Escalation and Strategies: The Ethics and Goals Behind the Elimination of a Russian General in Moscow

Escalation and Strategies: The Ethics and Goals Behind the Elimination of a Russian General in Moscow

Russia-Ukraine conflict, escalation, law of armed conflict, military strategy, hybrid warfare, military ethics, Moscow, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, geopolitics, CBRN, psychological warfare, Western public opinion, support for Ukraine, retaliation, Russian resilience, media warfare, Hezbollah, NATO, international crisis.

Escalation and Strategies: The Ethics and Goals Behind the Elimination of a Russian General in Moscow

From an ethical standpoint, eliminating a high-ranking official of an enemy army without collateral damage, even if not directly engaged in active combat, seems aligned with the laws of armed conflict. These laws emphasize the distinction between combatants and non-combatants and uphold the principle of proportionality. This approach has been widely used by Western forces in their fight against jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Iraq-Syria, and the Sahel, albeit with mixed results. However, reprisals driven solely by vengeance, without any strategic aim to weaken the enemy, risk escalating conflicts unnecessarily. Ethically, their value remains questionable.

An Action for What Purpose?

The key question is: what is the purpose of this elimination? Was it intended to degrade a critical Russian military capability? Is it part of a broader strategic maneuver, or merely a symbolic, media-driven act?

The first hypothesis is easily dismissed. A general, however competent, can be replaced, and it is unlikely that this elimination will significantly impact Russia’s CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) capabilities. Achieving such an effect would have required coordinated kinetic actions targeting multiple components of Russia’s command chain overseeing these weapons.

The second hypothesis suggests that Ukraine, facing difficulties on the operational front, seeks to demonstrate its ability to strike directly at the heart of Moscow, thereby gaining a psychological advantage. This could boost morale on its side while undermining the adversary’s confidence. Such actions are typical of hybrid warfare, which leverages all available tools. However, after nearly three years of conflict, it seems unlikely that a single action like this could alter the broader trajectory of the war. Ukraine has shown an ability to surprise its opponent but has struggled to strategically capitalize on these moments, as demonstrated by the summer 2024 offensive in the Kursk region, which failed to deliver tangible results.

While the elimination of a general in Moscow is undoubtedly humiliating for Russia and might create unease within its high command, it is unlikely to have a decisive impact. Underestimating Russia’s resilience—a country that historically chose to burn its own capital rather than surrender—is a mistake. A comparison with Israel’s multi-domain strategy against Hezbollah illustrates how integrated, multi-layered actions can generate lasting psychological and operational effects, far beyond symbolic strikes.

A Media Move with Political Intent?

The third and most likely hypothesis is that this operation was a media-driven act aimed at bringing the issue of Western support for Ukraine back to the forefront. The goal is not so much to mobilize Western public opinion, already largely supportive but fatigued by the war, but rather to remind leaders of Ukraine’s capacity to continue fighting with their help. This strategy has proven effective in the past.

However, with Donald Trump’s inauguration as U.S. President imminent and the potential for new negotiations on the horizon, this action could be seen as a deliberate escalation. Perhaps the intention is to provoke the Kremlin into overreacting, thereby justifying a broader conflict—a scenario some have seemingly desired for years.

A Risk of Amplifying the Conflict

In conclusion, while this operation was dramatic and symbolically significant, it risks causing more harm than good. If the goal is to provoke an escalation that draws more decisive Western involvement, it plays a dangerous game. In a conflict balanced on a knife’s edge, provoking the Kremlin could ignite an uncontrollable blaze.