The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, now stretching into its fourth year as of August 2025, has escalated tensions not only in Eastern Europe but across the global geopolitical landscape. With Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement of deploying hypersonic Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, a move framed as a direct response to Western support for Ukraine, questions arise about Ukraine’s role in this intensifying standoff. Is Ukraine inadvertently or deliberately pushing Europe and the United States into a broader conflict with Russia?
The Context of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the war has evolved into a complex proxy conflict involving NATO, the European Union, and the United States. Ukraine, under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has relied heavily on Western military and financial aid to resist Russian aggression. The provision of advanced weaponry, including long-range missiles from the U.S. and European allies, has enabled Ukraine to strike Russian targets, both within its borders and, controversially, inside Russia itself. This escalation has prompted retaliatory threats from Moscow, including the deployment of hypersonic missiles in Belarus, a close ally with a 1,084-kilometer border with Ukraine.
The conflict’s ripple effects have raised concerns about a broader war. Posts on X reflect polarized sentiments, with some users arguing that dismantling NATO could reduce tensions, while others view Russia’s actions as unprovoked aggression. These differing perspectives underscore the complexity of assigning responsibility for the current escalation.
Ukraine’s Strategic Dependence on Western Support
Ukraine’s survival against a militarily superior Russia hinges on NATO and U.S. assistance. Since 2022, the U.S. alone has provided over $75 billion in aid, including advanced systems like HIMARS and ATACMS missiles. European nations, particularly Poland, Germany, and the UK, have also supplied weapons and training. Ukraine’s requests for permission to use these long-range weapons to strike Russian territory have been partially granted, escalating the conflict. For instance, in November 2024, Ukraine used Western-supplied missiles to target Russian military facilities, prompting Putin to retaliate with the Oreshnik missile strike on Dnipro.
From this perspective, Ukraine’s actions could be seen as provocative, as they directly challenge Russia’s red lines. However, Ukraine argues that these strikes are necessary to degrade Russia’s ability to sustain its invasion. Without Western backing, Ukraine would likely face defeat, making its reliance on NATO and the U.S. a strategic necessity rather than a deliberate push toward broader conflict.
Ukraine as a Catalyst for Western Involvement
Ukraine’s appeals for more weapons and fewer restrictions on their use have placed Europe and the U.S. in a delicate position. By advocating for deeper Western involvement, Ukraine indirectly heightens the risk of confrontation with Russia. For example, Zelenskyy’s calls for stronger sanctions and advanced air defense systems to counter Russian hypersonic missiles reflect a strategy to entangle NATO further in the conflict. Yet, this is less about Ukraine “pushing” for war and more about its fight for survival, which aligns with Western interests in containing Russian expansionism.
Some analysts argue that Ukraine’s actions, while defensive, amplify tensions by forcing NATO to respond to Russian threats. The deployment of Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, capable of reaching all of Europe, is a direct warning to NATO allies supporting Ukraine. This dynamic suggests that Ukraine’s resistance, while justified, creates a feedback loop of escalation.
Western Agency in the Conflict
Blaming Ukraine alone oversimplifies the situation. Europe and the U.S. have their own strategic interests in countering Russia, including maintaining NATO’s credibility and preventing Russian dominance in Eastern Europe. The decision to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles was made by Western governments, not Ukraine, indicating that NATO and the U.S. are active participants rather than passive actors being “pushed” into conflict. The abandonment of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 by both Washington and Moscow further enabled the development and deployment of missiles like Oreshnik, setting the stage for current tensions.
How Did Ukraine Force Russia to Install Missiles in Belarus?
Western-Supplied Missiles: Ukraine’s use of U.S. and UK-supplied long-range missiles to strike Russian territory, particularly after November 2024, was cited by Putin as a justification for the Oreshnik strike on Dnipro. This escalation prompted Russia to bolster its military presence in Belarus, a strategic ally, to counter NATO’s support for Ukraine.
Belarus as a Russian Proxy: Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, heavily reliant on Kremlin support, has allowed Russian forces to use Belarusian territory since the invasion’s onset in 2022. The decision to deploy Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, announced on August 1, 2025, aligns with a treaty signed last autumn that places Belarus under Russia’s nuclear umbrella. Lukashenko’s request for these missiles, citing fears of Polish and Lithuanian troop movements near Belarus’ border, further ties Ukraine’s actions to Russian strategy.
Russian Strategic Posturing: Russia’s deployment is less a direct result of Ukraine’s actions and more a calculated response to NATO’s involvement. Putin has framed the Oreshnik deployment as a deterrent against Western escalation, particularly if NATO allies continue to allow Ukraine to strike Russian soil. The missiles’ ability to carry conventional or nuclear warheads and their range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers make them a potent threat to Europe.
While Ukraine’s use of Western weapons provoked a Russian response, it is inaccurate to say Ukraine “forced” Russia to act. Russia’s decision reflects its broader strategy to intimidate NATO and assert dominance in the region.
After Russia’s Threat to Europe, Has the US Jumped into the Fray?
Russia’s threat to deploy Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, capable of reaching NATO’s headquarters in Brussels in 17 minutes, has heightened tensions with the West. The U.S. response has been multifaceted:
Military Posturing: On August 1, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines near Russia, though it remains unclear whether these are nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed. This move was in response to threats from Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev, who mocked Trump’s diplomatic efforts. The deployment signals U.S. readiness to counter Russian escalation, but it also risks further inflaming tensions.
Diplomatic Efforts: Trump has sent special envoy Steve Witkoff to Russia to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine, with a shortened 10-day deadline expiring in early August 2025. This diplomatic push, coupled with threats of new economic sanctions, indicates the U.S. is attempting to de-escalate while maintaining pressure on Moscow.
Continued Support for Ukraine: The U.S. has not wavered in its military support for Ukraine, recently announcing additional weapons shipments via NATO allies. This commitment, however, has drawn Russian ire, with Putin warning of retaliatory strikes against NATO countries facilitating Ukrainian attacks.
The U.S. has indeed “jumped into the fray,” but its actions reflect a balance between supporting Ukraine and avoiding direct military confrontation with Russia. The submarine deployment and diplomatic efforts suggest a strategy of deterrence and dialogue rather than all-out escalation.
Several factors contribute to the recent spike in U.S.-Russia tensions:
Ukraine’s Use of Western Weapons: The U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to use American-supplied long-range missiles against Russian targets has been a flashpoint. Russia’s Oreshnik strike on Dnipro in November 2024 was a direct response, and the planned deployment in Belarus escalates this tit-for-tat dynamic.
Trump’s Foreign Policy: President Trump’s approach, combining aggressive rhetoric with diplomatic overtures, has created uncertainty. His shortened 10-day deadline for Russian concessions and threats of tariffs and sanctions have provoked sharp responses from Russian officials like Medvedev.
Russia’s Nuclear Posturing: The Kremlin’s revised nuclear doctrine, which lowers the threshold for nuclear weapon use and extends protection to Belarus, has heightened fears of escalation. This doctrine allows Russia to consider nuclear retaliation in response to conventional attacks threatening its sovereignty, a direct challenge to U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine.
Geopolitical Rivalries: Beyond Ukraine, U.S.-Russia tensions are driven by broader competition over global influence. Russia’s alignment with China and other anti-Western powers contrasts with U.S. efforts to maintain NATO’s dominance, creating a volatile backdrop.
The US, and Russia Face to Face
Escalation Through Miscalculation: Ukraine’s continued use of Western weapons to strike Russian territory could provoke a Russian response against NATO allies, particularly if Oreshnik missiles are used. A miscalculation—such as a Russian strike on a NATO member—could trigger Article 5 of the NATO treaty, drawing the U.S. and Europe into direct conflict.
Diplomatic Stalemate: Current U.S.-led peace efforts, including Trump’s envoy to Moscow, have made little progress. Putin’s dismissal of recent talks in Istanbul as “valuable” but inconclusive suggests a lack of willingness to compromise. If diplomacy fails, Ukraine’s push for more Western involvement could escalate tensions further.
European Vulnerability: The deployment of Oreshnik missiles in Belarus, with their ability to target NATO allies in Eastern and Central Europe, places Europe in a precarious position. Poland, for instance, is just 11 minutes from a potential strike. European nations may increase military support for Ukraine to counter this threat, deepening their involvement.
Ukraine’s Agency: While Ukraine cannot unilaterally force a direct confrontation, its actions shape the battlefield. Zelenskyy’s calls for advanced air defenses and sanctions aim to pressure Russia, but they also pull the West deeper into the conflict. Ukraine’s success in maintaining Western support could inadvertently lead to a broader clash if Russia perceives NATO as a direct threat.
However, a direct face-to-face confrontation remains unlikely unless a significant escalation occurs, such as a Russian attack on NATO territory or a major Ukrainian offensive using Western weapons. Both the U.S. and Europe have emphasized avoiding direct conflict with Russia, prioritizing proxy support for Ukraine instead.
Deliberately pushing
Ukraine is not deliberately pushing Europe and the U.S. into war but is a central actor in a conflict that risks broader escalation. Its reliance on Western support, particularly long-range missiles, has provoked Russian responses like the Oreshnik deployment in Belarus, but these actions are driven by survival rather than a desire to instigate global conflict. The U.S. has responded with military posturing and diplomacy, while Europe faces increased threats due to its proximity to Belarus. Tensions stem from a combination of Ukraine’s defensive strategy, Western strategic interests, and Russia’s aggressive posturing. While Ukraine could contribute to a scenario where Europe, the U.S., and Russia face direct confrontation, such an outcome would likely result from miscalculations or deliberate escalations by major powers rather than Ukraine’s actions alone. The international community must prioritize diplomacy to prevent the conflict from spiraling into a wider war.
