facing a protracted stalemate.
Bellicose statements by Moscow are interpreted as attempts to manipulate Western perceptions and deter allies from stepping up further. When the conflict stalls, time becomes a strategic asset for Russia, argues a respected analyst. In parallel, allied discussions focus on expanding long-range artillery support to Ukraine, with systems that could strike supply lines well behind the front lines. The idea is to threaten the logistics arteries between Crimea and the Donbas region, thereby creating leverage for Kyiv on the strategic map.
Beyond territorial gains in Ukraine, Moscow regards the annexation of Crimea as a crown jewel it would defend at all costs. Crossing that line is viewed as a potential threshold that could dramatically raise the risk of a nuclear exchange. The argument presented by commentators is that while Russia would not fire at infrastructure in Crimea simply for bombardments, a major occupation of the peninsula or a credible threat to its control could alter the risk calculus.
China’s role in this dynamic is also pivotal. A rising global power with significant economic heft, Beijing has sought to project stability and restraint while ensuring its interests are preserved. The Chinese government has underscored the shared understanding that major powers possessing nuclear capabilities should pursue security and strategic balance. This stance helps explain why China has urged caution and warned against any scenario that could escalate beyond control. The wartime narrative has intensified Russia’s reliance on exports, particularly energy, which in turn reinforces Moscow’s need to carefully calibrate its actions while listening to Beijing’s counsel.
Analysts note that the war’s conduct has shifted the geopolitical landscape, prompting Western allies to diversify approaches and coordinate more closely on diplomacy and defense. The balance between deterrence and escalation remains delicate. While the immediate threat of a nuclear escalation is not imminent, the possibility persists in the minds of policymakers and observers who watch every movement on the ground.
As the conflict continues, the international community weighs options for sustaining aid to Ukraine, including longer range systems that could blunt Russian advances or degrade supply chains. The debate also encompasses humanitarian concerns, sanctions, and the broader aim of restoring regional stability without tipping into a wider confrontation. The complexity of the crisis lies not only in battlefield outcomes but in the intertwined strategic calculations of Washington, European capitals, and other major powers who seek to avert a broader, more destructive war.
China’s measured approach is seen by many as a stabilizing constraint rather than a passive stance. Its leadership has repeatedly emphasized that no winner emerges from an all-out nuclear conflict, a reminder echoed by foreign ministry statements. The ongoing energy partnership with Russia, alongside Beijing’s broader economic and political strategy, complicates the options available to Moscow and shapes the tempo of any potential escalation. In this porous and interdependent system, decisions at the highest levels of state power are anything but simple, and every action has repercussions across continents.
More than anything, the war has exposed how quickly alliances can coalesce in defense of a perceived international order, while also revealing how fragile such arrangements can be when tested by existential threats. In the end, stakeholders are left with a stark question: what can be done to prevent catastrophe while preserving the sovereignty of nations and the safety of civilians caught in the crossfire? The answers are not easy, but the search for them continues in governments, international organizations, and the minds of people who hope for a future where conflict gives way to dialogue and resilience rather than fear and ruin.