A pair of recent military strikes on civilian targets in the Ukraine war demonstrate the expanding risk of escalation. Unfortunately, the United States and its European allies are directly contributing to that risk through their provision and likely operation of advanced weapons systems in Ukraine—all while simultaneously refusing to countenance a realistic solution to the conflict.

The first attack took place several weeks ago when an American provided ATACMS utilizing cluster munitions struck a packed beach in Crimea. The result was over 100 injuries and multiple deaths among the beachgoers. Those killed included three children. 

Coming from the Russian side, a children’s hospital in Kiev was likewise hit this past week with a missile. It is believed that at least two people were killed and 17 wounded in the attack, drawing significant rebuke in the Western press.

These twin attacks demonstrate the ways in which the U.S. decision to supply long-range precision munitions in Ukraine is not merely prolonging the war, but also forcing Putin’s hand in regard to expanding the scope of the conflict. Russia maintains escalation dominance in the area—or at least should—but the actions of the United States continue to push the boundaries. The stakes therefore keep getting higher, with no apparent off-ramp for either side. 

This was evidenced in both of the recent strikes on civilians. In Crimea, it was speculated that the Ukrainian-fired ATACMS missile was intercepted by Russian air defense, causing the projectile to disperse over the beach rather than at its intended military target. 

Of course, many on the Russian side instead perceived an intentional and symbolic strike on ethnic Russians celebrating an Orthodox holiday in formerly held Ukrainian territory. The attack even raised tensions enough to elicit a direct phone call between U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov. That in itself was evidence of the situation’s gravity given the fact that diplomatic relations between the two countries are practically nil.

Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Vasily Nebenzya subsequently laid the blame for the attack squarely at the feet of the United States, stating,

Ukraine launched 5 U.S. supplied ATACMS missiles armed with cluster munitions. All flight missions were introduced by U.S. experts based on the U.S. satellite intelligence. An American global hawk UAV was patrolling the airspace over the Crimea peninsula.

“The involvement of the United States, the direct involvement, as a result of which Russian civilians are killed, cannot be without consequences,” added the Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov.

Meanwhile, the attack on the hospital in Kiev came as a part of a massive wave of Russian missile strikes on major military and infrastructure targets across the entire country. Ukraine claims that the missile that struck the hospital was a Russian KH-101cruise missile. The hospital was hit amid a salvo of KH-101s launched at the Artyom factory, which is located less than one kilometer away from the Okhmatdyt children’s hospital. Moscow claims that Artyom is a major munitions and military components producer—although that claim is disputed by Western sources—and six Russian missiles did indeed reach their destination and strike the factory.

As with the attack on the beach in Crimea, Russia of course has its own side of the story. Kiev is one of the most heavily defended Ukrainian regions in terms of aerial defense capabilities. Missile systems in the area include Patriot anti-ballistic missile systems, as well as Western provided (and likely operated) NASAMS (National or Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems); the latter fires AIM-120 AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles), which resemble the projectile seen in the footage of the hospital strike. 

Moscow therefore posits that the terrible strike on the hospital was the result of Ukrainian aerial defense attempting to shoot down Russian missiles on their way to the Artyom factory. Of course, the Ukrainians—with the backing of the entire international press—perceive only a sadistic and intentional attack, perhaps even in response to the Crimean beach incident.

Both narratives seem plausible. Yet the very exchange demonstrates the dynamic that is currently prolonging the war—and how the United States and the collective West are directly implicated in enabling that dynamic. 

Things like strikes on civilian targets in Crimea elicit a strong emotional response from the Russian public, increase resolve, and assert greater subsequent pressure to expand the conflict. In turn, the Russian response—in which developments such as that at the Okhmatdyt children’s hospital are inevitable, whether they be collateral and unfortunate or spiteful and vengeance-seeking—then further increases the likelihood of retaliatory strikes by Ukraine on Russian targets, and so on and so on. 

Of course, that spiral does aid in the Ukrainian sales pitch for the continued flow of U.S. weaponry in both greater volume and of more deadly kind. In order to stay in the fight, Kiev must be provided offensive military capabilities; however, it also requires a means of replenishing its rapidly diminishing stock of manpower. Ukraine’s long-term hope is therefore almost exclusively in Russia either directly attacking Western elements in the country, or asymmetrically responding to provocatory actions—perhaps in a particularly heinous manner that could then be amplified by the international press—and thus inducing the greater involvement of foreign forces. Support for the latter remains very low in both Europe and the United States (especially the United States), so changing public opinion requires emotionally appealing to Western audiences. 

As mentioned, the press is more than happy to fulfill that function. For instance, headlines and individual commentators continue to mix reporting on the hospital strike with general coverage of the massive missile attack that took place across the entire country. That allows them to link the total number killed everywhere—about 40—with dead children. Any dead civilian is a tragedy, but there is clearly an active attempt to portray the strike as resulting in dozens of murdered children. Putting the image of 40 dead kids in the public’s mind is of course much more striking than the real number killed in the hospital strike, which appears to be zero (the two deaths were both adults). The media is right to report on the event, but there is also clearly an attempt to push a political agenda through the manner of that reporting.

This is not unique to the Western press. In the information age—although really in all ages—the media consumer is an essential part of the war effort, even if it is in providing tacit consent. Those who want—need, even—greater foreign involvement in the war are very aware of this fact.

Getting dragged into a war with Russia is obviously not in the American national interest. Yet that is the logical conclusion of Washington’s current Ukraine policy. It is apparent to all honest observers that Kiev is rapidly losing territory and hemorrhaging men, with no hope of reversing the tide unless foreign forces become directly involved in the conflict. While the more sober elements of Western leadership acknowledge the folly of such a prospect, they also appear incapable of changing the current trajectory. 

The likelihood of escalation therefore seems very likely as more and deadlier weaponry continues to be provided to Ukraine. So too while actions such as the Crimea beach strike and children’s hospital tragedy continue to proliferate. The recent announcement that F-16s are currently in transit to Ukraine will certainly increase that risk. Such provocatory developments will in turn continue to elicit larger and deadlier Russian attacks on Ukraine—as well as expand the scope of what Moscow classifies as legitimate targets for its offensive operations, including the logistical and operational support capabilities that are provided by foreign forces. 

It is only a matter of time until this then precipitates a direct confrontation between Russia and a member of NATO, perhaps even the United States. While that it is not guaranteed to trigger Article 5, it will certainly risk spiraling toward that end. Unfortunately, that is an end to which our ideology-driven ruling caste seems entirely committed. And, as always, the loyal press is more than happy to oblige the sentiment.