By Matt Underwood Putin’s repeated accusations that the West is pushing Russia to its “red lines,” forcing a response, are becoming a familiar refrain. This narrative, however, feels increasingly hollow, like a broken record playing on repeat. It’s a tactic that attempts to shift blame and portray Russia as a reactive party, rather than the aggressor initiating the conflict in Ukraine.
The sheer number of alleged “red lines” crossed by the West, as described by Putin, suggests a strategic ambiguity designed to justify any action, regardless of its actual provocation. Each perceived transgression serves as a pretext for further escalation, blurring the lines between legitimate security concerns and thinly veiled justifications for aggression. This pattern resembles the actions of an abusive partner, blaming the victim for their own violence. The constant accusations sound suspiciously like a manipulative attempt to control the narrative and evade accountability.
This strategy, however, is demonstrably ineffective. The West’s actions, while undoubtedly a source of tension, are hardly the unprovoked attacks Putin claims they are. The support for Ukraine, while perhaps escalating tensions, is primarily a defensive response to Russia’s invasion. It is a reaction to an initial aggression that started with the invasion of a sovereign nation. To frame this support as the primary instigator of conflict inverts the reality of the situation. The conflict didn’t start because the West provided aid to Ukraine; the conflict started because of Russia’s invasion.
The escalating rhetoric surrounding these “red lines” feels increasingly disingenuous. The initial “red line” – the invasion of Ukraine itself – was already massively breached. The subsequent “red lines” appear to be drawn arbitrarily, shifting to accommodate whatever action Russia chooses to take. This shifting of the goalposts undermines the credibility of any future warnings, reducing them to mere pronouncements without genuine consequence.
The comparison to an abusive relationship is apt. The abuser claims the victim’s actions “made them” do something violent, justifying their abuse. Similarly, Putin portrays Russia as reacting to Western pressure, rather than acting as the initiator of the conflict. This manipulation obscures the root cause of the crisis and the true nature of Russia’s actions. The constant threats and shifting “red lines” only reinforce the narrative of an aggressor seeking to manipulate and control the situation.
Furthermore, the economic consequences Russia faces are largely self-inflicted. The disastrous invasion of Ukraine, with its accompanying sanctions and international isolation, is the primary driver of Russia’s economic woes, not Western pressure. Attributing these difficulties to external forces avoids taking responsibility for the decisions leading to this outcome. This is a common tactic used by those unwilling to confront the consequences of their own actions.
The repeated invocations of “red lines” have become predictable, even normalized. They have lost their impact, becoming a tired trope rather than a credible threat. The sheer frequency of these claims, combined with their lack of tangible consequences, demonstrates their hollowness. Instead of generating fear, they now elicit weariness and skepticism.
Putin’s portrayal of Russia as a victim pushed to its limits by the West rings hollow. The aggressor in this conflict is undeniably Russia. The consistent use of “red lines” as a rhetorical device to justify its actions serves only to further highlight the inadequacy of Russia’s position. The international community needs to clearly understand this narrative for what it is: a manipulative attempt to deflect blame for the ongoing war and the resulting suffering. The responsibility for the conflict rests squarely with Russia, and these thinly veiled threats should not be allowed to distract from this crucial fact.