Russia mostly gave up on trying to maintain cordial ties with the international community during the first year of its assault on Ukraine. It severed ties with international organizations, withdrew from cultural gatherings, and united behind pariah governments such as North Korea and Iran. Russian perceptions have changed more since then. Extreme violence and hate speech are becoming commonplace forms of strategic communication. It appears that instead of defending itself as much, the Kremlin is openly threatening its adversaries both domestically and internationally. As noted by French analyst Nicolas Tenzer, “The message is the crime.”

Domestic intimidation tactics

After being stalled in Congress for months, a significant aid package for Ukraine is scheduled to be voted on by the US Senate later today. According to Ukrainian officials, a Russian air strike on the city of Odessa overnight resulted in at least nine injuries. According to a government helpline, Ukraine has halted consular assistance for male military-age residents residing overseas, with the exception of those who are required to come home. 

According to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, the Kremlin was still trying to scare the country’s second-biggest city when a Russian missile struck a television tower in Kharkiv. In addition to 400 vehicles, 60 boats, 1,600 bombs, and four million rounds of ammunition, the UK has promised to provide Ukraine with 500 million pounds ($620 million) in additional military equipment. The head of Ukraine’s national guard claims that during their summer onslaught, Russian forces would strike in unexpected locations and make an effort to push on Kharkiv, a city in the northeast of the country. Journalist Evan Gershkovich, who is imprisoned, filed an appeal against being allowed to continue his pre-trial detention until June 30. However, a Moscow court denied his request.

Targeting civil society and human rights defenders

The 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front line, where Russian and Ukrainian forces have been engaged in combat for more than two years since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, is straddled by the northeastern Kharkiv area. During an attrition-based battle centered mostly on artillery, drones, and trenches, the front line has not shifted significantly. Russia has increased its pressure on Kharkiv since late March, ostensibly to take advantage of Ukraine’s deficiency in air defense systems. It has struck residential buildings and banged on the nearby electrical infrastructure. According to a research group in Washington, Russia could be planning a ground invasion of Kharkiv. According to an assessment by the Institute for the Study of War, “the Kremlin is conducting a concerted air and information operation to destroy Kharkiv City, convince Ukrainians to flee, and internally displaced millions of Ukrainians ahead of a possible future Russian offensive operation against the city or elsewhere in Ukraine.”

Control of media and information

According to the ISW, Russia may have escalated its operations ahead of the anticipated arrival of further military supplies from its Western allies in Ukraine in the upcoming weeks. It also stated that capturing Kharkiv would be “a significant challenge” for the troops under the Kremlin. Rather, it stated that the Russian military leadership “may attempt to destroy Kharkiv City with air, missile, and drone strikes and prompt a large-scale internal displacement of Ukrainian civilians.” 

International intimidation strategies

Western countries are likewise perplexed by Russia’s firm stance. Countries accused of violence are expected, in the West’s view of the world, to either apologize or present strong defenses for their conduct. Russia frequently does neither. Because of this, a lot of Western politicians come to believe that “this is what Russia does” and therefore normalize Russian conduct. But admitting this makes it nearly hard for them to support a deal with Moscow to put an end to the fighting in Ukraine. The West would have to assert that, although acknowledging that Moscow frequently disobeys international law and human decency, it believes Russia will adhere to the provisions of the deal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Even if Moscow continues to say that it wants to replace the “rules-based international order” with a more equitable structure that benefits everyone, Russia’s daily actions appear more fitting for a society without rules, in which right and wrong are decided only by strength and the courage to apply them. Many Russians, who have been persuaded for decades that President Vladimir Putin is regaining their nation’s standing as a superpower, are perhaps drawn to this kind of thinking. They could believe that it is preferable for Russia to be powerful and feared rather than try to make compromises with the West, which they see to be immoral and exploitative.