Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1367070692-scaled-e1653428364674

Putin mobilizes 300,000 reservists in significant escalation

The Russian leader also hinted at nuclear use if “the territorial integrity” of Russia is “threatened.”

Europe
google cta
google cta

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Wednesday that the Kremlin will mobilize 300,000 reservists, marking a significant escalation of the war in Ukraine.

The decision comes as Ukrainian battlefield successes have put Putin in hot water back home, with hawkish commentators attacking the Russian leader online. The move will mobilize about one fifth of Russia’s 2 million reservists.

In the same speech, Putin appeared to threaten the use of nuclear weapons if the war continues to turn against him. 

“If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will use all available means to protect our people,” he said, adding that “this is not a bluff.”

Experts worry that the vague term “territorial integrity” implies that the Kremlin may be prepared to escalate to nuclear war over Crimea, which it considers to be part of its sovereign territory.

George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute, argued that the move is "yet another sign that we are in an intensifying escalation spiral with Russia."

"Each side believes that upping the ante will force the other side to sober up and back down," Beebe, who previously led the CIA's Russia desk, said. "But at every stage in this war, each side has reacted by escalating even more."

For Beebe, the risks of this escalation are stark. "This can only end in a direct confrontation between the world's two largest nuclear powers unless both sides find a way to compromise," he said.

Putin also endorsed the upcoming referendums in Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia provinces in which locals will vote on whether to join the Russian Federation. Those regions make up approximately 15 percent of Ukraine’s total territory. 

Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak called the mobilization “absolutely predictable,” adding that “the war is clearly not going according to Russia's scenario.”

The U.S. response has been similarly harsh. U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink called the decision a sign of “weakness” and “Russian failure.”

“The United States will never recognize Russia's claim to purportedly annexed Ukrainian territory, and we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” Brink wrote on Twitter. 

European powers largely mirrored the U.S. response. A European Union spokesperson said the decision showed Moscow is “not interested in peace” and called the move a sign of “desperation.”

China, whose leader Xi Jinping met with Putin just last week, called for a ceasefire and urged “negotiations and solutions that answer all parties’ security concerns.”

“Every country’s reasonable security concerns should be valued, and all efforts conducive to resolving the crisis peacefully should be supported,” said a spokesperson for Beijing’s foreign ministry. “China calls for dialogue and consultation to resolve the divergences."


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Editorial credit: Gil Corzo / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Europe
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.