Amid Russia-Ukraine war, UNGA should focus on peace, not escalation

This week, world leaders will gather in New York for the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has already arrived in the United States and is set to make some big asks during his speech at the UNGA.

He will also present a "victory plan" on the Ukraine-Russia war to US President Joe Biden, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and Congress.

As Ukraine continues to lose ground to Russia in the two-and-a-half year war, prospects of escalation between Moscow and NATO remain high.

Pressure is mounting from NATO defence chiefs on Washington to loosen restrictions on Ukraine so the country can fire long-range missiles deep inside Russian territory. The head of NATO's military committee recently justified the potential strikes as Ukraine's "legal and military right."

Despite resistance from Washington, NATO said it is open to exploring possibilities with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin warns of a direct NATO-Russia war, here is why the West should urgently rethink its support for long-range strikes.

Risk of direct confrontation

United States and British-supplied missiles to Ukraine could raise threat perceptions in Moscow, and push NATO to the brink of a wider conflict.

From Moscow's perspective, there is limited incentive to exercise restraint if its air bases, launch sites and weapon storage facilities become vulnerable to Ukraine's reach. The strikes would also mark a drastic increase in Ukraine's destructive capabilities since the war began, and carry the explicit approval of major NATO states involved in missile manufacturing.

This is important because so far, NATO has avoided any indication of overt participation in the conflict, fearing such a move could antagonise Russia. And yet, mandatory missile approval from the United Kingdom, France, Italy and the US could prompt a shift in strategy, and push the Russia-NATO trust deficit to a tipping point.

This approach seems risky, particularly at a time when cross-border attacks continue to escalate. Putin could claim NATO is at war with Russia, prompting Moscow to use more powerful weapons that change "the very nature" of the ongoing war.

"If something like this happens, Russia will give a tough response using more powerful weapons. No one should have any illusions about this," warned Vyacheslav Volodin, a close Putin ally and member of his Security Council.

The Russian president also has a point to prove on his war "red lines."

Since its onset, Putin warned of devastating consequences for nations that threatened Russian sovereignty, and vowed to use all possible means to protect Russia's territorial integrity, including nuclear means.

Though those threats haven't materialised so far, the stakes for Moscow are different this time. Putin has already ordered an increase in Russia's military strength and has vowed to tackle an "extremely hostile environment" on Russia's western borders. All this comes as the UK approves Storm Shadow cruise missiles for Ukraine, a move that could be seen as a threat multiplier for Moscow.

Narrowing window for peace talks

Kiev believes long-range missiles could significantly weaken Russia's ability to attack Ukraine, particularly in the winter phase of the war. It wants to use these weapons to limit Russian airstrikes, and relocate Moscow's striking power away from Ukraine's borders. Without them, Zelenskyy feels Ukraine won't be able to fundamentally change the course of the war.

But the use of long-range missiles could actually be counterproductive to Kiev's aim of ending the war, because it would dampen prospects of peace talks with Russia.

First, Moscow could view it as a breach of the 2022 draft peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia. The agreement made clear that Ukraine would not use foreign weapons from its soil against Russia, a demand Moscow maintains to this day.

Despite Russia's invasion, Ukraine still has good reason to consider the pact: it marks a rare instance of direct negotiations that protect Ukraine's future security guarantees.

As some of Kiev's Western allies chalk out options for a negotiated settlement with Moscow, precision strikes on Russian territory could derail any such prospects in the long-run.

History offers a proof point: Ukraine's Kursk incursion in August upended secretive ceasefire efforts in Qatar, and Moscow has since responded by ramping up its drone fleet and active military strength.

Thus, NATO's support for long-range missile strikes could add to this escalatory trend, and contradict its own priorities of avoiding a wider confrontation with Moscow at all costs.

Competing views on self-defence could further compound peace-building efforts. On the one hand, Ukraine wants Washington's missile approval to offset potential Russian territorial gains in the coming months. Many NATO states have also justified this demand as Kiev's self-defence imperative.

But disproportionate focus on Ukrainian self-defence hasn't brought warring parties any closer to dialogue. Look no further than the June "Summit of Peace" in Switzerland. NATO countries used a similar rationale to exclude Russia from peace negotiations, prompting Germany to press for Moscow's involvement in any future talks.

That looks like a distant possibility because the missiles could require direct logistical support from Western powers, further weakening the West's potential to effectively end the war.

For peace talks to regain momentum, Moscow needs a concrete assurance that de-escalation is high on the West's agenda. For its part, Russia needs to look past Ukraine's Kursk invasion and consider the withdrawal of some of its forces from Ukraine.

Billions of dollars in Western assistance for Ukraine's long-range missile program could precipitate an increase in future attacks on Russian soil, and stretch the war into next year. That is a scenario that could test Moscow's patience on self-defence, and push it to exercise its own long-range missile superiority during the winter phase of the war.

Russia hasn't wavered in its air dominance since the onset of the war, and it is unclear how Ukraine's long range strikes would compel Moscow to reconsider "peace."

Thus understood, the West's long-range missile approvals could increase threat perceptions in Moscow and challenge momentum towards peace talks. Ruling out these strikes is critical to avoid a wider war, but growing consideration in the West suggests it is willing to take a gamble.

Instead, the focus at UNGA should be to explore common ground between competing peace conditions, and prevent any steps that lead to an escalation in cross-border strikes. UNGA should promote preparations for a partial ceasefire vote to prevent attacks on sensitive energy facilities in Ukraine and Russia.

This could serve as an important confidence-building measure to cease hostilities and weigh the potential for de-escalation.