Two Theories of Escalation, Tested at Once

On July 8, at the NATO summit in Ankara, Donald Trump endorsed Ukraine's drone campaign against Russian oil refineries as a path to ending the war ^[1].

It’s an escalation, but it’s also an escalation that can help lead to an end. — Donald Trump

The Kremlin's response came the same day. Escalation, the spokesman warned, may prolong the war and could result in Russian forces seizing more Ukrainian territory ^[1]. Two governments, one day, two opposite predictions about what the same drone strikes produce: one says pressure forces negotiation; the other says pressure enables conquest. The endorsement at Ankara was the collapse in practice, even as Trump still insisted a deal was near. He predicted a peace agreement was close in the same breath as backing the strikes ^[2]. The tilt was weeks-long, not sudden. On June 14, Trump was coordinating peace calls with both Putin and Zelenskyy before the G7 ^[3]. By June 22, he was considering Patriot missile production licenses for Ukraine, and Russia's foreign ministry was already calling the shift a betrayal of prior understandings and a move toward the most hostile anti-Russian policies in Europe ^[4]. On July 7, Trump granted the license, telling Zelenskyy he would let Ukraine manufacture Patriot interceptors domestically so Ukraine could no longer complain about not getting enough ^[2]. On July 8, he endorsed the strikes. The diplomacy had produced no deal. Ukraine rejected Trump's 28-point peace plan. Russia demanded the surrender of four regions as a precondition. Putin's June 25 call for peace talks was conditioned on the 2022 Istanbul framework, which required Ukrainian territorial concessions and a NATO non-membership pledge, and Putin refused to meet Zelenskyy unless in Moscow ^[5][6]. The diplomatic track was maximalist Russian terms dressed as negotiation. Trump did not announce its failure. He began backing the alternative. What makes this moment distinctive is not the shift but that both sides now hold official, incompatible theories of what escalation achieves — and both are acting on them.

what military escalation achieves

Trump / Washington: Drone strikes create negotiating leverage and bring a deal closer. Actions: strike endorsement at Ankara, Patriot production license for Ukraine, public prediction that a deal is close ^[1][2].

Putin / Moscow: Escalation prolongs the war and justifies seizing more Ukrainian territory. Actions: Oreshnik missile deployment, strikes on Chernobyl, security-zone expansion into three new Ukrainian regions, diesel export ban ^[1][7][8][9].

Peskov called the idea that pressure would force Russia to negotiate from weakness a serious misconception ^[10].

Further escalation may prolong the special military operation to some extent. — Dmitry Peskov

Russia's response to the endorsement was symmetric escalation, not concession. The same day, Russia deployed Oreshnik ballistic missiles and struck Ukrainian nuclear sites at Chernobyl ^[7]. Putin had already announced the full liberation of Luhansk on July 2 and stated that the creation of security zones in the border areas of Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions was proceeding as planned ^[8].

The creation of a security zone in the border areas of Ukraine's Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions is proceeding as planned. — Vladimir Putin

The contradiction in Russia's position is visible on its face. Putin dismissed the drone campaign as ineffective, calling the resulting fuel shortage not critical and temporary and accusing Ukraine of seeking only to create anxiety in society ^[8]. Yet his government banned diesel and jet fuel exports because 25 to 43 percent of refining capacity was disabled and 78 of 83 Russian regions reported fuel shortages ^[9]. The same strikes Putin called a nuisance are the ones he cited as justification for expanding military operations into three new Ukrainian regions. If the strikes don't hurt, they are an odd reason to seize more territory. If they do hurt, the dismissal is false. Putin is maintaining both claims simultaneously. Trump's own posture carries a contradiction of its own. The same summit where he armed Ukraine with Patriot production licenses and endorsed the strikes, he also threatened to withdraw all US troops from Europe ^[11]. Arming Ukraine more while signaling he may abandon Europe's security guarantee is not a strategy for sustaining a pressure campaign. What is being tested now, simultaneously and against each other, is whether drone strikes can force Russia toward negotiation or whether absorbed strikes give Russia a justification for seizing more Ukrainian territory. Both sides have placed their bets and are acting on them. The answer is accumulating in refinery shutdowns and in the villages around Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk.